5d Mk II, auto ISO and Image Stabilisation

Hi,

I really like the long-overdue automatic ISO feature on the 5d Mk II. But for some reason, when I put my 24-105 IS onto the camera, the auto ISO behaves as if the IS didn't exist.

Is there a camera setting I'm missing? I mean - how can I make auto ISO to recognize at least 1-2 stops of IS capability?

Thanks for your input!

BSHolland said:

Hi,

I really like the long-overdue automatic ISO feature on the 5d Mk II.

Click to expand...

It's sometimes useful, but is very poorly implemented. It doesn't even work in

M mode, which, IMO, is the most natural mode to use it in. It disabled and defaults to ISO 400 if flash is enabled, too; which is pretty stupid, as anyone using flash as the main source of light would intelligently choose fixed ISO.

BSHolland said:

But for some reason, when I put my 24-105 IS onto the camera, the auto ISO behaves as if the IS didn't exist.

Is there a camera setting I'm missing? I mean - how can I make auto ISO to recognize at least 1-2 stops of IS capability?

Click to expand...

I have never seen any evidence that the camera even knows that IS is enabled. What Canon doesn't do, but should, is let the user set focal-length-to shutter speed ratios by lens, just like it allows focus micro-adjustment.

--
John

BSHolland said:

Hi,

I really like the long-overdue automatic ISO feature on the 5d Mk II. But for some reason, when I put my 24-105 IS onto the camera, the auto ISO behaves as if the IS didn't exist.

Is there a camera setting I'm missing? I mean - how can I make auto ISO to recognize at least 1-2 stops of IS capability?

Thanks for your input!

Click to expand...

Well here is a silly question. Is the IS button on lens in the On position? There are no other camera user settings. Look at something at 105mm with the IS on and then off. Do you see a difference?

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Auto-ISO is not well implemented, as has been mentioned, and knows nothing about IS and so makes no allowance for it when deciding when to bump the ISO.

Kevin

IMO the Auto ISO and the Focus points are the only two real flaws of the 5d2.

It is impossible for me to understand how such a good feature as Auto ISO can be so poorly implemented by Canon.

But on the other hand, these are the only 2 major flaws IMO so I guess I should be quite happy!

br

--
5D mk2
17-40 f/4L
50 f/1,4
50 f/1,2L
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
100 macro IS f/2,8L
Canon EF 2x II Extender
Canon EF 25 II Extension tube
Speedlite 580
MT-24EX
BG-E6

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/

Auto ISO does not take IS into consideration. The two are independent of each other. Auto ISO yields the same setting whether IS is on or off. So if the switch on your lens that enables IS is turned on IS should be working, but this has no effect on auto-iso.

It sounds like you expect the ISO value to automatically be set to a lower value when IS is selected, but this is not how it was engineered in the 5D2. IS is designed simply to remove camera shake, not lower iso and keep the shake. I suppose Canon could have done it that way, but that would have made less sense.

I also agree that auto-iso could be more robust than what it is, including working with flash, manual mode, and user setting of the high and low limits.

John Sheehy said:

It's sometimes useful, but is very poorly implemented. It doesn't even work in

M mode, which, IMO, is the most natural mode to use it in. It disabled and defaults to ISO 400 if flash is enabled, too; which is pretty stupid, as anyone using flash as the main source of light would intelligently choose fixed ISO.

Click to expand...

John Sheehy said:

--
John

Click to expand...

I find it comical that folks complain about Auto Functions not working in "M" (Manual) mode.

Do you also need your camera to prepare your dinner after a shoot?

Or do you even shoot? or just spend all your time on the interweb whining about Canon?

--
Shadco

Yellow_Hands said:

I find it comical that folks complain about Auto Functions not working in "M" (Manual) mode.

Click to expand...

Manual mode means you want to choose the shutter speed and f-stop; real parameters of photography.

So call it TAv like Pentax does; Canon calls it M with auto-ISO on the 7D and 1D4.

--
John

I don't agree.

I think manual mode in addition with Auto ISO must be the most excellent feature to use (and as I understand Nikon provides that feature).
One can still set it to manual ISO though.
Possibilities just creates more shooting opportunities.

Otherwise it would be like complaining that the Auto Focus works in manual mode.

br

John Sheehy said:

Yellow_Hands said:

I find it comical that folks complain about Auto Functions not working in "M" (Manual) mode.

Click to expand...

Manual mode means you want to choose the shutter speed and f-stop; real parameters of photography.

