Beginner ISO

[Carpy2001]

Hi all, I am still trying to learn, but it takes a while for stuff to sink in with me lol, I just looked at the Exif data for an image I took today and am a bit bewildered, the image was of a Robin on our garden fence taken through a window (posted in pictures you took today). My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?, the image was taken using aperture priority and a Panasonic 45-150 f4-5.6 lens. the data says the following.
Panasonic G5, 150mm, f5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250??, the picture was taken at 4.24pm so still very light outside, I have the ISO set to auto if that makes a difference.
thanks Andy

 

[ancient_mariner]

Panasonic G5, 150mm, f5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250??, the picture was taken at 4.24pm so still very light outside, I have the ISO set to auto if that makes a difference.

The camera chose a higher ISO to ensure you had a fast enough exposure (1/320) to keep the image sharp at a relatively small aperture. FWIW ISO 1250 isn't that bad. It's possible that there was a dark background, so the camera boosted exposure to compensate - if the background had been light then it might have chosen a lower sensitivity and underexposed the subject slightly.

 

[wiltw]

Camera selection of ISO is not always the 'best' for a situation...more recent cameras might have better selection. It is one reason I choose not to use auto ISO.
Given your selection of aperture, and its detection of the FL setting, it might have decided that it needed to se 1/320 as a shutter speed, and the combination of aperture and FL and sjutter speed forced selection of ISO 1250.

 

[Marino]

My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?,

can’t answer that question, that’s why it’s better to stick to a semi auto mode if you prefer different settings(like aperture priority with auto iso and min shutter speed).

150mm, f5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250??, the picture was taken at 4.24pm so still very light outside, I have the ISO set to auto if that makes a difference.
thanks Andy

Settings sounds right to me. 150mm can cause a lot of blur due to hands moving, so 1/320 speed sounds right. Also aperture seems ok as you don’t want too swallow dof

 

[Phil V]

Camera selection of ISO is not always the 'best' for a situation...more recent cameras might have better selection. It is one reason I choose not to use auto ISO.
Given your selection of aperture, and its detection of the FL setting, it might have decided that it needed to se 1/320 as a shutter speed, and the combination of aperture and FL and sjutter speed forced selection of ISO 1250.

Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm?

Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower.

 

[Phil V]

@Carpy2001 Lens wide open, not a particularly fast shutter speed, so the ISO would be reasonable.

The only way the camera could pick a higher ISO would be:
Wider aperture (not possible - lens is wide open)
Slower shutter speed, but you’re shooting a flighty bird, likely you’ll get subject movement - I’m not a bird shooter, but I think I’d have chosen faster, which would have increased the iso.
Added light

All the above is based on the exposure being correct. But the exposure triangle is 3 variables around a fixed EV (the amount of light).

 

[Phil V]

@Carpy2001 Lens wide open, not a particularly fast shutter speed, so the ISO would be reasonable.

The only way the camera could pick a higher lower ISO would be:
Wider aperture (not possible - lens is wide open)
Slower shutter speed, but you’re shooting a flighty bird, likely you’ll get subject movement - I’m not a bird shooter, but I think I’d have chosen faster, which would have increased the iso.
Added light

All the above is based on the exposure being correct. But the exposure triangle is 3 variables around a fixed EV (the amount of light)

 

[ancient_mariner]

The only way the camera could pick a higher ISO would be:

Lower ISO?

 

[woof woof]

My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?,

The answer is... Panasonic G5, 150mm + f5.6 + 1/320 sec, = ISO 1250.

I find that MFT image stabilisation is good so with subjects which are less likely to move than birds / animals you can select manual mode, set the aperture and a lower shutter speed and the subsequent ISO will be lower.

 

[Phil V]

Lower ISO?

yes oops

 

[wiltw]

Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm?

Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower.

No, I already speculated the camera selected the shutter speed in support of the equivalent FL on the smaller format.

Separately I commented that many camera with auto ISO had some pretty goofy combinations of auto ISO and shutter speed, which was the reason I had chosen to not use auto ISO, but I also commented that some newer cameras might have better choice combinations.

 

[Sangoma]

I think the camera made a good choice, that isn't really a high ISO.

I found that at this time of year if you worry too much about ISO you'll miss out.

