aperture and shutter v iso

wallyboy

wallyboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,805
Name
walter
Edit My Images
Yes
tried auto iso to-day,
took one pic at 1/320 shutter mode and got an iso of 1100
and another pic in aperture mode at 4.5 zoomed out to300mm giving 5.6, and got iso of 125, at 1/30 ss couldnt understand why the big difference in iso, and why the shutter speed didnt go up in aperture mode i thought iso would effect ss in aperture mode am i missing something,
thanks
 
mmm........ tried again with minimum ss 250 with aperture and only got ss of 1/13,
and set iso to max of 1600 which it chose is the iso compensating without changing ss, read your link does'nt what i'm asking
 
1/13 with ISO 1600, what aperture did you use? Presume it was in low light if the camera had to use that shutter speed and ISO to get the correct exposure.

The minimum shutter speed is only kept until camera runs out of options (largest aperture, highest ISO) and then it has no choice but to lower the shutter speed.
 
Yeah, if it's too dark its too dark. You can either:

Reduce the shutter speed
Make the aperture bigger
Up the ISO

Your camera will always try and expose properly so it the ISO is at the max you have set it to go and the aperture is as wide as it'll go then the only choice is to reduce the shutter speed.
 
wallyboy said:
mmm........ tried again with minimum ss 250 with aperture and only got ss of 1/13,
and set iso to max of 1600 which it chose is the iso compensating without changing ss, read your link does'nt what i'm asking
Click to expand...

The system tries to work within the parameters you've set for min shutter speed and max ISO. If the scene is too dark even for the 1600ISO and 1/250s you set it will slow down the shutter speed until it gets a neutral metering (i.e. the meter is centred).

Hope that helps :)
 
Bristolian said:
The system tries to work within the parameters you've set for min shutter speed and max ISO. If the scene is too dark even for the 1600ISO and 1/250s you set it will slow down the shutter speed until it gets a neutral metering (i.e. the meter is centred).

Hope that helps :)
Click to expand...

cheers steve, so it overides what you dial in
 
yep, the cameras goal is to produce a properly exposed shot, whatever that takes.

If you want to set everything without the camera interfering use Manual mode. If you set shutter, aperture and ISO to produce a massively under or over exposed shot the camera won't stop you.
 
I tend to set my camera on ISO 200 and use higher only when light forces me to! I put it quite simply - there are other things to consider of course. Nevertheless AUTO ISO is not a good function if you care for the quality of your results.
 
nikontos said:
AUTO ISO is not a good function if you care for the quality of your results.
Click to expand...

thats a rather sweeping and grossly poor statement.. some cameras are not only very good at high iso.. they let you set the min-max range so you only use the iso your happy wiht yet still have the benefit of auto iso..

when making statements like the one you made.. you may want to consider that A) not everyone has the same camera as you and B) there may be other ways of doing things than yours..


AUTO ISO has good and bad points just like any other mode.. but to say auto iso isnt good if you care about quality is a very missleading and poor statement IMHO
 
KIPAX said:
AUTO ISO has good and bad points just like any other mode.. but to say auto iso isnt good if you care about quality is a very missleading and poor statement IMHO
Click to expand...

I agree, auto ISO is great for many situations, especially on Nikons (although I understand it is getting much better on Canon).
 
Yep, bit of a naive comment about auto ISO.
My current cameras ISO ability is very good and the difference between 200 and 800 is so insignificant that it is almost impossible to tell which is which just from looking at the image. Going to 3200 it becomes noticeable but set auto ISO to say 800 and that doesn't come into it.
 
i've used high iso and it produces good results,
would a good technique be, for shooting bikes in low light, set ss1/320 and if settings come up to dark keep upping iso, lens is nikon 55-300 4:5-5:6,

whats your thoughts on settings
 
Somewhat by accident, I discovered a very powerful combination of settings on the D300 for shooting low-light sports action.


The secret: manual exposure mode in combination with Auto ISO (or what Nikon calls “ISO sensitivity auto control”). This is a combination that does defy logic, in two ways.

First, Auto-ISO in combination with manual exposure is pretty counterintuitive (fellow photographer/writer Ken Rockwell calls it a ‘defect‘). Back in the days of film, there wasn’t much to else to change when you set your aperture and shutter speed manually. Sure, you could manually adjust your ISO, but you had to do it a roll at a time and push or pull process your film. But allowing your digital SLR to adjust ISO based on lighting conditions while maintaining a constant shutter speed/aperture combination is a great feature for sports photography.

Second, Nikon only provides a “floor” shutter speed of 1/250 for Auto-ISO. In program or aperture-priority mode, the D300 will start adjusting ISO at the minimum shutter speed set in the Shooting Menu for ISO auto sensitivity control. This might make one think that shutter speeds of faster than 1/250 (more desirable for sports action) aren’t readily useable with Auto-ISO. Au contraire! The minimum shutter speed setting has no effect whatsoever in manual or shutter-priority modes, since shutter speeds do not vary in those modes.

