My Ode to Fast Glass

Started Sep 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Fast Glass....

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...why would shoot ISO-less if all you use ISO for is to review? In fact, shooting ISO-less makes it more difficult to review (a reason I usually stick with 1-2 stops only). If you didn't get this point of mine either, you make the choice to shoot ISO-less so you can keep ISO setting on your camera LOW (not high) which will present you with an underexposed review.

Here we are:


You presented a couple of examples, and you could have as easily used mine (NBA game example I posted yesterday), instead of addressing my argument: How is shooting ISO-less better for chimping?

WTF?! I give you examples and you say I should have used yours? LOL!!!!! Say, who's your social worker?

Some of us don't have to deal with Social Worker, or medication. So get over it, and show the ability to debate by sticking to the point.

In any event, to answer your question that I've already answered several times before, the brightness of the LCD playback and OOC jpgs are tied to the ISO setting as opposed to the camera's meter, and that makes ISOless shooting operationally more difficult with cameras' current UI.

And ISO-less shooting is NOT conducive to that. How exactly does using ISO 100 instead of ISO 1600 for dark conditions, make chimping better? Unless your camera somehow continues to use ISO 1600 for LCD preview/review? What camera would that be?

Conclusions drawn from this:

1- ISO is a useless setting.

2- But, it is must have for camera to be able to set ISO for proper exposure (automation, since you assume camera is more intelligent than the photographer on making the right decisions).

Incoherence is going overboard.

Wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is:

  • For a camera with a non-ISOless sensor, the camera can choose the optimum ISO faster and more intelligently than the photographer (assuming the UI allows the photographer to specify how they want to balance noise vs highlights).
  • ISO has nothing to do with exposure, but rather how the photo is processed.

I am afraid you have a weird idea of what ISO-less shooting is about. The reason it is even discussed has to do with native sensitivity versus boosted. And when you go fixing that exposure because you underexpose to use a lower ISO? You're simply avoiding boosted sensitivity but using software to make up for the exposure.

Hence my question in another response, But here is a sample, taken in Aperture Priority, RAW:

Aperture: f/8

Brightness Value (as measured by the camera, from EXIF): 8.87

You now have only one variable left, which the camera decides (Shutter Priority). For the above, the camera calculated: 1/200s.

What led the camera to 1/200s and not 1/50s or 1/800s?

The camera's meter and the formula it uses to meter in the metering mode you were using. By the way, my camera didn't meter how I wanted for this shot...

Why your camera didn't meter the way YOU wanted has no relevance to the discussion which is about HOW a camera presents you with its exposure values. For the former, we'd have to consider a different thread: Is your camera more intelligent than you?

I use Auto ISO when I trust the camera's meter to meter as I would since I'm using a camera with a non-ISOless sensor.

But, if ISO doesn't affect metering for an exposure, why go through the unnecessary exercise?

ISO does not affect exposure.

Or so you have been parroting endlessly, while also making arguments about using it (especially Auto ISO so you don't have to think like your camera can).

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow