Auto ISO, changing ISO, I so bored with it.

[ShinySideUp]

A big thing that camera manufacturers and users seem to make so important in their equipment preferences is the fact that ISO is easy to change and indeed can be changed by the camera. Looking at reviews of the Nikon Df and the new D750, these alterations in 'film' speed seem right up there near the top of the pile of requirements.

Oh, how we have fallen for technology. Until the digital age set in, I used Ilford HP4 -- and it's previous incarnations. I set my camera to match it's speed of 400 ASA (ISO now) and went about my photography in my own time. True, one could push process the film but in general if you started with 400 ASA, you finished with it.

So why is being able to alter the ISO so important now?

My reason for posting this is that I am thinking of buying the Nikon Df and changing the ISO is apparently a two-handed affair; but then based on my above statements, is this really important. I have just sold my Nikon D7000 and I confess to hardly ever changing the ISO 'on the fly', merely using the shutter and aperture to get the picture I wanted, usually using 400 ISO (because film, especially HP4, is engrained in my photographic upbringing).

Opinions on why ISO altering is suddenly so necessary...

 

[woof woof]

My God

All in MVHO of course... One of the biggest advantages of digital is the ability to change ISO from shot to shot and moving on from that it's an advantage to be able to do so quickly and easily preferably without taking your eye from the viewfinder and moving on still further it's an advantage if the camera can be set to do this for you and even better if you can first set the parameters the camera switches between, like setting the maximum selectable ISO setting.

I just love auto ISO.

I can't really see the point of using ISO 400 because you used that speed film. I used to shoot mostly 1600 (in dingy venues) but these days I happily use the lowest I can get away with in the belief that that's the way to get optimum image quality.

At 400 what did you do in bright light? Select f22 and the fastest shutter speed you could just so you can carry on shooting at 400?

If you've carried out extensive testing and your camera gives the best results at 400 then fair enough. My own preference is to try and strike an acceptable balance between aperture, shutter speeds and ISO and I usually try to avoid the extremes as they tend to impact on the results. Shoot all day at 400 and set your shutter and aperture to match and I think you're very possibly not getting the best out of your kit.

 

[Jayst84]

Depends what you shoot. As with most things.

Some jobs I won't touch the ISO all day. Other jobs I'm changing it every few seconds. If I had to use both hands, it would p*** me off no end. (I think auto ISO would make things harder, rather than easier in most cases though).

 

[woof woof]

Depends what you shoot. As with most things.

Some jobs I won't touch the ISO all day. Other jobs I'm changing it every few seconds. If I had to use both hands, it would p*** me off no end. (I think auto ISO would make things harder, rather than easier in most cases though).

The thing with auto ISO and other bells and whistles is you can enable or disable as most appropriate.

I'll give you an example.

Lets assume that you want to shoot at a certain shutter speed, lets say... 1/120. Lets also assume that you want to have a reasonable depth of field, lets say f4 suits you just fine. What you can then do is enable auto ISO and let it float up and down so that you can maintain your most important settings, 1/120 and f4.

 

[dinners]

So why is being able to alter the ISO so important now?

Depends what your shooting I guess.

Landscapes - I'm sticking at ISO 100. Shutter speeds will change with the light but I'm using a tripod.

Wildlife in Scotland is a different box of frogs.

At f5.6 and 400mm I may default at ISO800 to retain 1/400 but at the drop of a hat (as the light changes) I may need to quickly switch to ISO 1600 / 3200 to retain that same shutter speed.

What I want (and my camera has a dedicated button) is the ability to change that ISO quickly. I don't want to fiddling with menus.

As for film

I used to load a particular ASA film for the day. Whether it be for movement or depth of focus - there was nothing more infuriating than the weather changing and having to use f8 or so when you wanted to use f2.8.

We worked with it and perhaps to some degree conditions dictated what we shot.

To sum up - ASA used to be 'set' and we worked with aperture & Shutter speed. These days ISO is another variable. It gives us so much freedom to push either 'aperture' or 'shutter speed'.