Thus, I can happily set my D300 to, say, f1.8 and 1/320 in manual mode, and the camera will automatically fine-tune the ISO (in 1/6 steps, no less) to achieve optimal exposure. At a recent basketball game, I could shoot anywhere on the floor or even into the crowd at automatically-adjusted ISO settings ranging from 800 to 2000, all while achieving perfect exposure at 1/320 and f1.8.

Consequently, I’ve added this very useful setting to my recommendations for shooting basketball and other fast-paced indoor sports.
Click to expand...

something i found on the internet only 30 mins ago and found really interesting, what a co-insidence i came across this thread, it may work with your camera, it may not! give it a try, i think its a really helpfull way of using auto iso.
 
meatcandy89 said:
something i found on the internet only 30 mins ago and found really interesting, what a co-insidence i came across this thread, it may work with your camera, it may not! give it a try, i think its a really helpfull way of using auto iso.
Click to expand...

i have just tried this indoors and yes it does make a difference,
tried 1/320 f8 100 iso pic black,
1/320 f8 auto iso 3200 some detail can see pic,
1/320 f1:8 auto iso 2000 looked well exposed, even histogram looked good,
i will be doing some more testing at brands tomorrow to see how it works with fast action,
thanks for info very useful
if you dont mind me asking what site did you get info from
 
Yes, my statement was a bit sweeping but it is not that wrong. My point is do not use the feature if the IQ is the top priority purely because the best results will be at the base ISO. Won`t they? The further you go from the base the more noise creeps in. Very often the situation will dictate that you increase the ISO to avoid the blur, camera shake etc. But it will be your decision and you will increase it by the smallest possible amount. There will be situations when the smallest possible amount will be 3200 or more. Again it will be your decision and you will decrease it if and when the situation allows it.
Now I have nothing against auto-iso in situations where there is no time to change iso manually, like shooting weddings, for example, when you have to shoot in varied light conditions and have to do it quickly. Same might apply to sports to a degree. However, in these situations the top priority will be getting the shot at the right moment. Quality requirements will be met by selecting sufficiently good gear.
ps if quality is only judged by the average size pictures on the web (say 1200x800) none of these considerations will be that important. A good example of the opposite would be a professional landscape photographer - I am sure they will not use auto-iso :)
 
That largely depends on what camera you have which is why your statement is sweeping (and therefore wrong :))

The difference between 100 and 400 or 800 are so small on modern sensors that I would question whether many could even tell without a stupid amount of pixel peeping. (I admit I can't)
 
The comments regarding shying away from auto iso over concerns about quality, are these based on shooting from a tripod? If so I can understand this for many scenarios as shutter speed may not matter and base iso will be the order of the day (action shooters being the obvious exception).

If shooting hand held though and assuming you're using the cameras metering I can see no reason not to use auto iso as you can set your camera to do exactly what you'd have done anyway, only quicker, ergo 'quality' completely unaffected. I'm a big fan!
 
Chris, you can not tell if you look at small images, I will happily agree. But if you are a pro or an amateur that cares for quality you can. Just now I looked at the ISO comparisons for Nikon D800 on dpreview - you can flip between crops with various ISO settings. Quite noticeable. If and when they produce a sensor that has the same quality between 100 and say 600 these ISO settings on the camera will go away :)

Graham, tripod is a good example, but is not he only circumstance for manual iso.

Maybe I am the only one thinking this way, I find it kind of shocking.
 
Last edited:
nikontos said:
Chris, you can not tell if you look at small images, I will happily agree. But if you are a pro or an amateur that cares for quality you can. Just now I looked at the ISO comparisons for Nikon D800 on dpreview - you can flip between crops with various ISO settings. Quite noticeable. If and when they produce a sensor that has the same quality between 100 and say 600 these ISO settings on the camera will go away :)

Graham, tripod is a good example, but is not he only circumstance for manual iso.

Maybe I am the only one thinking this way, I find it kind of shocking.
Click to expand...

I do agree that there are times when I want iso to stay put even when not on a tripod though those times are probably only when I'm shooting fully manual because I don't want the exposure to change no matter what the meter sees. I can't think of another scenario off the top of my head.

I think the key thing though is that using the lowest possible iso and using auto iso are not two different things. Most auto iso systems are entirely predictable in operation and can be set to behave exactly as you want them to i.e use the lowest possible iso for any given set of circumstances.
 
nikontos said:
But if you are a pro or an amateur that cares for quality you can.
Click to expand...

of course I care for quality. But I am not producing A1 prints, looking at 22 inch monitor size they are so close it is not worth mentioning. I don't even know if the difference is noticeable at A1 as I don't print that size...
 
Last edited:
nikontos said:
Yes, my statement was a bit sweeping but it is not that wrong.
Click to expand...

I still disagree with your sweeping statement.. i can't even see noise at iso 800 on my setup..


nikontos said:
A good example of the opposite would be a professional landscape photographer - I am sure they will not use auto-iso :)
Click to expand...

which is a long long way off your original statement :)
 
nikontos said:
Maybe I am the only one thinking this way, I find it kind of shocking.
Click to expand...

No. You're not the only one who considers quality important. You're the only one talking about pixel peeping as the primary function of a photographer.

