Beginner ISO

Carpy2001

Carpy2001

Suspended / Banned
Messages
520
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
<div class="bbWrapper">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.<br /> 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.<br /> thanks Andy</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97266" data-quote="Carpy2001" data-source="post: 9459266" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459266" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459266">Carpy2001 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> 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&#039;t that bad. It&#039;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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper">Camera selection of ISO is not always the &#039;best&#039; for a situation...more recent cameras <i><b>might </b></i>have better selection. It is one reason I choose not to use auto ISO.<br /> 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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97266" data-quote="Carpy2001" data-source="post: 9459266" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459266" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459266">Carpy2001 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?, </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>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).<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="member: 97266" data-quote="Carpy2001" data-source="post: 9459266" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459266" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459266">Carpy2001 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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.<br /> thanks Andy </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>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</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97438" data-quote="wiltw" data-source="post: 9459273" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459273" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459273">wiltw said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Camera selection of ISO is not always the &#039;best&#039; for a situation...more recent cameras <i><b>might </b></i>have better selection. It is one reason I choose not to use auto ISO.<br /> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm? <br /> <br /> Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><a href="https://www.talkphotography.org/members/97266/" class="username" data-xf-init="member-tooltip" data-user-id="97266" data-username="@Carpy2001">@Carpy2001</a> Lens wide open, not a particularly fast shutter speed, so the ISO would be reasonable. <br /> <br /> The only way the camera could pick a higher ISO would be: <br /> Wider aperture (not possible - lens is wide open)<br /> 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. <br /> Added light<br /> <br /> 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).</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><a href="https://www.talkphotography.org/members/97266/" class="username" data-xf-init="member-tooltip" data-user-id="97266" data-username="@Carpy2001">@Carpy2001</a> Lens wide open, not a particularly fast shutter speed, so the ISO would be reasonable.<br /> <br /> The only way the camera could pick a <s>higher</s> lower ISO would be:<br /> Wider aperture (not possible - lens is wide open)<br /> 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.<br /> Added light<br /> <br /> 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)</div>
 
Last edited:
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459293" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459293" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459293">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> The only way the camera could pick a higher ISO would be: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> Lower ISO?</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97266" data-quote="Carpy2001" data-source="post: 9459266" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459266" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459266">Carpy2001 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> My question is why did the camera pick such a high ISO ?, </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> The answer is... Panasonic G5, 150mm + f5.6 + 1/320 sec, = ISO 1250.<br /> <br /> 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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 61794" data-quote="ancient_mariner" data-source="post: 9459295" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459295" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459295">ancient_mariner said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Lower ISO? </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>yes oops</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459290" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459290" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459290">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm?<br /> <br /> Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>No, I already speculated the camera selected the shutter speed in support of the equivalent FL on the smaller format.<br /> <br /> 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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper">I think the camera made a good choice, that isn&#039;t really a high ISO.<br /> <br /> I found that at this time of year if you worry too much about ISO you&#039;ll miss out.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Try it out under similar light, and a suitable subject, when you are not concerned about the result.<br /> <br /> 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97438" data-quote="wiltw" data-source="post: 9459397" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459397" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459397">wiltw said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> No, I already speculated the camera selected the shutter speed in support of the equivalent FL on the smaller format.<br /> <br /> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Yes; my first cameras with auto iso were nowhere near that smart, making it unusable (for me).<br /> <br /> But newer cameras definitely have better choice combinations as well as selectable parameters.<br /> <br /> Some cameras will automatically work with focal length to maintain shutter speeds for instance.<br /> <br /> But whilst we also have stabilisation to mitigate focal length, the logic can get fuzzy in all kinds of directions.<br /> <br /> 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.</div>
 