 

[dinners]

An example

I was sat in the cold and driving rain last week on the side of a loch watching otters.

I know I want at least 1/400

To attain 1/400 I had to have my ISO set to 6400 even at f5.6

Image quality at ISO 6400 isn't the best given the age of my camera that's what I need to attain the above.

Suddenly the sun comes out and with my camera set to 400mm / ISO 6400 my shutter speed suddenly jumps to 1/2000

Not needing 1/2000 I decide the priority is crank the ISO back down to improve IQ

 

[Jayst84]

The thing with auto ISO and other bells and whistles is you can enable or disable as most appropriate.

I'll give you an example.

Lets assume that you want to shoot at a certain shutter speed, lets say... 1/120. Lets also assume that you want to have a reasonable depth of field, lets say f4 suits you just fine. What you can then do is enable auto ISO and let it float up and down so that you can maintain your most important settings, 1/120 and f4.

Yep, I get how it works, and some people love it. Just doesn't sit with how I shoot. (Manual everything locked off, like a dinosaur too lazy to learn new things ). Being able to change the ISO from shot to shot and know what it is, suits me just fine though. Having it fixed would be a complete pain in the arse and obviously impact the quality of the work I was able to produce.

 

[dinners]

Aperture (depth of focus required for subject) and shutter speed (movement required for subject) are the key ingredients for me.

Speedy adjustment of ISO enables you to retain both when sacrificing either won't do.

 

[overbez]

There are three variables in any given exposure.... Fixing any one of those and refusing to change it is restricting your creative choices.

At ISO 400 you can probably cover a lot of exposure situations, but can you control the DOF or shutter speed to the level you want / need in all of them? In some, maybe, but not in all.

What would you say to someone who chose to restrict themselves to a single shutter speed, or a single aperture?

But, as always, if doing something a particular way works for you, then do it that way. A different way may be better for others, but that doesn't make it better for you.

 

[Canon Bob]

So why is being able to alter the ISO so important now?

It always was important but not so easily achieved.

Iso is 1/3 of the exposure triangle and just as important as the other two, aperture and shutter speed. The old fixed f/8 mirror lenses were always considered restrictive but in reality, and in isolation, they were no more restrictive than the film speed we used. Your choice of 64ASA obviously worked for you in the main but I often found myself having half a roll left in the camera and suddenly needing 400ASA because the max aperture of the lens was too slow for the new subject type.

Bob

 

[Ed Sutton]

Opinions on why ISO altering is suddenly so necessary...

Camera manufacturers make cameras to be used for all sorts of purposes by all sorts of people. If you don't want to alter the ISO you don't have to. It's not compulsory.

 

[Nod]

When I used film, I almost always had 2 bodies with me, either loaded with B&W and colour or slow and fast film. These days I can carry just one body and swap ISOs at will, from shot to shot. (Not to mention being able to get reasonable results at ISOs all but unreachable in film days...)

Can't say I've ever used auto ISO - it's generally quick and easy enough to change when I want to change it rather than leave the decision to the camera.

 

[AJQS]

I find Auto ISO a god send, I only started using it last year and have rarely turned it off since. It started at the WRGB where I was using a non stabilised 70-200 so didn't want my shutter speed drifting too low (I suck at panning) and I certainly didn't want to risk underexposure when the aperture ran out from using it in Shutter priority. Cue Auto ISO. Never looked back.

I also really despise carrying a tripod around, so it's a god send for when I'm wandering about and don't want to set up a tripod in order to retain a small aperture when the light isn't in great abundance. OK sometimes I do end up kicking myself when my wonderful landscape at 6400 ISO isn't suitable for hanging above the fireplace, but more importantly I got the shot in the first place! No faffing around setting up tripod or even lugging it to some inaccessible place on the off chance of a shot in the first place.

 

[AJQS]

I should also say I treat C41 film like Auto ISO as well, XP2 can be exposed over such a range you can basically ignore the meter and just shoot.

