Z fc folks: Do you use the ISO Dial?

Exif:



Auto ISO #1^^



Auto ISO #2^^



Manual ISO #1^^



Manual ISO #2^^

Shutter speed slightly different by 1/3 stop, my bad, 1/60th vs 1/50th. Doesn't affect the test though. Manual ISO isn't a joke. It's there for a reason.

--
irc.libera.chat #photogeeks

capanikon said:

Exif:



Auto ISO #1^^



Auto ISO #2^^



Manual ISO #1^^



Manual ISO #2^^

Shutter speed slightly different by 1/3 stop, my bad, 1/60th vs 1/50th. Doesn't affect the test though.

Click to expand...

What is happening there is very strange. According to the APEX system Av+Tv = Bv + Sv, where Av is aperture value, Tv is time value, Bv is brightness value, i.e. scene luminance and Sv is speed value, i.e. ISO. So, unless Nikon has made the meter measure a different way completely when you go into auto ISO there is no way that the same Av, Tv and measured Bv can result in a different Sv, whether or not the camera or the user is operating the ISO control. It comes down to the same thing. You adjust ISO until the meter is centred or the camera does it. The result should be exactly the same. I suspect you have some EC factored in, which isn't operating in M but does affect auto ISO.

capanikon said:

Manual ISO isn't a joke. It's there for a reason.

Click to expand...

I've never had auto ISO behave remotely like that. It's predictable and behaves precisely as I would expect.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Try doing a similar test with your own camera. This is how light meters have always worked. They call it "meter failure." Not that the meter itself failed ... it didn't. It's functioning perfectly. But the light meter only has so much smarts. And it can't read your mind. The correct exposure is the exposure the photographer decides is the correct exposure. This may differ from that the camera's meter does.

capanikon said:

Try doing a similar test with your own camera. This is how light meters have always worked. They call it "meter failure." Not that the meter itself failed ... it didn't. It's functioning perfectly. But the light meter only has so much smarts. And it can't read your mind. The correct exposure is the exposure the photographer decides is the correct exposure. This may differ from that the camera's meter does.

Click to expand...

That's a different matter altogether. If you point the meter at the same scene it should always read the scene luminance the same. Even in matrix metering the same scene should give the same reading. What has happened here is that the same scene has given two completely different readings, apparently. That can't happen with a properly functioning meter. It has nothing to do with the meter not having enough smarts.

I suspect what is happening is that you didn't centre the meter for the manual ISO shot with the window, instead you let it shoe a couple of stops over. In auto ISO you would have done the same thing by dialling in some EC.

Interestingly, this has gone the opposite way from the usual auto ISO complaint, that it gives 'too high an ISO'.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Here's the same test in video mode.

1/50th f/4.5 on both shots.

Manual movie mode OFF on first; manual movie mode ON in second.

bobn2 said:

That's a different matter altogether. If you point the meter at the same scene it should always read the scene luminance the same. Even in matrix metering the same scene should give the same reading. What has happened here is that the same scene has given two completely different readings, apparently. That can't happen with a properly functioning meter. It has nothing to do with the meter not having enough smarts.

I suspect what is happening is that you didn't centre the meter for the manual ISO shot with the window, instead you let it shoe a couple of stops over. In auto ISO you would have done the same thing by dialling in some EC.

Interestingly, this has gone the opposite way from the usual auto ISO complaint, that it gives 'too high an ISO'.

Click to expand...

See, that's the whole thing. If i'm going to +1 exposure compensation for one framing and then -2 EV for a different framing and then +1.3 EV for the next shot ... why not just shoot full manual with manual ISO? Coz then the exposure just stays locked the entire time. And you don't have to do the exposure compensation song and dance.

capanikon said:

bobn2 said:

That's a different matter altogether. If you point the meter at the same scene it should always read the scene luminance the same. Even in matrix metering the same scene should give the same reading. What has happened here is that the same scene has given two completely different readings, apparently. That can't happen with a properly functioning meter. It has nothing to do with the meter not having enough smarts.

I suspect what is happening is that you didn't centre the meter for the manual ISO shot with the window, instead you let it shoe a couple of stops over. In auto ISO you would have done the same thing by dialling in some EC.

Interestingly, this has gone the opposite way from the usual auto ISO complaint, that it gives 'too high an ISO'.

Click to expand...

See, that's the whole thing. If i'm going to +1 exposure compensation for one framing and then -2 EV for a different framing and then +1.3 EV for the next shot ... why not just shoot full manual with manual ISO? Coz then the exposure just stays locked the entire time. And you don't have to do the exposure compensation song and dance.

Click to expand...