Life's complex so ill stick to high iso.

A pro in a low light church shooting a wedding ceremony, he can shoot at 1/125 at iso 3200 and have a correctly exposed sharp image, or 1/8 at 200 iso and have subject movement.

Your absolutely perfect rule gives the bride blurry photos. ;) I'm sure you can convince her that they're better than noisy photos.

I can clean up noise, but I can't get rid of subject movement in PP.

There is an alternative of course, you could set up off camera flash to mimic the window light in the church, I'm sure no one will mind the large stands and soft boxes around the altar.

Same thing for sports photographers, getting the shot is the only alternative. Should we start filling football stadiums with massively powerful flash heads so the pros can get clean shots:bonk:

You have the luxury of sitting at home congratulating yourself on your crispy clean images, you can pack up for the day when light levels drop, but the rest of us just have to get on with it.:thumbs:
 
Ed, first, I'll point out that I don't use auto ISO because of the possibility of overlooking the ISO display in the VF and ending up with too much noise. However, I have set my own general ceiling for decent, acceptable noise at 1600 ISO and if I have no intention of going big with the prints, I will go somewhat higher.

Not going to argue/discuss any further - there's a very similar thread very close in the list where myself and another have basically discussed ourselves to a standstill! Basically, work how you want and it works for you.
 
Phil V said:
No. You're not the only one who considers quality important. You're the only one talking about pixel peeping as the primary function of a photographer.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You may be able to just tell the difference between 100 and 400 when 100% (or more) cropping everything but that has no relevance if you cannot tell when you are looking at the image at the actual intended size.

Are you producing an image for people to view at 100% crop?
 
Phil, I think you did not read my post carefully :), you might find we are not in disagreement.
In fact I agree with most of you - in practical life for most of us pictures shot at ISO 400 are very much acceptable. But at the same time that is not contradictory to what I said - if picture quality is you TOP priority then ...
Anyway such statements, as my post #10, should always be taken with a pinch of salt. It is no universal rule for every situation.
I haven't had such a heated argument concerning photography for a long time - gets quite hot in here :)
 
nikontos said:
Phil, I think you did not read my post carefully :), you might find we are not in disagreement.
In fact I agree with most of you - in practical life for most of us pictures shot at ISO 400 are very much acceptable. But at the same time that is not contradictory to what I said - if picture quality is you TOP priority then ...
Anyway such statements, as my post #10, should always be taken with a pinch of salt. It is no universal rule for every situation.
I haven't had such a heated argument concerning photography for a long time - gets quite hot in here :)
Click to expand...

But we do disagree - because the way you put it assumes picture quality should always be the top priority and that high ISO's should be avoided.

Only an idiot would use high ISO's when not necessary - but for many of us The Shot is the priority, and if that means high ISO we couldn't give a toss.

The implication throughout your posts presumes that we have a choice what ISO we shoot, and that people are producing inferior shots by shooting at too high an ISO. Whereas my point is 'better a noisy shot than no shot.

This isn't heated - this is a healthy debate, and if you want to avoid arguments, simply choose your words better - because you can't write something and assume people will add their own pinch of salt. They will take you at your word, and as you know your word was a sweeping generalisation that doesn't hold water when faced with the reality of life for many photographers.;)
 
wallyboy said:
what wont help me,
Click to expand...

People posting sweeping generalisations and bickering about whether or not anyone should even try to use auto ISO, rather than try and help you get the best from auto ISO.
 
RichardtheSane said:
People posting sweeping generalisations and bickering about whether or not anyone should even try to use auto ISO, rather than try and help you get the best from auto ISO.
Click to expand...
yes it does seem a battle sometimes,
but with a lot of things you have to sift out the stuff you dont want, and use stuff of use,
and through some info supplied in the thread i will be using auto iso,
i have used it most of the week-end at brands BSB bikes,
and it is a good add to my use of camera,
more accurate i believe in the way i used it,
when i have set iso before it go's 100....200....etc, with auto you will get say 110 or 500....etc which, says to me its more accurate, in a lot of pics i took the histogram was balanced,
cheers for replies
 
Apologies to you Walter, as indeed proper use of auto iso is very helpful both for someone starting out and for pros in many situations. I suppose I provoked the discussion in the wrong section of the forum.
Phil, I thought I explained in my post in detail that image quality (regarding sharpness, colour, noise) was not always the top priority. And I specifically mentioned that auto iso can be great if "getting the picture" was most important. I suppose you did not notice my post #17? I know sometimes it is hard to read all the posts before posting an answer :)
 
Last edited:
nikontos said:
Apologies to you Walter, as indeed proper use of auto iso is very helpful both for someone starting out and for pros in many situations. I suppose I provoked the discussion in the wrong section of the forum.
Phil, I thought I explained in my post in detail that image quality (regarding sharpness, colour, noise) was not always the top priority. And I specifically mentioned that auto iso can be great if "getting the picture" was most important. I suppose you did not notice my post #17? I know sometimes it is hard to read all the posts before posting an answer :)
Click to expand...

not a worry ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top