You probably could have got away with 400 ISO and a slower shutter speed, the stabilisation is good, but the settings the camera chose remove most of the risk and give a better chance of a good shot.

Try it out under similar light, and a suitable subject, when you are not concerned about the result.

What is good though is that you are looking at the numbers and questioning them, which leads to understanding, and knowledge of when you might get a better result not using P.

 

[Phil V]

No, I already speculated the camera selected the shutter speed in support of the equivalent FL on the smaller format.

Separately I commented that many camera with auto ISO had some pretty goofy combinations of auto ISO and shutter speed, which was the reason I had chosen to not use auto ISO, but I also commented that some newer cameras might have better choice combinations.

Yes; my first cameras with auto iso were nowhere near that smart, making it unusable (for me).

But newer cameras definitely have better choice combinations as well as selectable parameters.

Some cameras will automatically work with focal length to maintain shutter speeds for instance.

But whilst we also have stabilisation to mitigate focal length, the logic can get fuzzy in all kinds of directions.

As I mostly shoot people I can set a minimum SS of 1/250 and absolutely trust the camera to work with me in AV mode.

 

[Adam-G]

As already stated, seems the camera did the right thing. I've popped over to the thread where you posted it and considering it's shot through a window it looks pretty damn good!

The noise looks perfectly acceptable in that image to my eye so I wouldn't worry too much.

When I started to learn photography a couple of years back I was hit with a barrage of "KEEP ISO LOW", so much so it was in my head that it was a cardinal sin to raise it above 200.

Now I've got a bit more experience I don't stress over the number and set it to what it needs to be to achieve my intended outcome.

I've tried to do a bit of wildlife photography recently and I've found that the ISO dial is my best friend in terms of helping me fulfill my intent.


This shot is f5.9 aperture, shot at 1/640s and my ISO is 640.

I could drop my ISO and halve my shutter speed but I know that 640 is beautifully clean in decent light so I chose the higher shutter speed as a bit of insurance.

When I'm trying to catch something in flight I'll regularly shoot at ISOs of 1600 to 6400 depending on the light due to the shutter speeds I need to capture the moment. I wouldn't be too afraid of it at all my friend. Just get used to what your camera is capable of in certain conditions with regard to ISO and marry it with your intent.

It's all a balancing act, don't stress it.

 

[Phil V]

I find the ISO obsession bizarre.

There’s no other word for it but there are still ‘idiots’ advising newbies that they should always shoot with low ISO, and that high iso images are unusable, noise is the devil etc.

It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values.

If the light levels are such that your aperture and shutter speed match your subject and focal length, then the ISO is dictated by the available light level. Pretending it’s a choice is nonsense

Also ‘adding light’?

If you do need to add further light to get a reasonable exposure, just remember that the whole point of photography is to create an image with light. So just blasting a flash at something with no thought as to where the light is coming from or how it affects your image is a recipe for disaster.
Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice

 

[Adam-G]

I find the ISO obsession bizarre.

There’s no other word for it but there are still ‘idiots’ advising newbies that they should always shoot with low ISO, and that high iso images are unusable, noise is the devil etc.

It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values.

If the light levels are such that your aperture and shutter speed match your subject and focal length, then the ISO is dictated by the available light level. Pretending it’s a choice is nonsense

Also ‘adding light’?

If you do need to add further light to get a reasonable exposure, just remember that the whole point of photography is to create an image with light. So just blasting a flash at something with no thought as to where the light is coming from or how it affects your image is a recipe for disaster.
Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice

It's such a prominent message too and because it seems entirely logical until you know a little more, it sticks.

A close friend of mine has just taken up photography and we went out to do some wildlife shooting the other week. Just like me at a similar stage of learning, he was allergic to going anywhere near the ISO button even if it meant missing a shot.

I literally had to tell him that I don't even worry about it to make it sink in but I can totally relate due to the sheer bombardment of the messaging that ISO is nothing but a ruiner of images.

 

[Phil V]

It's such a prominent message too and because it seems entirely logical until you know a little more, it sticks.

A close friend of mine has just taken up photography and we went out to do some wildlife shooting the other week. Just like me at a similar stage of learning, he was allergic to going anywhere near the ISO button even if it meant missing a shot.