 

[woof woof]

Yep, I get how it works, and some people love it. Just doesn't sit with how I shoot. (Manual everything locked off, like a dinosaur too lazy to learn new things ). Being able to change the ISO from shot to shot and know what it is, suits me just fine though. Having it fixed would be a complete pain in the arse and obviously impact the quality of the work I was able to produce.

There's a belief amongst some that using only Manual makes things purer, there may be something in that and it certainly can be fun but generally it's not something I subscribe too

My advice to anyone who has auto ISO available is to give it a go and also see if / how it can be customised.

When I got my first camera with it it was a revelation and now I think that all cameras should have it (obviously those who don't wish to use it can turn it off ) and indeed I wish my G1 had it in manual mode like my A7 does.

 

[KIPAX]

There's a belief amongst some that using only Manual makes things purer, there may be something in that and it certainly can be fun but generally it's not something I subscribe too

The problem with manual purisits is that they are so narrow minded and really havent a clue about photogrpahy.. the truth of the matter is that in some situations (quite a few in my job) having your camera in manual will not get the shot....

 

[Ian]

Just read it all the posts, and have to say I'm learning allot here

 

[KIPAX]

The problem with manual purisits is that they are so narrow minded and really havent a clue about photogrpahy.. the truth of the matter is that in some situations (quite a few in my job) having your camera in manual will not get the shot....

to the clever so and so that is going to ask what happened before auto... dont bother.. its like asking how did people get about before the wheel

 

[steveo_mcg]

to the clever so and so that is going to ask what happened before auto... dont bother.. its like asking how did people get about before the wheel

They missed the shot...

 

[dinners]

There's always exposure compensation to throw into the mix

 

[dinners]

its like asking how did people get about before the wheel

Ask ST4 - he still get's about

 

[Dave Semmens]

Pretty much always use Manual with auto iso. On my Nikon I can quickly alter shutter speed and aperture (front and back dial) and keep an eye on the iso while composing the shot (almost always wildlife) It does help that I can add exposure compensation on the Nikon. That would have been a real pain (impossible?) with the Canon I owned (in Manual with auto iso)

Dave.

 

[KIPAX]

Pretty much always use Manual with auto iso. On my Nikon I can quickly alter shutter speed and aperture (front and back dial) and keep an eye on the iso while composing the shot (almost always wildlife) It does help that I can add exposure compensation on the Nikon. That would have been a real pain (impossible?) with the Canon I owned (in Manual with auto iso)

Dave.

just for the record.. you can use auto iso and exposure compensation on new canon cameras now... also ..the dial might sday manaul.. but using auto iso means your in semi auto mode not manual ...just for the record like I say

 

[artyman]

I never use Auto ISO when shooting stills, but find it invaluable when shooting video, not that I would be averse to using it for stills, perhaps I need to try it on stills sometime.

 

[woof woof]

The problem with manual purisits is that they are so narrow minded and really havent a clue about photogrpahy.. the truth of the matter is that in some situations (quite a few in my job) having your camera in manual will not get the shot....

I sort of agree, but not quite

Personally I use aperture priority mostly as it seems to suit how I think but when the light level drops and my camera wants me to shoot at 1/30 I'll probably move to Shutter or Manual depending upon what camera and lens I have (my G1 won't work in Shutter with manual lenses.)

I do sometimes tend to think that people who insist on shooting in manual are often the sort to think that using auto modes makes you less of a man etc and whilst I don't buy into that there's nothing wrong with shooting in manual if that's what floats your boat.

 

[Pistnbroke]

I shoot 60 weddings a year on a pair of D7100 ...A mode (aperture at F8) auto iso 200-6400 all dials taped up so they cannot move .
Works fine from outside shots in bright conditons to dark 13 th century churches ... only move to P for the disco shots

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

...necessary...

You know you wouldn't use your 400ASA film for cats in coalmines right?
Modern sensors, if left to use their highest ISO (or, god forbid, set to high ISO manually) now take cat in coalmine photos rather well,
or even fast shutterspeed photos of distant wildlife/sports through an aperturely-challenged long lens.