So call it TAv like Pentax does; Canon calls it M with auto-ISO on the 7D and 1D4.

--
John

Click to expand...

--
5D mk2
17-40 f/4L
50 f/1,4
50 f/1,2L
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
100 macro IS f/2,8L
Canon EF 2x II Extender
Canon EF 25 II Extension tube
Speedlite 580
MT-24EX
BG-E6

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/

If the IS reported how much shake it was compensating for and the shutter speed was set accordingly, instant compensation for caffeine, hangovers and cold weather

MrScorpio said:

I don't agree.

Click to expand...

With who? You don't disagree with me, but I'm the one you replied to.

--
John

BSHolland said:

Hi,

I really like the long-overdue automatic ISO feature on the 5d Mk II. But for some reason, when I put my 24-105 IS onto the camera, the auto ISO behaves as if the IS didn't exist.

Is there a camera setting I'm missing? I mean - how can I make auto ISO to recognize at least 1-2 stops of IS capability?

Thanks for your input!

Click to expand...

Photographers have to keep in mind that what might be great for one photographer, might be a curse to another.

I would not want a camera to automatically lower the iso several stops just because I have the IS activated, because what if I actually wanted/needed the extra shutter speed even though I have the IS on?

If I'm in the back of a moving truck using a 300mm or 500mm lens to shoot a bride & groom in a moving convertable, I don't want the camera to think for me by assuming that I want a lower iso since I have IS on! I want as much shutter speed as I can get (2 to 4 stops makes a huge difference on hair) and the IS only to help me keep the couple composed in the frame.

Having a separate setting (e.g. Auto iso 1 and Auto iso 2 (compensatory iso that receives IS stabilisation data) might be the way to go... but please oh please, don't have the camera thinking for me... that's what makes "program" shooting so horrible in a multitude of situations.

Best in photography to everyone
--
Teila K. Day

Teila Day said:

Photographers have to keep in mind that what might be great for one photographer, might be a curse to another.

I would not want a camera to automatically lower the iso several stops just because I have the IS activated, because what if I actually wanted/needed the extra shutter speed even though I have the IS on?

Click to expand...

That's what user options are for ... or, that's what other modes are for.

--
John

That's the way it is.
You just have to accept it.
Be happy

John Sheehy said:

Teila Day said:

Photographers have to keep in mind that what might be great for one photographer, might be a curse to another.

I would not want a camera to automatically lower the iso several stops just because I have the IS activated, because what if I actually wanted/needed the extra shutter speed even though I have the IS on?

Click to expand...

That's what user options are for ... or, that's what other modes are for.

Click to expand...

Exactly... you hit the nail on the head. Canon and I agree with ya.



--
Teila K. Day

Teila Day said:

John Sheehy said:

Teila Day said:

Photographers have to keep in mind that what might be great for one photographer, might be a curse to another.

I would not want a camera to automatically lower the iso several stops just because I have the IS activated, because what if I actually wanted/needed the extra shutter speed even though I have the IS on?

Click to expand...

That's what user options are for ... or, that's what other modes are for.

Click to expand...

Exactly... you hit the nail on the head. Canon and I agree with ya.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. What I mean is that with any given level of user options and modes, you may have to do a "work-around" to get what you want, or close to it. Greater user options and more flexible modes, however, allow less situations where you need to do this. Relying on work-around is unproductive.

Let's say that the camera had a memory for each lens; a range of f-stops and a minimum shutter speed to focal length ratio, and an absolute minimum shutter speed. You would have far less situations where you needed a "workaround" for the camera to behave the way you want it to. The end of automation is not loss of control; it is having a device do what you need it to do, automatically. Without sufficient user options, it pulls its own way.

--
John

aljaerouw said:

That's the way it is.
You just have to accept it.
Be happy

Click to expand...

This sheep-ish attitude is what allows companies get away with their apathy and negligence.

--
John

John Sheehy said:

Teila Day said:

John Sheehy said:

Teila Day said:

Photographers have to keep in mind that what might be great for one photographer, might be a curse to another.

I would not want a camera to automatically lower the iso several stops just because I have the IS activated, because what if I actually wanted/needed the extra shutter speed even though I have the IS on?

Click to expand...

That's what user options are for ... or, that's what other modes are for.

Click to expand...

Exactly... you hit the nail on the head. Canon and I agree with ya.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. What I mean is that with any given level of user options and modes, you may have to do a "work-around" to get what you want, or close to it. Greater user options and more flexible modes, however, allow less situations where you need to do this. Relying on work-around is unproductive.

