Will ISO be Redundant?

Many DSLRs have auto ISO. And since these cameras aren't even using real film anyway, instead giving equivalent image capture settings an arbitrary ISO number, will "ISO" go the way of the dodo? Seriously, 50-12,800, 100-25,600, what's it matter? If you can manually set the shutter speed and ap, what's it matter what the ISO number is? As long as the camera gets the shot!

--
Insert pretentious obligatory quote here...

ISO will be around for a long time, just as aperture values or exposure time settings. It refers to the sensitivity of your image capturing medium - be it film or a digital image sensor. These are your core variables to influence exposure: how long (time), how much light (aperture), and how sensitive (ISO). The Auto ISO mode of the new cameras such as the 50D will make it easier for people who don't want to bother about technical details. But I personally need full ISO control.

"As long as the camera gets the shot!" indicates your market segment. A bit like "don't care about my car as long as it get's me there"

Nothing wrong with that, but frankly there are a far better camera's out there on the market that will get your shot, a lot better than the average DSLR (better meaning: cheaper, lighter, convenient, etc)

We still have manual focus, Aperture, Exposure and full Manual control. All are not required to "get the shot". The main reason is that some of us like to have control. ISO is part of that control. Like a manual gearbox is for your car.

I bought an automatic car about a year ago and I HATE IT! My wife on the other hand loves it.

and not with the two initial posters.

I think we will see the day when ISO will be obsolete (at least in its current form).

Aperture controls DOF, Shutter speed controls motion effects. Both of them have an artistic purpose and photographers use them to create certain looks in their photos.

Current implementation of ISO looks more like a limitation of the recording medium (whether being film or digital) than something truly useful.

I see a time where you simply choose your f-stop/shutter speed and then use some type of control to tell the camera how much to expose the scene (at the given aperture/shutter combination). This wouldn't be the current ISO selector, but something much more refined & linked to a live histogram (which will probably be standard on DSLRs by then).

For this to come to fruition sensitivity range will have to increase even further, and not just upwards. We would need to get sensors that are able to do ISOs such as 50, 25, 12.5 and smaller to allow shallow DOF on a sunny day or true ISO bracketing.

My 2 pence.

--

'There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.' - Ansel Adams

http://solev.net

It makes sense to me that on the low-end P&S type cameras the days are numbered. I would think a large number of people buying cameras don't know about and more importantly, don't care about ISO. They just want to press a button and have a good picture. I imagine it will be replaced by some combination of other controls and some good programming

Christian Gleissner said:

ISO will be around for a long time, just as aperture values or
exposure time settings. It refers to the sensitivity of your image
capturing medium - be it film or a digital image sensor. These are
your core variables to influence exposure: how long (time), how much
light (aperture), and how sensitive (ISO). The Auto ISO mode of the
new cameras such as the 50D will make it easier for people who don't
want to bother about technical details. But I personally need full
ISO control.

Click to expand...

Why? Here's what I'm saying...

Manual Mode: One shot you really want a shallow DoF, so you choose the appropriate F number. Here, the F number is the determining factor for the shot. Then you choose the correct shutter speed (if shooting manual) for the situation, whether it be short exposures for sports or longer times for tripod-mounted still life. Whether or not ISO is manually controllable or not, you're still going to need to pick the appropriate ISO value to expose the scene properly. So, with your 70-200mm lens, if you manually choose f/4, 1/800, and then ISO 1600 for a proper exposure at 200mm, the camera would pick that 1600 value according to the other two paramiters anyway.

Ap Priority Mode: The number you choose for the exact DoF you want, the camera then automatically chooses the appropriate shutter speed, and the ISO is determined by that (in Auto ISO). So again, if you manually choose the ISO, then the camera picks the shutter speed for that ISO-F stop combination for a proper exposure. If you want slight movement blur with a longer shutter speed or anything varied from the norm, go to manual mode.

T Mode: Here, shutter speed is the determining factor. The camera picks the F stop, and then ISO for proper exposure (Auto ISO). If you want a wider F stop, go to Ap Priority or Manual mode.