I literally had to tell him that I don't even worry about it to make it sink in but I can totally relate due to the sheer bombardment of the messaging that ISO is nothing but a ruiner of images.

the most bizarre aspect of this is that when I started shooting in the 80's, 400ISO was visibly worse even at 6x4, and 1600ISO was considered only useful for 'news', no one would consider those ISO's for general photography.

My very first digital SLR maxed at 1600ISO and I have a print from that at A3, it's perfectly acceptable, but nowhere near as good as my latest cameras.

 

[Faldrax]

I find the ISO obsession bizarre.

There’s no other word for it but there are still ‘idiots’ advising newbies that they should always shoot with low ISO, and that high iso images are unusable, noise is the devil etc.

It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values.

If the light levels are such that your aperture and shutter speed match your subject and focal length, then the ISO is dictated by the available light level. Pretending it’s a choice is nonsense

Also ‘adding light’?

If you do need to add further light to get a reasonable exposure, just remember that the whole point of photography is to create an image with light. So just blasting a flash at something with no thought as to where the light is coming from or how it affects your image is a recipe for disaster.
Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice

'Keep ISO Low' is one of these sweeping statements that has a sound basis, but needs to be tempered with a degree of experience.
Lower ISO levels do generally have less noise and greater available dynamic range - so are a good thing, BUT only if you can lower ISO without loosing the shot.
I guess you could say Aperture and Shutter are 'need' settings, ISO is a 'nice to have'

So in this example, the camera selected f/5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250, and most have agreed that's a reasonable set of numbers for the situation.
Had the settings instead been f/5.6, 1/2500, ISO 10000, then we would have been saying the shutter doesn't need to be as fast, and the ISO can be lower (for this situation).

 

[davholla]

Hi all, I am still trying to learn, but it takes a while for stuff to sink in with me lol, I just looked at the Exif data for an image I took today and am a bit bewildered, the image was of a Robin on our garden fence taken through a window (posted in pictures you took today). My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?, the image was taken using aperture priority and a Panasonic 45-150 f4-5.6 lens. the data says the following.
Panasonic G5, 150mm, f5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250??, the picture was taken at 4.24pm so still very light outside, I have the ISO set to auto if that makes a difference.
thanks Andy

I think that IIRC your eyes are better with low light than a camera - so although for a human the light was good - not so for a camera.

 

[Adam-G]

I think that IIRC your eyes are better with low light than a camera - so although for a human the light was good - not so for a camera.

This is a superb point that I rarely see made.

It's very easy to fall into a trap of expecting a camera to be capable of reproducing what you see with your own eyes when it will never be able to.

 

[billgatese30]

Back in the day with my 40D I would limit ISO as it was quite noisy, and I didn't have any good software to reduce it. I guess the "keep it low" idea got engrained into me. Nowadays with the option of DXO or Topaz, combined with modern sensors, ISO isn't an issue and any amount of noise is recoverable if it means getting details in the shadows and a shot in focus! A well exposed blurry shot is instantly in the reject pile.

 

[ancient_mariner]

'Keep ISO Low' is one of these sweeping statements that has a sound basis, but needs to be tempered with a degree of experience.
Lower ISO levels do generally have less noise and greater available dynamic range - so are a good thing, BUT only if you can lower ISO without loosing the shot.
I guess you could say Aperture and Shutter are 'need' settings, ISO is a 'nice to have'

So in this example, the camera selected f/5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250, and most have agreed that's a reasonable set of numbers for the situation.
Had the settings instead been f/5.6, 1/2500, ISO 10000, then we would have been saying the shutter doesn't need to be as fast, and the ISO can be lower (for this situation).

This seems the sensibly balanced viewpoint. High ISO isn't necessarily an image-killer, but it's also not especially desirable either unless you can't get the shot without it. As Phil V and others have pointed out, high ISO used to seriously degrade image quality, but now it's much less problematic and one of those things that modern sensors and software allow us to use without having to worry too much.

 

[davholla]

Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm?

Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower.

