Z fc folks: Do you use the ISO Dial?

thisisbenji said:

Old Ed said:

Hi,

I enjoy my Z fc a lot, and I'd buy it again for sure.

However, it does have issues. One is the ISO dial, which seems like an outright design blunder.

Yes, it's pretty. But beauty is as beauty does, and I've found no useful application for it.
If you've found a useful application for yours, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Happy shooting,

OE

Click to expand...

What an odd statement, ISO is part of the exposure triangle.

Click to expand...

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

thisisbenji said:

Of course it’s extremely useful to have the dial on the body.

Click to expand...

If is extremely useful to have some sort of control that allows one to adjust ISO oneself, if one is somebody who wants to adjust ISO. However, to somebody who is content to trust the camera to adjust the ISO setting, it is just a waste of space.

I don't know much about what which model looked like back then. In the days of these model Nikon's, I could not afford to even look at a Nikon SLR. I always drooled over them and wanted one so bad, but poor folks have poor ways. Back then I had a Kowa, a Pentax, a Fuji and finally managed to step clear up to a lowly at that time Canon FT. :-(

Hi,

It's a retro design. All cameras of that style sport ISO dials. You have to set the meter to the film speed. So there it is. Use it or not as you wish. Just like every other control.

The mode switch is useless to me. It would stay stuck in A mode. Might as well epoxy it there. It was the same with my FE way back in 1979. All those shutter speeds on a nice dial and I left it on Auto.

Heck, the ISO dial might as well have been glued too. I shot only Kodak TriX Pan 400 in those days. But, wait! I eventually changed film types later on. Good thing that I didn't glue the ISO dial.

And so it may be with every Zfc owner. They all may one day change their mind regarding Auto ISO.

Stan

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!

bobn2 said:

camerosity said:

And I also stay in control of my camera. Not sure why you implied using Auto ISO loses control of the camera. Very odd thought. When in doubt, a multi-exposure bracket can capture all the shadow and highlight values I need anyway if I'm wanting that result.

Click to expand...

Especially, as discussed elsewhere in thins thread, if you want to vary the ISO from how the camera has set it the EC control on a Nikon does that. Not all brands do, for some reason some auto ISO implementations don't allow EC.

Click to expand...

Not in response to you Bob, but I really don't get why people are so persistent in trying to convince others that auto-ISO and the EC compensation dial are somehow the best way to shoot. Explaining how to use it as if I (we) don't know how and if I (we) would just take the time to understand what they're saying I'd be a convert.

Just one example... If I'm outdoors shooting wildlife I know what my exposure is. I even know what ISO I want to set the camera to. If my subject is birds I will be pointing the camera in different directions and heights. My light on the subject is constant. But my camera can point level or down or it can point up. Sometimes I get a patch of sky in the picture. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm dealing with cloud patches. My exposure is set for the bird. Whether it's against grass or trees or sky, the light hitting the bird has not changed. I don't want my ISO changing because the camera has re-metered the scene. And guess what? I also don't want to have to be dealing with EC compensation as the bird changes backgrounds. Quite simple.

I've said multiple times in this thread that there are different ways to shoot and that it's great that the camera allows each of us the options to shoot how we feel the situation fits.

FingerPainter said:

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

Click to expand...

What utter nonsense lol.

thisisbenji said:

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

Click to expand...

EC only works at all coz there's ISO as a reference point from which to apply any EC adjustment.

thisisbenji said:

FingerPainter said:

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

Click to expand...

What utter nonsense lol.

Click to expand...

I would suggest reading up on some of the more recent articles on this topic before dismissing what was an accurate assessment of the outdated and misleading "exposure triangle".

FingerPainter said:

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

Click to expand...

The exposure triangle is a simple model and necessary to facilitate the correlation between a scene's brightness (exposure value or EV as your cameras light meter is built to function according too) and your ability to get a right exposure using your aperture and shutter speed.

You can't hold a fixed EV by two functions alone. You need that third function (ISO) to counter any change you make to one of the others.

You might find it artificial (it is man-made if that is what you mean), but it is not flawed. It works for the purpose it was contrived for.

HJVN said:

FingerPainter said:

The exposure triangle is an artificially contrived and fundamentally flawed conceptual model that tries to explain the effects of three camera settings and gets several things wrong and omits other important considerations. The existence of this broken model in no way supports the presence (or absence) of an ISO dial on a camera.

Click to expand...

The exposure triangle is a simple model and necessary

Click to expand...

It's neither a model, simple or necessary.

HJVN said:

to facilitate the correlation between a scene's brightness (exposure value or EV as your cameras light meter is built to function according too)

Click to expand...

That's not what 'EV' is. 'EV' is a log2 representation of the combined f-number and exposure time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value). Scene luminance is measured in lux.

HJVN said:

and your ability to get a right exposure using your aperture and shutter speed.

Click to expand...

What constitutes a 'right exposure'? The triangle never tells you that.

HJVN said:

You can't hold a fixed EV by two functions alone. You need that third function (ISO) to counter any change you make to one of the others.

Click to expand...

Typical of 'triangle thinking' and incorrect. The truth is that ISO is an exposure index. When you choose an ISO you are choosing the measured exposure at which the meter will centre. The meter reads the scene luminance. Exposure is determined by scene luminance and EV (combined shutter and aperture) so assuming that you can't change the scene luminance (don't have your own light) you end up adjusting the EV to achieve the measured exposure that you selected with the ISO.

HJVN said:

You might find it artificial (it is man-made if that is what you mean), but it is not flawed. It works for the purpose it was contrived for.

Click to expand...

He was right, it's deeply flawed and has resulted in a whole generation of photographers not understanding exposure since it appeared in the early 2000's. Before that no-one saw the necessity of an 'exposure triangle' and a lot more people understood exposure.

michaeladawson said:

bobn2 said:

camerosity said:

And I also stay in control of my camera. Not sure why you implied using Auto ISO loses control of the camera. Very odd thought. When in doubt, a multi-exposure bracket can capture all the shadow and highlight values I need anyway if I'm wanting that result.

Click to expand...

Especially, as discussed elsewhere in thins thread, if you want to vary the ISO from how the camera has set it the EC control on a Nikon does that. Not all brands do, for some reason some auto ISO implementations don't allow EC.

Click to expand...

Not in response to you Bob, but I really don't get why people are so persistent in trying to convince others that auto-ISO and the EC compensation dial are somehow the best way to shoot. Explaining how to use it as if I (we) don't know how and if I (we) would just take the time to understand what they're saying I'd be a convert.

Click to expand...

I for one think that how they shoot is for each individual to decide. I think the slightly evangelical approach to M with auto-ISO is simply because it gets unfairly disparaged due the the very common misunderstandings of what ISO is and what it does. People think that high ISO adds noise and letting the camera handle ISO will result in the camera adding noise that the photographer has no control of. Both things are untrue.

By and large I find that M with auto ISO gives me full time control over motion blur and DOF simultaneously, which I want, and a degree of responsiveness to changing light, which is convenient. It's not perfect but I find it the best option given that ISO isn't a primary control on cameras and the camera manufacturers don't seem to have figured out that ISO is unnecessary. I fully understand that other's views are different, but when people dismiss the mode for reasons that are false I'll comment.

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