Nobody likes noise in a photo, unless it's for artistic effect. Then again, it can be added in PS afterward like everything else if that's the idea. Everyone always talks about the 5D, or the 1D line, and how great they perform at high ISOs. In time, when sensors get so good there's very little noise up to ISO 3200 and beyond, what's the point in being able to choose ISO? ISO on a digital camera is arbitrary. Since it's not film, it's just a number representing the stepped boost in sensor sensitivity. If "grain" or noise is no longer a concern in most situations, then we have total freedom to choose the right F-stop or shutter speed (or both) for the shot we want. ISO is no longer a concern.

Does this make sense?

--
Insert pretentious obligatory quote here...

I'm not sure if ISO really does whats it claim to on DLSR's. I did a test last fall, took 4 shots at 1 full fstop apart, first one changing ISO to match exposure, second one, leaving ISO fixed and under/over exposing. Then adjusting in RAW. If highlights where not blown, then I did not see a differeance in any of the 4 picutres after the raw files where adjusted in PP.

With even lower noise sensors the coming decade, surely it will. Why bother with ISO then... for the fun of it? Nah...

--
Equipment: camera and lenses

given the complete lack of meaning to your question.

therickman said:

Nobody likes noise in a photo, unless it's for artistic effect. Then
again, it can be added in PS afterward like everything else if that's
the idea.

Click to expand...

So far so good.

therickman said:

Everyone always talks about the 5D, or the 1D line, and how
great they perform at high ISOs. In time, when sensors get so good
there's very little noise up to ISO 3200 and beyond, what's the point
in being able to choose ISO? ISO on a digital camera is arbitrary.
Since it's not film, it's just a number representing the stepped
boost in sensor sensitivity. If "grain" or noise is no longer a
concern in most situations, then we have total freedom to choose the
right F-stop or shutter speed (or both) for the shot we want. ISO is
no longer a concern.

Click to expand...

What "most situations"? Why would I be interested in "most situations" if and when I want to use my DSLR to capture rare situations? I've yet to see Northern Lights with too much light.

therickman said:

Does this make sense?

Click to expand...

None whatsoever.

You are working on the incorrect assumption that light is fluid and that you can arbitrarily get better and better low-light preformance by bettering technology.

The world doesn't work that way.

In any photographic situation there is a given number of photons, defining the minimum amount of noise an image can have, regardless of technology. Thus, upping ISO high enough you are ALWAYS going to get noise. It's not just technology, it's physics.

What then if ISO 3200 will be "clean enough"? Then we'll shoot at ISO 25'000, and if that's "clean enough", surely we'll go to ISO 100'000 for photographs we didn't even know could be taken - although it may well be that we hit the physics barrier before a hundred thou.

In short, ISO is and will remain an important aspect of professional and amateur DSLR photography. It gives an upper limit of what we can expect from a photo from a noise point of view, and will continue to do so. It's not the technology. It's physics.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society
My obligatory gallery: http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Photo/Galleria/

The camera doesn't know what effect I'm going for with a specific combination of f/stop, shutter speed and ISO. Say I want to do a shutter drag with a flash fill. How will I tell the camera what my intent is? ISO is a very simple system to control my vision in the camera. I'm not handing that off to a computer. Why hire me then? In point and shoots, who cares?

dominique dierick said:

With even lower noise sensors the coming decade, surely it will. Why
bother with ISO then... for the fun of it? Nah...

Click to expand...

With lower noise sensors comes higher ISO numbers, not ISO redundancy. See how ISO 12'800 and 25'600 are on their way in. If ISO was on its way out, it would already be out - after all, who was shooting film at even ISO 800? Not many, and still we didn't stop at ISO 400 in the digital world.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society
My obligatory gallery: http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Photo/Galleria/

If gain (because that is ISO digitally) keeps constant quality over a bigger range (in film terms say between 100 and 800ISO) in a couple of years, I really, really, really couldn't care less if it is full auto. If I can say to the cam: I work at f8 now, and I don't want to shoot below 1/250s, why would I bother with ISO... There is no reason. It would be much easier than fiddle on a dial or button to change it and adapt to lighting just because of the fact there is something like ISO

--
Equipment: camera and lenses

Most MFDBs don't have effective ISO settings. The camera records the data always with the highest useful "sensitivity". Higher ISO means simply lowering the exposure.

