The ISO difference is likely due to a combination of testing error, testing conditions, and rounding. DxOMark showed slightly different results with lower ISO levels being better, but the difference is not significant.
Keep in mind that noise is not the only factor affected by ISO. Dynamic range, color rendition, and contrast are better at lower ISO levels. While you might be indifferent about noise, other factors point to the importance of using the lowest ISO that produces the image you want.
One small error in the article is about the ability to program a function button to control ISO. That's not necessary. Easy ISO allows you to use the rear command dial to change ISO - virtually the same as using a programmed function button. And the ISO will show in the viewfinder when you make changes.
> >Easy >ISO allows you to use the rear command dial to change ISO - >virtually the same as using a programmed function button. And >the ISO will show in the viewfinder when you make changes. = I have seen several reviews complain out ISO location but I knew about this so it was one of the first things I did. The wheel almost is second nature now.
In program mode, the front wheel controls the program settings (shutter speed/aperture combos) so everything can be controlled.
Yes, I found it interesting because all other tests I've seen on any sensor showed less noise at iso 100 than 200 (when 100 is native). I find it hard to see the difference in noise between those two iso. Definitely easier to see the dif between 100 and 400, which the review showed to be the same. Maybe I should have said skeptical rather than interesting.
I can make out a slight difference in dynamic range when shooting a control target between 100 and 200, 100 being wider.
I do agree with you. Shoot at the lowest iso possible. You can always muck up the image in post when that is the desired effect.
While there have been a few times when I found using easy iso was useful, changing the iso using the bottom button and dial works well enough for me.
I hate to say it, but I don't put a lot of stock in their graphs. There are too many variables in the process that are never described and until you know exactly how they created the images used in these tests (which is not clear), it's hard to determine if there's meaning in them or not. Raw vs. jpeg matters (I think they are using raw these days after receiving criticism over their previous jpeg approach), but the raw converter that's used and how it's set also matters. Unless that's clear, it's difficult to really understand what's happening and more importantly, compare a camera's performance against another.