Want a better understanding of ISO?

[denada]

ok, i'm adjusting iso (or letting my camera do so automatically) to be compatible with my exposure. as opposed to adjusting the exposure by adjusting the iso. i still think/hope i understand the practical implications despite my prior misuse of "exposure."

 

[Ysarex]

Our modern sensors are amazing. If you need to underexpose one by 5 stops to get the shot do it! Most exciting advancement in shooting I've seen in 40 years is modern AF applied to sports and wildlife which works best when you put the camera on auto ISO and get the shot!

THAT is an amazing statement, and one I totally agree with, 100%. The newest d-slrs have amazing AUTO-ISO implementations, far, far, far better than what we had in the D200 and D2x generation back in 2005. At that time AUTO-ISO was sucky, and sensor performance was often not very good above the base ISO level, and 99% of all digital cameras had an APS-C or smaller sensor in them. Cameras are different these days, but there seems to be a lot of people who are unaware of how ISO is now no longer a hugely limiting factor. I'm glad we have Ysarex here to explain that AUTO-ISO use is now a viable, productive technique.

About a year ago, I had a disagreement with the leader of a photo Meetup group. He asked me why I would ever let the camera ,"Choose my ISO for me?" I told him that the f/stop and shutter speed settings I had selected in Manual exposure mode with AUTO-ISO were more critical to the success of the shoot than the exact, specific ISO value was. Specifically, f/5.6 for depth of field, and 1/1250 for safety margin at the ocean beaches during gusty 15- to 20 MPH winds with an 80-200 non-stabilized AF zoom. Medium f/stop and a shtter speed of 6x over maximum focal length, minimum, for wind-shake elimination.

Him, being the owner of ONLY old-tech digitial, could simply not understand that a much newer full-frame Nikon would perform so,so differently than his D70, a camera from 2004. At one time, ISO was a huge, limiting, ever-present boogeyman for d-slrs.

Thanks, appreciate that.

I recently upgraded my camera to the new Fuji X-T2. Knowing me a lot of testing then took place. Here's a test shot using ISO 12.8K. That's a 6 stop underexposure of the sensor! You and I both know what happened to film with 6 stops underexposure. I processed the raw file and applied light noise filtering. Here's the full-res image: ISO 12.8K X-T2

That is absolutely a usable image. The color is excellent, detail is good and the noise is more than acceptable. And it's an APS sensor! Compared to ten years ago that's jaw-dropping.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Yes, JAW-dropping. Recently, I looked at some wedding pics I shot back in 2004. The technical image quality in marginal lighting was so much worse than what we have today. Digital sensor technology has advanced markedly since the early days of digital imaging. I've grown weary of constantly hearing and reading that, "Use the lowest ISO possible," mantra.

 

[denada]

^i use a nikon d50, which i believe is mid-2000s, for work and the iso setting is very impactful concerning image quality. i still use the max of 1600 often, and have printed those images on brochures with no issue due to the small image size needed for most collateral.

 

[Mysecutage]

Useful information, thanks!

 

[intentanalyst]

What is the best ISO for your DSLR for astrophotography?

Check out some pros and cons in their website so you can see the difference.