>>3688050>>3688052>>3688053>>3688058One day later I see that my experience has triggered numerous people. Are you literally trying to talk me out of my experience? Punks!
I'm not a wildlife photographer, I set the ISO high when it's worth it, am carefully weighing noise vs. DR, photograph a wide range of applications, including open-air theater scenes, sometimes at dusk and night with spotlights, I'm severely restricted in position, experience hard shadows and color casts on persons their faces.
The bottom line is, the higher the ISO, the harder it is to edit the photos. The richness of colors becomes limited, it takes much more effort to correct, noise becomes more apparent, details are lost and get hard to recover.
>>3688076>there they show iso invariance in many sensors showing you lose nothing by using a higher iso. hence best dr at 800 etc.It's the other way round! Invariant ISO means that by increasing ISO in the camera, you will hardly experience any advantage over the correction of underexposure done in image processing. This can be used for DR by shooting underexposed, which prevents highlights from being clipped, so DR is preserved, but without major drawbacks in image noise, despite software correcting underexposure. If the sensor is not ISO invariant, this method causes considerable shadow noise.
This is what many shooters apply manually. This is exactly what you do with LOG, DR priority, highlight priority modes, i.e. underexpose the shot with a lower ISO (as opposed to shoot with the correct value) then push the raw/image data, at cost of shadow noise.
Many automatic DR modes block the selection of base ISO as there it's not possible to apply a lower ISO.
So first, higher DR comes at some cost of higher shadow noise, second your experience that a higher ISO has more DR than the base is because the implementation lets you choose settings that are stupid, i.e. where the highlight preserving procedure is not applicable.