Well, it comes down to your metering technique in the end. Also, how much time you have. I'm not saying one approach is right and the other wrong, it's a matter of preference. For most shots the meter gets things about right, so the auto ISO will be about right. Some shots need some user input. It's a matter of preference whether you choose to put in the user input for every shot or just when you see an exceptional case.

bobn2 said:

Old Ed said:

Hi Guys,

Mention of FMs and FEs tempted me to jump in here. I had both, back in the day. I find it curious that FMs are now treated as iconic, while FEs aren't mentioned much.

I bought my FM as a backup to my more expensive FEs. I returned the FM the next day, because my FEs crushed it for convenience and photographic 'firepower.'

Long live the FE and FE2, :-D

Ed

Click to expand...

I think it was just the shape of the FM pentaprism housing gave it a little bit of design panache that the FE lacked. It's interesting that when Nikon effectively merged them in the FM3A they went with the FM style.

Click to expand...

It appears you're thinking of another model. The chrome/black FM and FE models were nearly identical in appearance. You could check pix online.

Full manual control of shutter, aperture and ISO is the best way to use a camera. It is intimidating to new photographers coz it takes a while to understand how shutter and aperture affect exposure, and how they relate to ISO and what shutter speeds are fast enough to freeze a particular activity. And what aperture is best for a given situation. And understanding equivalent exposures -- e.g. 1/125 @ f/8, 1/250 @ f/5.6, and 1/15 @ f/22. Those three are all the same exposure for a given ISO setting. But you'll get three different looks to the resulting image.

Once you get enough practice in full manual including manual ISO, you'll be fast at it. So fast that autoexposure and auto ISO will lose its appeal. You'll never mess with exposure compensation -- you don't have to mess with EC in full manual mode.

FingerPainter said:

michaeladawson said:

I agree with your test. And this is but one example of why I generally stay away from auto-ISO.

Click to expand...

Run into these window-not-there / window-there situations a lot do you?

Click to expand...

What a smarty answer. No, I don't. But I do run into situations outdoors, as an example, where the main scene lighting doesn't change but a shift in the position of the camera introduces gray sky into the framing and auto-ISO will react in a way I do not want.

capanikon said:

bobn2 said:

That's a different matter altogether. If you point the meter at the same scene it should always read the scene luminance the same. Even in matrix metering the same scene should give the same reading. What has happened here is that the same scene has given two completely different readings, apparently. That can't happen with a properly functioning meter. It has nothing to do with the meter not having enough smarts.

I suspect what is happening is that you didn't centre the meter for the manual ISO shot with the window, instead you let it shoe a couple of stops over. In auto ISO you would have done the same thing by dialling in some EC.

Interestingly, this has gone the opposite way from the usual auto ISO complaint, that it gives 'too high an ISO'.

Click to expand...

See, that's the whole thing. If i'm going to +1 exposure compensation for one framing and then -2 EV for a different framing and then +1.3 EV for the next shot ... why not just shoot full manual with manual ISO? Coz then the exposure just stays locked the entire time. And you don't have to do the exposure compensation song and dance.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I don't know why people are so hell bent on trying to push auto-ISO. It's a great feature to have in your bag. Use it if the situation fits (or any time you want to for all I care). But I get the distinct impression that a lot of people think that auto-ISO is the superior way to go and if you're not using it you're stupid or don't know how to use your camera.

Edit: and Bob... I don't mean you in my post. I mean the thread in general.

--
Mike Dawson

michaeladawson said:

Most of the posts in this thread have devolved into a debate around auto-ISO. That's unfortunate.

Despite what others may think they know about what I think I am not against the use of auto-ISO. At all. I don't use it a lot myself for reasons that for me are valid. Sometimes I'm out shooting in a situation where it is very useful for me to be in auto-ISO mode, although not often. I can see valid reasons why others use auto-ISO and in fact why others LOVE auto-ISO. Use what fits your shooting needs.

Click to expand...

Agree.

michaeladawson said:

My reason for getting into this thread was the calling out of the ISO dial as "an outright design blunder". Nothing more, nothing less. Any reasonable interpretation of the word "blunder" would say that the ISO dial is not a design blunder, and certainly not an outright design blunder. Putting "seems like" in front of that does not change anything. It is clear that calling something a "blunder" is an opinion. It may be one shared by many people, it may be a common opinion. But it is an opinion, not a fact.

Click to expand...

With a better understanding of English, you'd know that "seems like" clearly labels my comment as opinion. Your assertion above that "the ISO dial is not a design blunder" is also opinion.

Any readers patient enough to read this whole thread can form their own opinions about arguments presented.

michaeladawson said:

If the OP (or anyone) wants to suggest that Nikon has the opportunity to make an improved ISO dial, and he has ideas for how to improve it, that is a whole different matter.

