Iso lo - iso 1600

Just a silly experiment, as I have always read that the native ISO is always best, as the DR of the sensor has been calibrated for native ISO.
Since I have Lo 1.0 ( ISO 100) then Lo 0.7 and Lo 0.3 , i've used those 3 and shot all the way through upto 1600. This isnt about the D300, so its not in the D300 forum, its just about any camera that has non native ISO values

I cant call this real world shooting by any means, and not to be taken toooooooooo seriously, but I was a little surprised out how well the non native ISO settings performed.
This could of course all change outside ( and probably will ) where the dynamic range differs and would be more extreme at each end of the DR scale, but just for now, I thought I'd post some sillyness

Zero PP on all, just converted to .jpg then cropped to retain as big a file as possible. I have kept in a little background rather than crop right round the subject, because IMO when going for higher ISO, its more evident in the background than it is in the subject, so the differences can be seen clearly.

ISO Lo-1.0 / Lo-.07 / Lo.03 / 200 / 250 / 320 / 400 / 500 / 640 / 800 / 1000 / 1250 / 1600

PS ...

Using the MF Nikkor 20mm all wide open @ f3.5. and absolute MFD, Tripod, no in-camera pp, all shot RAW, converted

My Cholosterol went up 50 points just looking at those. Guess I'd better go take my meds to make up for it.

They look pretty good to me...

Yup, I thought so too

If you look at the lowest ISO LO-1.0, the exposure is just a tad darker than the highest ISO 1600

I find if you don't underexpose images with high ISO & D300 they clean up pretty good...

Good point Alan - ETTR is always preferable. Much better for dealing with noise