I am waiting for the time that this is offered for DSLR's. This method increases the dynamic range (the amount is camera dependent, but it could be around 2 stops).

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm

Henrik Herranen said:

See how ISO 12'800 and 25'600 are on their way in

Click to expand...

ISO 12800 and 25600 are fake on the Nikon D3 and D700, just like ISO 3200 is fake on the Canon 20D and 40D. These are simply numerical derivates of the top real ISO, they are worthless.

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm

dominique dierick said:

If gain (because that is ISO digitally) keeps constant quality over a
bigger range (in film terms say between 100 and 800ISO) in a couple
of years, I really, really, really couldn't care less if it is full
auto. If I can say to the cam: I work at f8 now, and I don't want to
shoot below 1/250s, why would I bother with ISO... There is no
reason. It would be much easier than fiddle on a dial or button to
change it and adapt to lighting just because of the fact there is
something like ISO

Click to expand...

Yes, I would welcome an auto-ISO mode, too. There are many cases where that would be exactly what I'd use. That doesn't, however, make ISO redundant. E.g. a proper auto-ISO will let you choose the ISO area you would like to use.

Also, when shooting manual (which I do suprisingly often, and always with a flash), you naturally will have to define Aperture, Exposure time and ISO in the foreseeable future just as you do know. This will be exactly the same 10 years from now.

You ask why you should bother with ISO. Perhaps you don't want to bother with it. Then again, why bother with exposure time or aperture? There is the green mode, you know. I am equally justified if I choose to say that exposure time and aperture control are on their way out with better automatics of the future. Makes just as much - or little - sense.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society
My obligatory gallery: http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Photo/Galleria/

GaborSch said:

Most MFDBs don't have effective ISO settings. The camera records the
data always with the highest useful "sensitivity". Higher ISO means
simply lowering the exposure.

I am waiting for the time that this is offered for DSLR's. This
method increases the dynamic range (the amount is camera dependent,
but it could be around 2 stops).

Click to expand...

I find it seriously difficult to believe that you know what you are talking about. Amplifiers that result in higher ISO are used to retain better S/N numbers which in order lead to better dynamic range - if there are no seriously blown highlights in the photo.

The adjustable analog gain that is called ISO control leads to a stronger signal entering the rest of the analog path as well as the analog-to-digital converters, and thus enhance fidelity. Leaving ISO amplifiers away are definitely not enhancing image quality.

This has been an interesting debate, but I think everything necessary has already been said. You don't need to believe me, but I fully expect the ISO control to be there, well, for as long as DSLRs exist. There cannot exist a DSLR without a manual mode, and there cannot exist a proper manual mode without exposure time, aperture and ISO control.

Enough said.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society
My obligatory gallery: http://www.iki.fi/leopold/Photo/Galleria/

--
Equipment: camera and lenses

There is so much push for clean high iso, that most dSLRs (aside from olympus due to small sensors) will have good IQ at iso6400 within 3 years. And there isn't much of a point for camera users (aside from sports, PJ's, and wedding photographers) to need any higher iso than 6400 because 6400 comes with pretty darn low light.

Most SLR users will use their popup flash indoors or in low light outside (because they're in auto mode anyways- and yes that's which mode the majority of all camera users are in for both P&S and dSLR).

IRC said:

It makes sense to me that on the low-end P&S type cameras the days
are numbered. I would think a large number of people buying cameras

Click to expand...

Price sells. The public's view is that all P&S digital cameras give the same quality of image. So the differences are the amount of zoom lens, camera size, screen size, and of course cost. The lowest priced named brand cameras sell more than the more expensive brand name P&S cameras. The average camera buyer is not an enthusiast who does online research looking at detailed reviews.

One of my brothers recently bought a small digital camera to be smaller than their 10x sony that is 2 years old but too large to take everywhere. He bought a cheap, small Polaroid (though Polaroid is just a brand name slapped on generic cameras now) that had to be $100. He had it for just a month or so and already the LCD screen had a big spot when in use. He'll get it replaced under warranty but that is the average camera buyer.