Whats up with ISO buttons?

Nikon and Olympus, both camera companies with years of experience, seem to think I don't need direct access to ISO anymore.

WTF?
On the new Nikons you don't need ISO any more, yet alone access to ISO, still, I know what you mean.
After shutter speed, aperture and EV comp, this is the setting I am most likely to need to change. How come on the new Oly, I can't even make it an option for F1 and F2 whereas on the D5100 I have to reprogram another button that I have to fumble around for on the front of the camera.
The problem is that people are so buried in the film age UI that they haven't realised that ISO is the one you should be using to change output image brightness, not the aperture or shutter.
What?
Still, at least there's a workable Auto ISO, which can probably do teh job faster than you can.
Instead I get stuff I hardly ever change like flash settings, or AF points. For that matter, who needs a mode dial anymore (how often does one actually change modes?).

But I change ISO all the time.

At least Pentax seem to understand that ISO is now simply a third exposure parameter.
It's not a third exposure parameter. Exposure is simply the density of light times time at the sensor, and ISO doesn't change that. What it is is the right way to change output image brightness if you're using in-camera processing.
Why have Olympus and Nikon forgotten that?
Because it wasn't ever true. It's an idea that also has its roots in misinformed ideas about what exposure was from people used to lab processed film.
If I had a choice now for a large sensor compact camera it would have to be a G3. Here we have a non-camera company that makes a better user interface than two old camera companies.
Maybe because they don't have ideas rooted in the film days.

--
Bob
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Define 'nailed'. Focus, motion blur, framing, timing? Or blown highlights? Or noise in the important areas?
My choice, surely.
Do you mean with that all of the above or only the last item? (I would guess all.)
This is exactly as I do, except that I adjust the 'ISO' and thus 'brightness' in post. Of course with my Nikon D3, the camera is only ISO-less from about ISO 1600 on, so that tends to be my base setting.
What if I am working between ISO200 and 800?
ISO 200 is base ISO, so of course if there is enough light, I stick to base ISO and let the shutter speed fall where it may. But if things are borderline, I might switch to ISO 400 and 800, but again let the shutterspeed fall where it may (ie, I watch shutterspeed and adjust ISO). Once I need ISO 1600, I switch to manual, verifying first that I do not blow any highlights with my target f-stop and shutterspeed but also watching the exposure meter to compromise shutterspeed and aperture if it gets too negative.

Alternatively, I could use auto-ISO (set to ISO 200 as base, ISO 1600 as max) and shutterspeed to my minimum criteria for the area between ISO 200 and 1600. But I find switching this on and off (and changing the shutterspeed criteria) to cumbersome compared to switching between aperture priority and manual and changing the ISO.
Even if the picture is a tad darker on the camera display (compared to me adjusting the ISO, let's say between 1600 and 6400), I can still easily check focus, motion blur, framing, and timing. And blown highlights (within the limits of UniWB accuracies). And I can judge noise by proxy of how dark the image appears.
Really?
Yes, and even with an adjusted ISO, you would find judging noise on such a small display very inaccurate. And if you are at your aperture and shutterspeed limit, there is nothing you can do about noise anymore anyway.
 
This is a very interesting discussion. Having grown up in the film era, I too have a problem abandoning ISO as one of the anchors of the exposure triangle. I do understand the difference in sensitivity and gain, but I struggle a little with practical application of the "isoless paradigm". Let me try a couple of scenarios, and perhaps it might help to clarify it for me and others.
OK, the point with 'ISOless' is to chose the settings of the aperture and shutter to give the maximum exposure that your pictorial constraints will stand. The constraints are generally:
For the aperture-
  • The DOF you want
  • sometimes you set the aperture to the 'optimum resolution' setting.
For the shutter speed -
The motion blur you can tolerate/want to use creatively in your picture.
For the overall exposure (scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed)
  • not saturating the sensor and thus blowing the highlights.
Subject to those things you always get least noise in the image by using the largest exposure you can stand. You never want to back away from that for the spurious purpose of finding a 'correct exposure'.