Last edited:
<div class="bbWrapper">As already stated, seems the camera did the right thing. I&#039;ve popped over to the thread where you posted it and considering it&#039;s shot through a window it looks pretty damn good!<br /> <br /> The noise looks perfectly acceptable in that image to my eye so I wouldn&#039;t worry too much.<br /> <br /> When I started to learn photography a couple of years back I was hit with a barrage of &quot;KEEP ISO LOW&quot;, so much so it was in my head that it was a cardinal sin to raise it above 200. <br /> <br /> Now I&#039;ve got a bit more experience I don&#039;t stress over the number and set it to what it needs to be to achieve my intended outcome.<br /> <br /> I&#039;ve tried to do a bit of wildlife photography recently and I&#039;ve found that the ISO dial is my best friend in terms of helping me fulfill my intent.<br /> <br /> <a href="https://www.talkphotography.org/attachments/p1074773-jpg.416456/" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.talkphotography.org/data/attachments/400/400735-3368d3eeed2955ba8b2b27becf3a7c2c.jpg?hash=M2jT7u0pVb" srcset="" class="bbImage " style="" alt="P1074773.jpg" title="P1074773.jpg" width="150" height="150" loading="lazy" /></a><br /> This shot is f5.9 aperture, shot at 1/640s and my ISO is 640.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> When I&#039;m trying to catch something in flight I&#039;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&#039;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.<br /> <br /> It&#039;s all a balancing act, don&#039;t stress it.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper">I find the ISO obsession bizarre. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values. <br /> <br /> 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 <br /> <br /> Also ‘adding light’? <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459416" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459416" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459416">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I find the ISO obsession bizarre.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> Also ‘adding light’?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>It&#039;s such a prominent message too and because it seems entirely logical until you know a little more, it sticks.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> I literally had to tell him that I don&#039;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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 95967" data-quote="Adam-G" data-source="post: 9459424" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459424" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459424">Adam-G said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> It&#039;s such a prominent message too and because it seems entirely logical until you know a little more, it sticks.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> I literally had to tell him that I don&#039;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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>the most bizarre aspect of this is that when I started shooting in the 80&#039;s, 400ISO was visibly worse even at 6x4, and 1600ISO was considered only useful for &#039;news&#039;, no one would consider those ISO&#039;s for general photography.<br /> <br /> My very first digital SLR maxed at 1600ISO and I have a print from that at A3, it&#039;s perfectly acceptable, but nowhere near as good as my latest cameras.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459416" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459416" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459416">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I find the ISO obsession bizarre.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> It leads to posts like this, where people are led down an illogical path re exposure values.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> Also ‘adding light’?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> Shooting with flash isn’t just ‘adding light’ for the sake of exposure, it should be an artistic choice </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>&#039;Keep ISO Low&#039; is one of these sweeping statements that has a sound basis, but needs to be tempered with a degree of experience.<br /> 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.<br /> I guess you could say Aperture and Shutter are &#039;need&#039; settings, ISO is a &#039;nice to have&#039; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> <br /> <br /> So in this example, the camera selected f/5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250, and most have agreed that&#039;s a reasonable set of numbers for the situation.<br /> Had the settings instead been f/5.6, 1/2500, ISO 10000, then we would have been saying the shutter doesn&#039;t need to be as fast, and the ISO can be lower (for this situation).</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97266" data-quote="Carpy2001" data-source="post: 9459266" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459266" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459266">Carpy2001 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> thanks Andy </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 80124" data-quote="davholla" data-source="post: 9459486" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459486" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459486">davholla said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>This is a superb point that I rarely see made.<br /> <br /> It&#039;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.</div>
 
Last edited:
<div class="bbWrapper">Back in the day with my 40D I would limit ISO as it was quite noisy, and I didn&#039;t have any good software to reduce it. I guess the &quot;keep it low&quot; idea got engrained into me. Nowadays with the option of DXO or Topaz, combined with modern sensors, ISO isn&#039;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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 18063" data-quote="Faldrax" data-source="post: 9459483" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459483" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459483">Faldrax said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> &#039;Keep ISO Low&#039; is one of these sweeping statements that has a sound basis, but needs to be tempered with a degree of experience.<br /> 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.<br /> I guess you could say Aperture and Shutter are &#039;need&#039; settings, ISO is a &#039;nice to have&#039; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><br /> <br /> So in this example, the camera selected f/5.6, 1/320 sec, ISO 1250, and most have agreed that&#039;s a reasonable set of numbers for the situation.<br /> Had the settings instead been f/5.6, 1/2500, ISO 10000, then we would have been saying the shutter doesn&#039;t need to be as fast, and the ISO can be lower (for this situation). </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> This seems the sensibly balanced viewpoint. High ISO isn&#039;t necessarily an image-killer, but it&#039;s also not especially desirable either unless you can&#039;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&#039;s much less problematic and one of those things that modern sensors and software allow us to use without having to worry too much.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459290" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459290" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459290">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Would you suggest a slower shutter speed than 1/320? For a living creature at 150mm?<br /> <br /> Given the choice I’d have gone higher not lower. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>I agree I have done 1/100 at 313 mm and it was ok<br /> <a href="https://flic.kr/p/2pbCXFV" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53285274535_e8e0b1a943_h.jpg" data-url="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53285274535_e8e0b1a943_h.jpg" class="bbImage " loading="lazy" style="" width="" height="" /></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/2pbCXFV" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">EF7A8377-CR2_DxO_DeepPRIMECockoftherock</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/14586608@N08/" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">davholla2002</a>, on Flickr<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> Sadly you can only see these in the wild in poor light.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="member: 95967" data-quote="Adam-G" data-source="post: 9459491" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459491" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459491">Adam-G said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> This is a superb point that I rarely see made.<br /> <br /> It&#039;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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Thank you very much sadly sometimes our brain ignores something ugly in the background or even worse on the subject - but the camera doesn&#039;t! - the reverse.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper">Having used a roll of ASA 1600 slide film in the distant past I don&#039;t worry about high ISOs with current digital cameras. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> <br /> <br /> But what is acceptable can depend on subject matter, and more so on use and display of the photos.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 80124" data-quote="davholla" data-source="post: 9459486" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459486" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459486">davholla said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> <br /> 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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 8506" data-quote="Nod" data-source="post: 9459594" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459594" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459594">Nod said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Might upgrade mine for the Pro Max version.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 8506" data-quote="Nod" data-source="post: 9459594" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459594" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459594">Nod said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Thanks for the clarification - I was using eye as a shorthand for what we see.<br /> What is the ISO range?</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 8506" data-quote="Nod" data-source="post: 9459594" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459594" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459594">Nod said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 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. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Commonly said that human eyes resolve one-half minute of arc.<br /> So I did the computation assuming a 50mm lens were mounted on FF digital...horizontal AOV is 40 degrees.<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ...it takes 63.4 Megapixels to put one pair of pixels in one-half minute of arc,..equalling the human eye&#039;s resolution and the frame&#039;s resolution with 50mm lens! 9750 pixels horizontally to put one pair of pixels within a one-helf minute of arc of the frame.</div>
 
Last edited:
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 97438" data-quote="wiltw" data-source="post: 9459614" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459614" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459614">wiltw said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Commonly said that human eyes resolve one-half minute of arc.<br /> So I did the computation assuming a 50mm lens were mounted on FF digital...horizontal AOV is 40 degrees.<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ...it takes 63.4 Megapixels to put one pair of pixels in one-half minute of arc,..equalling the human eye&#039;s resolution and the frame&#039;s resolution with 50mm lens! 9750 pixels horizontally to put one pair of pixels within a one-helf minute of arc of the frame. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Then we need to consider what the optics can deliver to the sensor!<br /> 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.<br /> IOW the 63 Megapixel sensor is not needed to equal the performance of an Excellent quality optic (per the test standards used by <i>Pop Photo</i> and <i>Modern Photo </i>in the 1970&#039;s) . We could use a more modest 24 Megapixel sensor to fully capture what the lens can deliver.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 24798" data-quote="Phil V" data-source="post: 9459471" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459471" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459471">Phil V said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> the most bizarre aspect of this is that when I started shooting in the 80&#039;s, 400ISO was visibly worse even at 6x4, and 1600ISO was considered only useful for &#039;news&#039;, no one would consider those ISO&#039;s for general photography.<br /> <br /> My very first digital SLR maxed at 1600ISO and I have a print from that at A3, it&#039;s perfectly acceptable, but nowhere near as good as my latest cameras. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>Yes we&#039;re spoiled now. Shoot at 4000 iso and then crop in, and it&#039;s way better that an old camera at 400 iso full image.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 7669" data-quote="swanseamale47" data-source="post: 9459870" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459870" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459870">swanseamale47 said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Yes we&#039;re spoiled now. Shoot at 4000 iso and then crop in, and it&#039;s way better that an old camera at 400 iso full image. </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote>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.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="member: 80124" data-quote="davholla" data-source="post: 9459608" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> <a href="/goto/post?id=9459608" class="bbCodeBlock-sourceJump" rel="nofollow" data-xf-click="attribution" data-content-selector="#post-9459608">davholla said:</a> </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Thanks for the clarification - I was using eye as a shorthand for what we see.<br /> What is the ISO range? </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div> </div> </blockquote><br /> Less than a D750, I would guess, although a smaller minimum aperture on the Mk 1 eyeball would make the ND shades redundant!<br /> <br /> More seriously, no idea but resolution, especially in colour drops off way before the D750 seems to in low light.</div>
 
<div class="bbWrapper">Hi there! No worries, learning photography takes time. The high ISO in your image was likely due to low light conditions.<br /> <br /> When you use aperture priority mode, you set the aperture, and the camera adjusts the shutter speed and ISO to get the right exposure. Since you were shooting through a window, the camera might have detected less light and raised the ISO to ensure the image was properly exposed. If the day was cloudy or the window wasn&#039;t perfectly clear, this would also lead to higher ISO.<br /> <br /> Hope that helps! Keep practicing, and you&#039;ll get the hang of it!</div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top