I agree I have done 1/100 at 313 mm and it was ok
EF7A8377-CR2_DxO_DeepPRIMECockoftherock by davholla2002, on Flickr

However not ideal - it very dark and even so I got 16000. It was hand held but I was leaning on something or sitting down.
Sadly you can only see these in the wild in poor light.

This is a superb point that I rarely see made.

It's very easy to fall into a trap of expecting a camera to be capable of reproducing what you see with your own eyes when it will never be able to.

Thank you very much sadly sometimes our brain ignores something ugly in the background or even worse on the subject - but the camera doesn't! - the reverse.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Having used a roll of ASA 1600 slide film in the distant past I don't worry about high ISOs with current digital cameras.

But what is acceptable can depend on subject matter, and more so on use and display of the photos.

 

[Nod]

I think that IIRC your eyes are better with low light than a camera - so although for a human the light was good - not so for a camera.

Human eyes are about 6MP (equivalent!) each and relatively poor optics. The processing power behind them is pretty good at interpolation and combining the images.

 

[Adam-G]

Human eyes are about 6MP (equivalent!) each and relatively poor optics. The processing power behind them is pretty good at interpolation and combining the images.

Might upgrade mine for the Pro Max version.

 

[davholla]

Human eyes are about 6MP (equivalent!) each and relatively poor optics. The processing power behind them is pretty good at interpolation and combining the images.

Thanks for the clarification - I was using eye as a shorthand for what we see.
What is the ISO range?

 

[wiltw]

Human eyes are about 6MP (equivalent!) each and relatively poor optics. The processing power behind them is pretty good at interpolation and combining the images.

Commonly said that human eyes resolve one-half minute of arc.
So I did the computation assuming a 50mm lens were mounted on FF digital...horizontal AOV is 40 degrees.
Then I did the computation of one degree, then one minute, and then half minute of arc vs. a pair of pixels within that half minute of arc (that can image one line-pair)

...it takes 63.4 Megapixels to put one pair of pixels in one-half minute of arc,..equalling the human eye's resolution and the frame's resolution with 50mm lens! 9750 pixels horizontally to put one pair of pixels within a one-helf minute of arc of the frame.

 

[wiltw]

Commonly said that human eyes resolve one-half minute of arc.
So I did the computation assuming a 50mm lens were mounted on FF digital...horizontal AOV is 40 degrees.
Then I did the computation of one degree, then one minute, and then half minute of arc vs. a pair of pixels within that half minute of arc (that can image one line-pair)

...it takes 63.4 Megapixels to put one pair of pixels in one-half minute of arc,..equalling the human eye's resolution and the frame's resolution with 50mm lens! 9750 pixels horizontally to put one pair of pixels within a one-helf minute of arc of the frame.

Then we need to consider what the optics can deliver to the sensor!
36mm horizontal, at 84 l-p/mm means 3024 line-pairs, which needs 6049 pixels horizontally, which is LESS than the 9750 pxeils if the sensor could equal the resolution of the human eye.
IOW the 63 Megapixel sensor is not needed to equal the performance of an Excellent quality optic (per the test standards used by Pop Photo and Modern Photo in the 1970's) . We could use a more modest 24 Megapixel sensor to fully capture what the lens can deliver.

 

[swanseamale47]

the most bizarre aspect of this is that when I started shooting in the 80's, 400ISO was visibly worse even at 6x4, and 1600ISO was considered only useful for 'news', no one would consider those ISO's for general photography.

My very first digital SLR maxed at 1600ISO and I have a print from that at A3, it's perfectly acceptable, but nowhere near as good as my latest cameras.

Yes we're spoiled now. Shoot at 4000 iso and then crop in, and it's way better that an old camera at 400 iso full image.

 

[davholla]

Yes we're spoiled now. Shoot at 4000 iso and then crop in, and it's way better that an old camera at 400 iso full image.

Yes although sometimes for wildlife you need really high ISOs - see the photo I took earlier at 16000 - if I have 4x times the ISO I still would not have been able to use the desired speed.

 

[Nod]

Thanks for the clarification - I was using eye as a shorthand for what we see.
What is the ISO range?

Less than a D750, I would guess, although a smaller minimum aperture on the Mk 1 eyeball would make the ND shades redundant!

More seriously, no idea but resolution, especially in colour drops off way before the D750 seems to in low light.