Now, if you really want to be cute about it, with some cameras you can get lower shadow noise (read noise) by setting the highest 'gain' based ISO you can set for'a given exposure without blowing the highlights. Note carefully here that we are using the ISO purely as a gain control, not as a determinant of target exposure.
Scenario 1 : Ambient light remains stable. Subjects may have different reflectivity. To avoid possible confusion to an internal meter, I check ambient light with a handheld meter, and for a given film sensitivity, I manually set shutter and aperture after making mental correction for film characteristics.
That is 'film method', agreed.
If I carry over my experience from the film world into the digital world, I will subordinate the ISO to a minimum desired shutter speed and my selected aperture, with a tendency to minimize ISO if possible.

Question : How does this change in the isoless world? What is the best iso to select? Why?
The main point is you set ISO after selecting your exposure parameters, if at all. So in the ISOless world you decide on the aperture you want (DOF or maximum resolution) and the shutter speed (motion blur). Then you meter. Now, if the meter is set to base ISO and shows the picture to be over exposed, you compromise either the DOF or shutter, usually the shutter, since a shorter shutter will generally give a pictorially equivalent result and less motion blur. Of course, if you were particularly trying for motion blue, you's dial in more DOF, or if you wanted both the motion blur and shallow DOF, you'd fit a ND filter. The other cases depend on whether your camera is or is not ISOless.
  • With an ISOless camera, you just shoot, unless the meter shows the exposure to be so low that you feel the need to compromise some of your pictorial constraints, when you choose which of DOF or motion blur you're going to compromise, and dial in more exposure.
  • With an ISOful camera, you need to change the ISO to minimise read noise. Essentially, you are trying to set the ISO as high as possible without losing the highlights, essentially similar to 'ETTR'. If the ISO goes over some limit (indicating a lower than acceptable exposure, and thus unacceptable noise) then again you need to compromise your pictorial constraints.
Scenario 2 : Subject stable in terms of reflectivity, but light changes, and I have no ability to measure ahead of time. I set either shutter or aperture and depend on my camera to set the other for a given film sensitivity.
Exactly the same
Question : Dow does this change in the isoless world? What is the best iso to select? Why?
As I said, with an ISOless camera, you leave it on base ISO, with an ISOful camera, you put the ISO as high as you can, keeping the same exposure and avoiding clipping the highlights. Nikon's auto ISO function provides a way of doing exactly this, although a little unintuitively.
  • Put it in Auto-ISO, you'd have thought 'M', but no, you set it to A.
  • Set the minimum shutter speed to the shutter speed you have selected according to your pictorial constraints.
  • Set the maximum ISO to the reflect the noise level at which you want to start compromising your motion blur constraint.
  • Set the aperture to your selected aperture.
Now, if the exposure is too large for base ISO, then the camera will start reducing the shutter speed. If it is smaller than optimum for base ISO it will start to raise the ISO, but keep to your selected aperture and shutter speed. If the noise becomes unacceptable, it will start to extend the shutter speed.

The point abot this is you will always have the maximum exposure subject to your pictorial constraints, whereas if you set an ISO and then adjust exposure to be correct, sometimes you'll find yourself selecting an exposure smaller than you could have had.
Great, but missing one crucial point. Auto ISO will raise ISO based on the cameras metered assessment of the scene, which may well mean it will allow highlights to blow out. In other words, I am no longer manually in control of exposure which completely contradicts your theory.

When I am shooting a gig, I am most concerned with getting the correct exposure on the performers, not the rest of the scene. As the performers move about on a lit stage the overall metered exposure of the scene can change wildly but the correct exposure for the performer will stay much more (though not completely) constant. This small error I can correct for in a RAW shot. I cannot correct for a performers face that is completely blown out in one shot and 6EV underexposed relative to one of the stage lights in the next one.
--
Regards,
Steve
 
The problem is that people are so buried in the film age UI that they haven't realised that ISO is the one you should be using to change output image brightness, not the aperture or shutter.
What?
The problem is that people are so buried in the film age UI that they haven't realised that ISO is the one you should be using to change output image brightness, not the aperture or shutter.
--
Bob
 