Click to expand...

This is from my earlier response to one of your posts. Maybe you missed it:

"It's certainly possible to design a useful ISO dial. For example, one scheme would be two pointers: one for max ISO, and one for min ISO. When apart, you'd get auto ISO between those limits. Push them together on a number to get fixed ISO. Better ideas welcome."

Over and out...

Old Ed said:

michaeladawson said:

Most of the posts in this thread have devolved into a debate around auto-ISO. That's unfortunate.

Despite what others may think they know about what I think I am not against the use of auto-ISO. At all. I don't use it a lot myself for reasons that for me are valid. Sometimes I'm out shooting in a situation where it is very useful for me to be in auto-ISO mode, although not often. I can see valid reasons why others use auto-ISO and in fact why others LOVE auto-ISO. Use what fits your shooting needs.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Old Ed said:

My reason for getting into this thread was the calling out of the ISO dial as "an outright design blunder". Nothing more, nothing less. Any reasonable interpretation of the word "blunder" would say that the ISO dial is not a design blunder, and certainly not an outright design blunder. Putting "seems like" in front of that does not change anything. It is clear that calling something a "blunder" is an opinion. It may be one shared by many people, it may be a common opinion. But it is an opinion, not a fact.

Click to expand...

With a better understanding of English, you'd know that "seems like" clearly labels my comment as opinion. Your assertion above that "the ISO dial is not a design blunder" is also opinion.

Click to expand...

There you go again with the insults. I have a perfect understanding of English. "Seems like" is redundant. Calling something a "blunder" is already clearly an opinion. Nobody needs it clarified with "seems like". I tell someone "you could use a haircut". That is not a statement of fact. That is plainly and obviously an opinion. It does not need to be clarified with "seems like you could use a haircut".

Old Ed said:

Any readers patient enough to read this whole thread can form their own opinions about arguments presented.

Old Ed said:

If the OP (or anyone) wants to suggest that Nikon has the opportunity to make an improved ISO dial, and he has ideas for how to improve it, that is a whole different matter.

Click to expand...

This is from my earlier response to one of your posts. Maybe you missed it:

"It's certainly possible to design a useful ISO dial. For example, one scheme would be two pointers: one for max ISO, and one for min ISO. When apart, you'd get auto ISO between those limits. Push them together on a number to get fixed ISO. Better ideas welcome."

Click to expand...

I did not miss it. But that was in one of your follow-up responses. My foray into this black hole was in response to your initial post. Rather than calling it an "outright design blunder" you should have led with your idea for improvement. Oh wait, my bad... "it seems" like you should have led with your idea for improvement.

michaeladawson said:

capanikon said:

bobn2 said:

That's a different matter altogether. If you point the meter at the same scene it should always read the scene luminance the same. Even in matrix metering the same scene should give the same reading. What has happened here is that the same scene has given two completely different readings, apparently. That can't happen with a properly functioning meter. It has nothing to do with the meter not having enough smarts.

I suspect what is happening is that you didn't centre the meter for the manual ISO shot with the window, instead you let it shoe a couple of stops over. In auto ISO you would have done the same thing by dialling in some EC.

Interestingly, this has gone the opposite way from the usual auto ISO complaint, that it gives 'too high an ISO'.

Click to expand...

See, that's the whole thing. If i'm going to +1 exposure compensation for one framing and then -2 EV for a different framing and then +1.3 EV for the next shot ... why not just shoot full manual with manual ISO? Coz then the exposure just stays locked the entire time. And you don't have to do the exposure compensation song and dance.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I don't know why people are so hell bent on trying to push auto-ISO. It's a great feature to have in your bag. Use it if the situation fits (or any time you want to for all I care). But I get the distinct impression that a lot of people think that auto-ISO is the superior way to go and if you're not using it you're stupid or don't know how to use your camera.

Edit: and Bob... I don't mean you in my post. I mean the thread in general.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure how we got here from originally discussing how a round dial with click stops for each available iso rating was an "outright design blunder", but now are tied into an auto iso or not thrashing.

The way I see that part is that auto iso is quite simply one of many different forms of automatic exposure control selections offered in modern cameras. Many digital cameras have auto iso auto exposure, aperture preferred auto exposure, shutter preferred auto exposure, programmed auto exposure, "green" fully auto exposure control, scene or action biased auto exposure control modes and probably more. We are all free to use any one of these camera calculated automatic methods or fully manual control where we dictate all available adjustable items manually on our own based on our knowledge, a separate hand held light meter, or on the on-board light metering system included in the camera.

None of these systems is the wrong or right system for every person and every situation. So what's there to argue about really?

Just because I never use auto iso does not make it wrong for the next guy. It's just like I personally never use scene based auto exposure, programmed auto exposure, or full green box auto exposure but that does not make it a wrong choice for someone else.

Bob A L said:

Not quite sure how we got here from originally discussing how a round dial with click stops for each available iso rating was an "outright design blunder", but now are tied into an auto iso or not thrashing.

Click to expand...

Well, I do. I said something similar above. Simply put, we got to here because the original post called the ISO dial an outright design blunder and the OP could find no usefulness in the ISO dial. No mention of auto-ISO or anything. Since the OP could find no usefulness in the dial he raised the question of whether others use the dial.

When responses came in that people used the dial to change the camera's ISO setting the OP then challenged the responders to explain coherently why they were changing ISO rather than just using auto-ISO.

Bob A L said:

The way I see that part is that auto iso is quite simply one of many different forms of automatic exposure control selections offered in modern cameras. Many digital cameras have auto iso auto exposure, aperture preferred auto exposure, shutter preferred auto exposure, programmed auto exposure, "green" fully auto exposure control, scene or action biased auto exposure control modes and probably more. We are all free to use any one of these camera calculated automatic methods or fully manual control where we dictate all available adjustable items manually on our own based on our knowledge, a separate hand held light meter, or on the on-board light metering system included in the camera.

None of these systems is the wrong or right system for every person and every situation. So what's there to argue about really?

Just because I never use auto iso does not make it wrong for the next guy. It's just like I personally never use scene based auto exposure, programmed auto exposure, or full green box auto exposure but that does not make it a wrong choice for someone else.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with everything you say here.

capanikon said:

FingerPainter said:

And you used matrix metering with no change in EC, right?

Click to expand...

Correct.

capanikon said:

Camera is behaving as expected.

Incident light on the side of the book facing the camera is about the same in both shots. Metering solution has changed because the two backgrounds are radically different.

Somebody spot metering the book wouldn't have this problem.

Not using Auto-ISO and recomposing can be an alternative to spot metering to set exposure when you have a backlighting window in the composition you want to use.

But how did you get thr exposure settings you used in the bottom row?

Click to expand...

I used the camera's built-in light meter to set the exposure.

Click to expand...

Right, And if you hadn't taken the first shot and only tried to meter and take the second shot, you would have had the same result as the Auto-ISO gave.

bobn2 said:

capanikon said:

Exif:



Auto ISO #1^^



Auto ISO #2^^



Manual ISO #1^^



Manual ISO #2^^

Shutter speed slightly different by 1/3 stop, my bad, 1/60th vs 1/50th. Doesn't affect the test though.

Click to expand...

What is happening there is very strange.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. He didn't meter the last shot.

He used matrix metering for the two with Auto ISO, and because of the window in the second one it gave a different meter reading.

For the two with a manual ISO, he took a matrix meter reading for the first shot, and then used the same settings for the second shot, relying on the fact that the incident light falling on our side of the book hadn't changed much.

bobn2 said:

According to the APEX system Av+Tv = Bv + Sv, where Av is aperture value, Tv is time value, Bv is brightness value, i.e. scene luminance and Sv is speed value, i.e. ISO. So, unless Nikon has made the meter measure a different way completely when you go into auto ISO there is no way that the same Av, Tv and measured Bv can result in a different Sv, whether or not the camera or the user is operating the ISO control. It comes down to the same thing. You adjust ISO until the meter is centred or the camera does it. The result should be exactly the same. I suspect you have some EC factored in, which isn't operating in M but does affect auto ISO.

bobn2 said:

Manual ISO isn't a joke. It's there for a reason.

Click to expand...

I've never had auto ISO behave remotely like that. It's predictable and behaves precisely as I would expect.

Click to expand...

While I agree that Nikon's Auto-ISO is reliable and predictable, I think the results we got with it are entirely what we should have expected. The matrix meter averaged out the light from the window with the light in the rest of the scene. That window light wasn't present in the first pic, so the book is naturally darker in the second one.

Bob A L said:

Bob A L said:

...

Click to expand...

The way I see that part is that auto iso is quite simply one of many different forms of automatic exposure control selections offered in modern cameras. Many digital cameras have auto iso auto exposure, aperture preferred auto exposure, shutter preferred auto exposure, programmed auto exposure, "green" fully auto exposure control, scene or action biased auto exposure control modes and probably more.

Click to expand...

I think you are right, and capanikon would have had the same results as the first row if he had run the test using a manually set ISO in A, S or P modes. The result is the natural result of using any autoexposure mode with that metering mode. As capanikon said, this is "meter failure". It is not Auto-ISO failure.

