Why most cameras as default, forcing you to press a button for changing ISO via dial?

[mahidoes]

Most people and even camera manufactures might jump and answer it like below
So you won't accidently change it

But you could change shutter speed as well as aperture also accidently which will mess the exposure in same way. Why camera manufactures allow to change them directly but not ISO.

I shoot 98% of the time manual mode now because I use EVF not OVF. I decide what shutter and What aperture i want for the session. Because other than exposure these two can mostly affect the feel of the image as they also adjust DOF and control motion. But ISO only affect the noise along with light level.

So when light go down or up I want to adjust ISO first. But by default most camera ask you to press a button first. Even if you could assign it to a dial still I'll have an unused button most of the time i can't assign to some thing else.
I really like the ISO dial in Fuji.

Fuji ISO dial

But even Fuji for low end camera like X-T20 I use they require you to press a button before hand. The newer X-S10 they have a dedicated ISO button. Doh.

I think the idea of changing ISO less often come from Film Era in my opinion. You put a film then you only have Shutter and Aperture to play with.

Now considering we have EVF (so manual shooting coming very often even with beginners) and we no longer insert films in digital cameras. I think changing ISO should be given same priority as Shutter and Aperture.
I would even love a mode dial position for Auto ISO. Because that would be the best mode to shoot with. But sadly in all cameras that is burred under menus.

--
If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 

[nicodimus22]

cameras prioritize allowing photographers ease and immediacy of elllllllxposure and creative control. It just makes sense that shutter speed & f-stop are controllable via dials using the right thumb and index finger.

I turn a dial on the camera to change shutter speed

Yes.

and turn a ring on the lens to control aperture.

No. Most (maybe all?) modern lenses are gelded,

Isn't that just the Nikon G series ?

meaning there is no physical aperture control on the lens. The rings on the lens are for focus and zoom (or just 1 focus ring for primes.)

I don't think so. It's not on any of the E series lenses either, and I have never seen a lens of any brand with 3 rings (focus, zoom, and aperture.)

Sorry, it’s a K** R*** joke, he said that the G stands for Gelded. I was using a lens with three rings today, the Nikon 28-85 AF ( here’s Ken’s review - https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2885af.htm ) according to Grays of Westminster the G stands for Genesis ( https://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/glossary/af-d_and_af-g_lens.php )

It's not a modern lens, though. It came out in 1986.

Nikon still make lenses with f/stop rings, e.g. https://www.nikon.co.uk/en_GB/produ.../fx/single-focal-length/af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-8d, optically they’re pretty much the same as the G versions although then tend to focus more slowly (because of the mechanics of how focussing is implemented). But if you’re not too bothered about focussing speed you can save some money as they’re much cheaper new than the G version.

That lens came out in 2002, though. I don't consider it to be modern. Technology ages like milk. 19 years old is not a modern design IMO.

I would say the absolute oldest design for tech to be modern is to be released in the last 10 years, but for most things it's more like being released within the last 5 years. That's not to say you can't still get good results with older products, though. So much of it is the artistry, not the tool.

--
http://www.naturecratephoto.com
http://www.etsy.com/shop/NatureCratePhoto
https://www.etsy.com/shop/TarantulaFocused

 

[Photodog2]

What I would prefer is for the camera manufacturers to allow an alternate control mode, not based around the film metaphor - designed for digital, as it were. ISO in its present form wouldn't be a part of that at all.

Care to elaborate on that? How would a control mode designed for digital be like?

 

[Frodro100]

One of my favorite things about Canon’s latest mirrorless cameras is the plethora of command dials. The R6 has four, including the one on the lens. The M6II has three. Plenty to assign one to control ISO at all times.

 

[bobn2]

What I would prefer is for the camera manufacturers to allow an alternate control mode, not based around the film metaphor - designed for digital, as it were. ISO in its present form wouldn't be a part of that at all.

Care to elaborate on that? How would a control mode designed for digital be like?

This has been discussed at length many times, way back - for instance, this thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36912461

This post puts forward the basics

Changing the paradigm

This is the paradigm we are talking about, at the exception that ISO will be stored as a metadata and the shot still taken at ISO100 (and not at ISO2500). Hi Pierre, If the ISO were in fact stored as metadata, then yes, we would be in this new paradigm. But it is not stored as metadata, so I...

www.dpreview.com

 

[strawbale]

What I would prefer is for the camera manufacturers to allow an alternate control mode, not based around the film metaphor - designed for digital, as it were. ISO in its present form wouldn't be a part of that at all.