Great, but missing one crucial point. Auto ISO will raise ISO based on the cameras metered assessment of the scene, which may well mean it will allow highlights to blow out. In other words, I am no longer manually in control of exposure which completely contradicts your theory.
You are as manually in control of exposure as you ever are when you don't have control of the light. However, I guess that you don't mean exactly what you said, I'd guess what you meant is that you are no longer in control of output image tonality. Of course, if you're shooting raw, you still have control of that. What you don't have absolute control of is whether you blow the highlights or not. That doesn't contradict my theory any more than it contradicts anyone else's theory, it just says that exposure meters don't cover all the bases, and they don't. My geuss is, if you're really concerned about the highlights, you'd dial in a little EC to keep the ISO a bit lower than you would want to for optimum noise.
When I am shooting a gig, I am most concerned with getting the correct exposure on the performers, not the rest of the scene. As the performers move about on a lit stage the overall metered exposure of the scene can change wildly but the correct exposure for the performer will stay much more (though not completely) constant. This small error I can correct for in a RAW shot. I cannot correct for a performers face that is completely blown out in one shot and 6EV underexposed relative to one of the stage lights in the next one.
You ware right, the advice not to blow the highlights needs to be tempered with an understanding that there are occasionally situations where you want to blow the highlights (like if you had the sun in shot). As ever, a little expertise as to the use of the meter is required once you get past a certain point, and looking at the blinkies occasionally is a useful exercise.
--
Bob
 
do you really know how these work? Mechanically the gearboxes on top rally cars and F1 cars are exactly the same as fully auto dual clutch transmissions, the only thing that stops them being fully auto is the software, and it does that because fully auto gearboxes are banned like other driver aids, launch control, traction control and so on.
Those are now banned, but some of them were allowed in the past. Have auto gearboxes always been banned or is there some other reason they have not been tried in professional racing?
What you mean is you get more fun if you feel you are in control. You need to try a test with the gearbox in fully auto and semi-auto and see which you get better lap times with. It will be fully auto, because your attention is freed up for other aspects of car control, which is one reason why its banned.
That is almost certainly true with most amateur drivers, but if we talk about professionals such as F1 drivers, I think additional evidence would be needed.
 
I 100% disagree. It has absolutely nothing to do with being buried in the film age, it has to do with knowing about photography and how to use your camera to it's best effect. If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong. Anyone else (who is an experienced and long time photographer and hence camera user) have a view on this?
jules
The problem is that people are so buried in the film age UI that they haven't realised that ISO is the one you should be using to change output image brightness, not the aperture or shutter.
What?
The problem is that people are so buried in the film age UI that they haven't realised that ISO is the one you should be using to change output image brightness, not the aperture or shutter.
--
Bob
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Any one who wants the best quality image from their camera will shoot at native ISO. You can change ISO for many reasons (and should) but altering it from this is at a cost and will give you a worse quality image. If you don't like noise that is.
Jules
Nikon and Olympus, both camera companies with years of experience, seem to think I don't need direct access to ISO anymore.

WTF?

After shutter speed, aperture and EV comp, this is the setting I am most likely to need to change. How come on the new Oly, I can't even make it an option for F1 and F2 whereas on the D5100 I have to reprogram another button that I have to fumble around for on the front of the camera.

Instead I get stuff I hardly ever change like flash settings, or AF points. For that matter, who needs a mode dial anymore (how often does one actually change modes?).

But I change ISO all the time.
I almost never change ISO on my Nikon DSLR, and I’m always changing AF points, and adjusting the flash parameters when using flash. If I suspect I’m going to need to increase ISO, I’ll enable Auto-ISO, set my minimum shutter speed, and be done with it. I used to make more use of the metering mode button, but I’ve since put spot on the Fn button so I can switch instantly and to indicate to me when I have AE Lock on.

So…Nikon’s button arrangement seem fine to me.