Let's say that the camera had a memory for each lens; a range of f-stops and a minimum shutter speed to focal length ratio, and an absolute minimum shutter speed. You would have far less situations where you needed a "workaround" for the camera to behave the way you want it to. The end of automation is not loss of control; it is having a device do what you need it to do, automatically. Without sufficient user options, it pulls its own way.

--
John

Click to expand...

I knew exactly what you meant John, my response was a facetious one. While I agree that there are many "smart" features that can be incorporated into the modern day camera (like I originally posted with a seperate programable setting that recognizes when IS in engaged), I think most working photographers would rather it be an option, as opposed to a standard feature.

Automation is generally the loss of control, unless it is offered as an option and not a standard feature that does not allow user input; other wise it can be an intrusive mess not unlike traction control on a cheap sports car.

It seem to me that in this case though, Canon likely feels that the user can simply wheel the shutter speed down several stops (takes less than a second) and continue shooting. I don't see where the technology is worth Canon's expense, nor do I see where it would often be used; however I concede that just because I don't think this particular feature would be 'worth it' does not mean that a lot of other photographers share my view, and I realize that. I wish other photographers would share there view on this one as I'm curious to know how many photographers would get a lot of use out of such a feature.

To me, dropping the shutter speed or closing the aperture a tick or two when I have IS or VR activated is just too easy and quick for me to even remotely consider it a "work around". I'd rather Canon, and Nikon spend their resources on other things: Camaera and Lens quality, and quality control quickly come to mind, having the "option" to shoot w/out the AA filter would be an 'option' that I think many more working photographers would find more interesting and perhaps even beneficial (many opinions fly over the AA isue) when compared to a smart iso/is option.

Conjecture abound of course...

--
Teila K. Day

Teila Day said:

Automation is generally the loss of control, unless it is offered as an option and not a standard feature that does not allow user input; other wise it can be an intrusive mess not unlike traction control on a cheap sports car.

Click to expand...

The options need to be more complex than just automation "on" or "off". The automation needs to be complex enough to emulate the decision-making process of the user, had the user had more time, or nothing else to concentrate on.

Teila Day said:

It seem to me that in this case though, Canon likely feels that the user can simply wheel the shutter speed down several stops (takes less than a second) and continue shooting.

Click to expand...

The context is floating Tv, not dialed-in Tv. If you're dialing in the Tv value, you are in Tv-pri mode, or M, which we weren't discussing. Av-pri and P mode were the topic of discussion. The OP wanted the camera to be able to choose a slower shutter speed because of the IS, instead of increasing ISO. Tv-pri is only useful when you are willing to have the lens all the way open, and that is not a good choice with many lenses or lens/TC combos.

Teila Day said:

I don't see where the technology is worth Canon's expense, nor do I see where it would often be used; however I concede that just because I don't think this particular feature would be 'worth it' does not mean that a lot of other photographers share my view, and I realize that.

Click to expand...

Have you ever done any programming? Exposure program logic is as simple as can be. It would take almost no resources from the company to give extensive user-control. They just don't give a damn, because they can continue to get away with it. Smile recognition code is more complex than a whole set of extensive user-program controls.

Teila Day said:

I wish other photographers would share there view on this one as I'm curious to know how many photographers would get a lot of use out of such a feature.

Click to expand...

That would be a good source of information, except for the fact that many of the more vocal people in such conversations are driven by ego and bravado; people priding themselves in how well they can do with things, the way they are. Many people seem incapable of immersing their minds in new paradigms.

Teila Day said:

To me, dropping the shutter speed or closing the aperture a tick or two when I have IS or VR activated is just too easy and quick for me to even remotely consider it a "work around". I'd rather Canon, and Nikon spend their resources on other things: Camaera and Lens quality, and quality control quickly come to mind, having the "option" to shoot w/out the AA filter would be an 'option' that I think many more working photographers would find more interesting and perhaps even beneficial (many opinions fly over the AA isue) when compared to a smart iso/is option.

Click to expand...

A sharp lens combined with a lack of an AA filter is a disaster, for any viewer who has real appreciation of real world detail, with the coarse pixel densities we currently have. Again, user-program logic is very simple. Wouldn't take much resources at all, and uses different people from those working on removable-AA tech.

--
John

Agree... with one addition: flash sync speed :-(

-V