Care to elaborate on that? How would a control mode designed for digital be like?

This has been discussed at length many times, way back - for instance, this thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36912461

This post puts forward the basics

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36926074

Damn, I read your additional link only after having read the whole thread (of the first link) ;-)

10+ years on from the D7000, still no alternate control mode :-(

M plus Auto-iso (+EC) the next-best option for the moment then?

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

Thank you!

 

[Richard B99]

I see where you are coming from and I do suspect there is a bit of a hangover from the film era. But I do also think ISO is fundamentally different from shutter and aperture.

Back in the film days the ISO setting had absolutely no effect on the image at all. All it did was alter the metering centre point (sensitivity reading) to compensate for the film sensitivity. Shutter and Aperture change the exposure (amount of light captured.

Today, it is a bit different. Shutter and Aperture are still the only controls that effect the exposure. ISO does still alter the meter sensitivity but, now, it also dynamically affects the sensitivity (i.e. amplification of) the sensor. So we have effectively a per image ability to alter the absolute quality of the image rather than a per film ability. Bottom line whether electronic or chemical, it changes the nature of the image in terms of noise or grain.

Does that matter much in the context of dials and buttons? Well maybe a little bit. Shutter and Aperture are still the creative controls. ISO is secondary in that it just allows you to capture the image in given light conditions by amplification.

I’m happy to have that secondary control a bit more fixed as I like to know the baseline parameter I’m working with and I’ll change as and when needed. I always like to use the lowest possible ISO just because I want best image quality. I don’t see it as an integral part of the exposure. But that’s just me I don’t need another dial for that.

 

[spider-mario]

I always like to use the lowest possible ISO just because I want best image quality. I don’t see it as an integral part of the exposure.

You are right, it is not. However, if you want the best possible image quality, then after maximizing the exposure within your constraints on DOF, motion blur and camera saturation, what you want is the highest ISO setting that still doesn’t clip highlights that you care about. There are diminishing returns to doing this as you go higher and higher in ISO settings, though, so you may prefer a high enough setting to get most of the benefit without risking the highlights as much.

 

[spider-mario]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

 

[bobn2]

Today, it is a bit different. Shutter and Aperture are still the only controls that effect the exposure. ISO does still alter the meter sensitivity but, now, it also dynamically affects the sensitivity (i.e. amplification of) the sensor. So we have effectively a per image ability to alter the absolute quality of the image rather than a per film ability. Bottom line whether electronic or chemical, it changes the nature of the image in terms of noise or grain.

I think unfortunately you have been subject to much of the mistaken material that has been put out about what ISO is and what ISO does. 'Amplification' is nothing intrinsic to ISO. Most cameras couple a variable gain stage to the ISO control over a part of the ISO range (rarely over it all) but its consequences are incidental to what ISO does. The increase of gain does not change the sensitivity of the sensor, and it results in a reduction, not an increase in noise. The reduction in noise is only to the secondary noise source, read noise, and can be seen as fine tuning for an expected low exposure at high ISO settings. The major driver of noise is exposure (for same size sensors) with lower exposure causing a lower signal to noise ratio. The increased gain partially compensates.

I always like to use the lowest possible ISO just because I want best image quality. I don’t see it as an integral part of the exposure. But that’s just me I don’t need another dial for that.

You get highest image quality at low ISO precisely because you use a large exposure. So, whether you count that as an 'integral part of exposure', I don't know. What is true is thet ISO isn't a part of exposure, because both exposure and ISO have formal definitions which say that it isn't.

 

[strawbale]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

 

[Supisiche]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

No, it begins at 1000.

 

[spider-mario]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

I would say that being “ISO-less” is not really a binary thing, there is some tolerance involved. Here in particular, note that the curve expands to use the available space, and that the actual range is just from 3.1 from 2.4 e⁻, which is not that much.

Compare to a 60D from the same year for example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon EOS 60D_14,Nikon D7000_14

 

[strawbale]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

I would say that being “ISO-less” is not really a binary thing, there is some tolerance involved. Here in particular, note that the curve expands to use the available space, and that the actual range is just from 3.1 from 2.4 e⁻, which is not that much.

Compare to a 60D from the same year for example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon EOS 60D_14,Nikon D7000_14

OK, get the 'picture' - when adding the D7200 you see even lower read noise:

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

 

[Photodog2]

Thanks!

 

[bobn2]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

You have to look at the scale on the Y axis, which is variable, depending on the camera. With one camera it stretches whatever there is to a full graph's worth. You'll see that at 100 ISO the read noise is 3 electrons, and by 8000 it's dropped to 2.45 electrons. Half an electron is nothing at all worth bothering about. Put the D5 or D6 on the same graph and the D7000 goes flat.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Shadow Improvement of Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

The "Shadow Improvement" chart has the classic flat slope in a range where a camera is ISO invariant. Most consumer digital cameras of the last 5 years or so have an invariant range.

 

[Autonerd]

I think the idea of changing ISO less often come from Film Era in my opinion. You put a film then you only have Shutter and Aperture to play with.

I think you have it right. Looking at my old film cameras (and I have several), most have some sort of interlock that prevent you from accidentially changing ISO mid-roll, since you don't want to do that.

In my Sony, I can spin a dial or press-and-spin to change shutter speed and aperture, but to change ISO I have to go to another menu.

I hadn't thought about it much, but I think you have a good point. Since so many photographers lock into a particular shutter speed and aperture, then alter the ISO to get the image they want, it would make sense to make it just as accessible. With cameras returning to old film-look dials, it would make sense to have a dedicated ISO dial with an Auto position that could be turned as easily as the shutter speed dial. Only two potential problems, 1) lots of numbers to cram into one dial, and 2) how do you handle an "automatic within these limits" setting like I have on my Sony.

An interesting post/point.

Aaron

 

[strawbale]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

You have to look at the scale on the Y axis, which is variable, depending on the camera. With one camera it stretches whatever there is to a full graph's worth. You'll see that at 100 ISO the read noise is 3 electrons, and by 8000 it's dropped to 2.45 electrons. Half an electron is nothing at all worth bothering about. Put the D5 or D6 on the same graph and the D7000 goes flat.

Thanks!

 

[bobn2]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

I would say that being “ISO-less” is not really a binary thing, there is some tolerance involved. Here in particular, note that the curve expands to use the available space, and that the actual range is just from 3.1 from 2.4 e⁻, which is not that much.

Compare to a 60D from the same year for example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon EOS 60D_14,Nikon D7000_14

The thread I linked was right at the inception of ISOlessness, and we've learned a lot more since then, as have the camera manufacturers. There hasn't been a subsequent camera as ISOIess as the D7000, and mostly the read change voltage gain tweaks have become really really rather subtle (another reason what 'ISO' isn't 'gain') and dual conversion gain has been added. What's happened amongst observers is a greater realisation of what ISO actually is, repudiation of the incorrect 'gain' theory, and better understanding of how to manage exposure. It's that which produces the cognitive disconnect - for people still in the more common belief set, exposure management is all about getting the output image lightness as they want - for the others it is about maximising image quality - and since the parties often don't realise that the goals are different, they tend not to understand what is going on.

 

[strawbale]

PS: how/where could I find out which of the current generation of camera sensors can be seen/treated as ISO-less?

You can look at the input-referred read noise page from photonstophotos.net and see at which setting the chart for a given camera starts to be more or less flat. The camera is then considered to be “ISO-less” / “ISO-invariant” beyond that setting.

Thank you!

However, when I look up the D7000 that bobn2 referred to back in 2010 as ISO-less (see also the post just above mine), I don't see the flatness you mention below ISO 1000 ?

I would say that being “ISO-less” is not really a binary thing, there is some tolerance involved. Here in particular, note that the curve expands to use the available space, and that the actual range is just from 3.1 from 2.4 e⁻, which is not that much.

Compare to a 60D from the same year for example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon EOS 60D_14,Nikon D7000_14

The thread I linked was right at the inception of ISOlessness, and we've learned a lot more since then, as have the camera manufacturers. There hasn't been a subsequent camera as ISOIess as the D7000, and mostly the read change voltage gain tweaks have become really really rather subtle (another reason what 'ISO' isn't 'gain') and dual conversion gain has been added.

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

What about the D7200? More or less flat as well, but lower - is lower 'better' (and higher 'worse'?

What's happened amongst observers is a greater realisation of what ISO actually is, repudiation of the incorrect 'gain' theory, and better understanding of how to manage exposure. It's that which produces the cognitive disconnect - for people still in the more common belief set, exposure management is all about getting the output image lightness as they want - for the others it is about maximising image quality - and since the parties often don't realise that the goals are different, they tend not to understand what is going on.