.
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Ithink the idea is that modern sensors do a better job at keeping DR up and noise down at higher ISOs so direct access is (relatively) unimportant.
Not if you are serious about the quality of your printed images. If you shoot to share with friends on the internet then nothing really matters.
In Pentax land we have TAv mode which fixes shutter and aperture values and lets ISO float between menu specified values.
Just like a racing driver might have the opportunity of an automatic gearbox. He/she would use one though.
I change AF point all the time and use M, Av and TAv modes frequently, and Tv sometimes. Flash settings change sometimes, but I don't do a lot of studio flash, mostly outdoor fill in or ring flash for macro. I do change ISO a lot if in M or Av, so direct acces is good for me, so I do agree with you, however, entry level DSLRs tend to hide functions that might confuse less experienced users, so its no suprise to lose the ISO button.
--
Everything changes
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
I don't mean they are confused by it, just not something they particularly worry about. As I said, I want easy access to iso on my main camera, but if you are upgrading from a point and shoot, I'm not sure that people pay too much attention to ISO.
Perhaps you'd be so kind to speak for yourself and not people ! You are certainly not speaking for me.
As an ex film shooter who used to push process to get high ISO when needed, tha ability to change ISO from shot to shot is incredible. Not sure that people bought up on digital fully aprrecciate how useful this is, but maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon :)
--
Everything changes
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
You are correct. Every camera has something called it's native ISO. It is usually the slowest ISO, but not always. Consult your handbook.
A long-time slide film shooter, I find that that background has meant that I don't feel a need to change ISO settings on a digital camera. The flexibility of changing ISO from shot to shot seemed exciting, but I've found that the cameras I've owned so far all seem to have one ISO setting that gives me the best balance of noise, dynamic range, color accuracy, etc. In practice, once I find a camera's optimal ISO setting, I don't think about changing it any more than I think about trying to change Fuji Astia's ISO 100 rating, I just work within its limitations.
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Quite, using the ISO, knowing what it does is the way to use it.
I agree that I will always use the lowest ISO possible as, with my fairly old K20D, iso above 1000 is not pretty. However, I often shoot moving subjects, so shutter speed needs to be higher than just 1/focal length, aperture is limited by the lens, not all of my lenses are speed demons, So ISO becomes a useful variable: For instance a few days ago I was taking some linseide railway shots - moving is not an option as I was "trackside"; one shot was in deep shade, the other in sun, changing ISO whilst keeping aperture shutter speed constant was the ideal solution.
--
Everything changes
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
Hello,

What's the point of manually changing ISO when Auto ISO does it for you ?

Aperture is important for DOF control,
Shutter speed is important for non-stab lenses (1/FL) or fast moving subjetcs.
Then you want the lowest possible ISO. And that's exactly what Auto ISO does.
How does it handle landscape photography using a tripod? Does it know when you are using a tripod? I doubt it.
On my Sony NEX, Auto ISO does an even better job than I can do. Because Auto ISO is able to select semi value (250,320,500,640,...) while manual ISO only allows me to select full stop ISO (200,400,800,...).

Don't you always want the lowest possible ISO according to your Aperture and Shutter speed settings ?
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Vibeke Dahl on Twitter is..
https://twitter.com/DahlPhotography
 
I 100% disagree. It has absolutely nothing to do with being buried in the film age, it has to do with knowing about photography and how to use your camera to it's best effect. If you think that ISO is the first, and best method to change output image brightness I will categorically state that you are wrong. Anyone else (who is an experienced and long time photographer and hence camera user) have a view on this?
jules
Yes, Bobn2 is right. Note that he is referring to ISO to control output image brightness NOT exposure..
--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..
 
Any one who wants the best quality image from their camera will shoot at native ISO. You can change ISO for many reasons (and should) but altering it from this is at a cost and will give you a worse quality image. If you don't like noise that is.
Jules
Yes, and when the base ISO with your maximum preferred exposure settings (aperture and shutter time) result in an image that is too dark - what do you do??

--
The sky is blue and there is nothing we can do..
 
Any one who wants the best quality image from their camera will shoot at native ISO. You can change ISO for many reasons (and should) but altering it from this is at a cost and will give you a worse quality image. If you don't like noise that is.
Jules
Yes, and when the base ISO with your maximum preferred exposure settings (aperture and shutter time) result in an image that is too dark - what do you do??
Use flash.

.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top