Bob A L said:

We are all free to use any one of these camera calculated automatic methods or fully manual control where we dictate all available adjustable items manually on our own based on our knowledge, a separate hand held light meter, or on the on-board light metering system included in the camera.

Click to expand...

Using any autoexposure mode is not the best strategy when the metering solution will change while the incident light is not changing, if you want to get consistent subject lightness in consecutive photos. That means avoiding any autoexposure mode, not just Auto-ISO.

Bob A L said:

None of these systems is the wrong or right system for every person and every situation.

Click to expand...

Right, One should pick the shooting mode and metering mode that match up best with the shooting situation.

Bob A L said:

So what's there to argue about really?

Click to expand...

Pinning the blame on Auto-ISO when it it a metering and auto-exposure problem.

Bob A L said:

...

Click to expand...

capanikon said:

Full manual control of shutter, aperture and ISO is the best way to use a camera.

Click to expand...

In some situations.

capanikon said:

It is intimidating to new photographers coz it takes a while to understand how shutter and aperture affect exposure, and how they relate to ISO and what shutter speeds are fast enough to freeze a particular activity. And what aperture is best for a given situation. And understanding equivalent exposures -- e.g. 1/125 @ f/8, 1/250 @ f/5.6, and 1/15 @ f/22. Those three are all the same exposure for a given ISO setting. But you'll get three different looks to the resulting image.

Once you get enough practice in full manual including manual ISO, you'll be fast at it.

Click to expand...

You'll never be as fast making three setting adjustments as you will making only two or one.

Full manual is great when the incident light doesn't change.

capanikon said:

So fast that autoexposure and auto ISO will lose its appeal.

Click to expand...

Well, that hasn't been the case for me. I mostly shoot action of various forms, and I rely on autoexposure most of the time because I don't have time to make three settings adjustments and still get the shot, The situations I shoot in often have changing incident light, changing DOF needs and changing motion blur control needs. They much less frequently have constant incident light with changing metering solutions, When they do, I switch to manual. If you are fast enough to change all three settings without missing your shots, I take my cap off to you.

capanikon said:

You'll never mess with exposure compensation -- you don't have to mess with EC in full manual mode.

Click to expand...

Nice responses FingerPainter. Yes it's not just an auto ISO issue, it would affect any AE mode as well even with manual ISO.

The solution is to use manual ISO with manual mode.

Or use AE mode with manual ISO with AE lock button held down after taking meter reading from the non-window shot.

Or AE mode with auto ISO with AE lock button held down after taking meter reading from the non-window shot.

Or AE mode with or without auto ISO with spot metering tied to a selected single AF point, and keeping that AF point atop the book (assuming the book or other subject in question isn't overly bright or dark, thus fooling the spot meter!)

Or using AE mode with or without auto ISO and mucking about with exposure compensation a bunch.

Or just use the dark photo with or without RAW and seeing if you can recover enough highlight and shadow detail in post to make the dark photo look good. Sometimes you can pull this off, and sometimes you cannot, just depends on the exposure and the dynamic range of the sensor, and how tolerant you are to noise, since the more you lighten shadow areas, the noisier they'll become. You might be able to fully recover highlights, or maybe just partial highlights. And you might be able to fully recover shadow area, or maybe just partial shadow recovery. Depends on the exposure, the DR, etc. It's super crucial to nail exposure.

Or you can use auto bracketing, or manual bracketing. Then select your favorite exposure in post.

Active D-lighting settings could be adjusted to improve results.

Or you could add lighting indoors to bring the indoor light intensity more in-line with the outdoor light intensity (using flash or some other lighting.)

There's probably other ways of dealing with the issue.

But I just go for manual exposure with manual ISO. I really find it to be the simplest, fastest way to work. AE and auto ISO and AE lock and "adjust my EC constantly" just trips me up and slows me down and I find it to be terribly counterproductive.

I do rarely use aperture-priority mode. I used it once for an outdoor tennis match on a very windy, partly cloudy day. So I'd have direct sunlight, and 30 seconds later have the sunlight blocked by a passing cloud, and then full sunlight again 20 seconds later. "A" mode perfect for this.

I don't care for S or P modes much. If i'm handing my camera off to a non-photographer for some reason (rare) I might put it on P mode so it's easy for them.

Finally, a lot of folks are crazy about noise performance. The want a camera with the least noise. But then they shoot auto ISO? In my test, my D3300 selected an ISO of 720. It could be much higher, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, etc if the user selects a "noisier" combination of shutter speed and aperture.

--

irc.libera.chat #photogeeks