Personally 90% of my photos are at base ISO so I do know where you are coming from.

 

[boliston]

I tend to leave auto iso enabled on my d610 but if I had a camera with a dedicated iso dial like the df then i'd probably manually select ISO as changing iso manually is a real pain on the d610. I have always wondered why dslr's apart from the df never have a dedicated iso dial.

 

[Dave Semmens]

just for the record.. you can use auto iso and exposure compensation on new canon cameras now... also ..the dial might sday manaul.. but using auto iso means your in semi auto mode not manual ...just for the record like I say

I know - it's all a load of b*****ks but it works mighty fine for me and I don't feel at all cheap for using it

 

[ianp5a]

The problem with manual purisits is that they are so narrow minded and really havent a clue about photogrpahy.. the truth of the matter is that in some situations (quite a few in my job... having your camera in manual will not get the shot....

But a picture taken at 1/60 at f8 in Manual mode is so much better than a picture taken at 1/60 at f8 in P!
☺

 

[seriousrikk]

Altering the ISO is not suddenly so necessary, it is something that has become a necessity for many digital photographers over the past 10-12 years. It has evolved into our creative decision making to the point where it is now on equal footing with shutter speed and aperture in how we choose to expose the shot.

 

[ShinySideUp]

There's always exposure compensation to throw into the mix

Strangely, although I tend not to change ISO very much, I use exposure compensation a lot.

 

[Jayst84]

There's a belief amongst some that using only Manual makes things purer, there may be something in that and it certainly can be fun but generally it's not something I subscribe too

Nothing like that for me. It just makes my life easier, and gives me less to think about while I'm working. I took one photo in Av mode the other day, far too much like hard work though, so just switched back to manual.

 

[JennyGW]

A big thing that camera manufacturers and users seem to make so important in their equipment preferences is the fact that ISO is easy to change and indeed can be changed by the camera. Looking at reviews of the Nikon Df and the new D750, these alterations in 'film' speed seem right up there near the top of the pile of requirements.

Oh, how we have fallen for technology. Until the digital age set in, I used Ilford HP4 -- and it's previous incarnations. I set my camera to match it's speed of 400 ASA (ISO now) and went about my photography in my own time. True, one could push process the film but in general if you started with 400 ASA, you finished with it.

So why is being able to alter the ISO so important now?

My reason for posting this is that I am thinking of buying the Nikon Df and changing the ISO is apparently a two-handed affair; but then based on my above statements, is this really important. I have just sold my Nikon D7000 and I confess to hardly ever changing the ISO 'on the fly', merely using the shutter and aperture to get the picture I wanted, usually using 400 ISO (because film, especially HP4, is engrained in my photographic upbringing).

Opinions on why ISO altering is suddenly so necessary...

It has been a few posts since the OP replied on this one. Lots of good replies to respond to.

Hmm, I'm only 53 years old, but as I started shooting with a box Brownie when I was 9, I remember enough about film. Now, don't get me wrong. I love film, I miss film in many ways - I'm even planning on getting another film camera (mf) at some point. But, oh what a pain in the proverbial it was to have to change film, or even shoot off a roll to change to a different ISO film. Or, carry multiple backs with different ISO film loaded in each, or carry more than one camera.

Nothing sudden about needing to change ISO, it's just that digital makes it a lot lot easier, cheaper and faster.

I never used to carry film around above 800 ISO. I generally had 50 - 400. But now I can shoot at 100-3200 ISO at the flick of a switch, can and sometimes need to.

Being able to change ISO on the fly also makes a lot more creative options available.

 

[ShinySideUp]

It was only early this morning I posted, Jenny, give me time!

When I used film, I generally used HP4/5 because I didn't like to use flash and wanted an all year round, all times of the day film as I was an opportunist photographer and didn't have time to fanny about with changing films and didn't want to carry too bodies. If I ended up taking landscapes in bright light there is nothing more convenient than a set of neutral density filters. I could always reduce the amount of light coming in to a fast film but I couldn't increase the light to a slow film hence the 400 ASA.

My original post referred to the Nikon Df and it's ease of changing ISO (or not). One of the comments in various reviews mentions the awkwardness of changing the ISO and my point was that I don't change much and therefore it wasn't a problem. Having read all the comments on the subject of variable ISO I can see how ease of changing is quite important to some and it is something I must try more often. There is mixed opinion on the subject of AUTO ISO and I come firmly down on the side of manual changes to ISO for the purposes of quality, the only time i would use it is when taking action pictures -- of a football match for example -- when I would think it's usefulness outweighs any problems it might give to image quality.

To sum up: fast ISO changing is not a high priority for me and therefore the Nikon Df appeals because of it's looks if nothing else (oh, and the D4 sensor).

One last thing about the Df is that it has no video capability and this bothers me not at all. My first DSLR after I sold my film gear, was the Nikon D3000, I then had a D5000 and finally a D7000. On none of these cameras have I taken any serious videos. The one and only time I tried it, the microphone picked up so much autofocus motor noise that it was almost embarrassing and since the only way round this was to add an external mic, video became something I would use my GoPro or my phone for; certainly not my DSLR.

Sorry about the disjointedness of my posts on this subject but in my head I'm trying to reconcile the cost of the Nikon Df against the benefits (ISO adjustment being one) of a D750. In all honesty the D750 is my ideal current camera but the Df calls to me all the time and I don't want (nor can i afford) both.

 

[KIPAX]

I sort of agree, but not quite

No you agree 100%

there's nothing wrong with shooting in manual if that's what floats your boat.

we agree.. I wasnt saying dont shoot manual and I wasnt having a go at anyone who does shoot manual.. I shoot manual a lot.. BUT my point was that sometimes manual is the worse thing to do and wont get the shot so then better to use a semi auto mode..

thus for anyone reading slowly and tkaing it in.. all modes are usefull.... people who advocate manual only are stupid.. equaly as stupid as anyone who advocates any mode.......

sometimes manual is the best mode
sometimes manual is the worse mode


a good photographer knows when to use one or the other.. an idiot photogrpaher sticks to one...

agreed?

 

[ianp5a]

Set the Df to Auto ISO and all your troubles are gone.
No need to ever "fanny" about. Although that can be fun sometimes too.

 

[Pookeyhead]

There are three variables in any given exposure.... Fixing any one of those and refusing to change it is restricting your creative choices.

THat's too general a statement. As others have said, it depends what you're doing. If you're shooting static scenes on a tripod, then there's no advantage to auto ISO. In fact it would be a hindrance, as one of the things you'll want to do is lock the camera on the lowest ISO for maximum quality, as shutter speeds is far less important.

That wouldn't be restricting a choice... it IS a choice.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So why is being able to alter the ISO so important now?

It's no more important now than it was when we shot film. It's just possible to change ISO from shot to shot now, so it's obviously a key feature. You talk in the first post, as if starting, and ending in ISO400 was a good thing. It wasn't. It was a bad thing. We just had no choice.


[sorry for double post]

 

[overbez]

THat's too general a statement. As others have said, it depends what you're doing. If you're shooting static scenes on a tripod, then there's no advantage to auto ISO. In fact it would be a hindrance, as one of the things you'll want to do is lock the camera on the lowest ISO for maximum quality, as shutter speeds is far less important.

That wouldn't be restricting a choice... it IS a choice.

Sorry David, I meant "fixing any one of those permanently and refusing to ever change it restricts your options".

In most cases, I will prioritise shutter, aperture and ISO, set the two most important (to me for that given situation), and leave the camera to set the third, (with EC as necessary)). If S and A are the most important (for me, in that specific situation) then I will use auto-ISO to take care of the third variable.

If that third is unsuitable or undesirable for that circumstance then I will compromise on my first two priorities, in an iterative process.

That's what works for me so that's what I do.

Anything else just becomes an extension of the "should I (always) shoot in A or S or M???" question.