A feature that really should exist on all dSLRs. [Rant]

[runnah]

A good example would be if you are a sports photographer, and your camera's auto-ISO feature assumes that you are shooting handheld still subjects. Thus, it will only crank up the ISO once shutter speed goes below 1/60th or something like that.

But if you're shooting fast moving things, you would want ISO to be bumped up if it falls below 1/500 or 1/1000th perhaps. The Canon 7D can't do that normally, for example, but it probably could with custom programmed firmware. This is not a feature that you would ever think about again, though, probably, after installing it. Thus, it improves your exposures for your usage case, but does not add complexity.

Why not just use the manual ISO setting?

 

[Gavjenks]

A good example would be if you are a sports photographer, and your camera's auto-ISO feature assumes that you are shooting handheld still subjects. Thus, it will only crank up the ISO once shutter speed goes below 1/60th or something like that.

But if you're shooting fast moving things, you would want ISO to be bumped up if it falls below 1/500 or 1/1000th perhaps. The Canon 7D can't do that normally, for example, but it probably could with custom programmed firmware. This is not a feature that you would ever think about again, though, probably, after installing it. Thus, it improves your exposures for your usage case, but does not add complexity.

Why not just use the manual ISO setting?

It's something you have to remember to do. And even if you always do remember, you have to actually do it, which takes time and a little bit of your concentration and can make you miss shots or get poorer compositions.

If you're shooting fast paced action, where just the right moment may be much more important than a tiny little bit of extra noise, then auto-ISO can make a significant difference (and you can set it to a maximum level, so it won't go behind your back and do ISO 12800 or something if you don't explicitly tell it to).

IMO, you shouldn't be setting any of your settings manually unless you have a good reason to believe that in your current situation, the camera is going to guess incorrectly with its auto functions.

 

[runnah]

IMO, you shouldn't be setting any of your settings manually unless you have a good reason to believe that in your current situation, the camera is going to guess incorrectly with its auto functions.

Stunned silence.

 

[Alex_B]

Stunned silence.

 

[Alex_B]

IMO, you shouldn't be setting any of your settings manually unless you have a good reason to believe that in your current situation, the camera is going to guess incorrectly with its auto functions.

Can you tell me what camera you are using? I wish I had a similar one. All cameras I tried, never actually could guess what I wanted the image to look like. So the cameras often made the wrong decisions and I switched to using at least some manual again ...

 

[runnah]

IMO, you shouldn't be setting any of your settings manually unless you have a good reason to believe that in your current situation, the camera is going to guess incorrectly with its auto functions.

Can you tell me what camera you are using? I wish I had a similar one. All cameras I tried, never actually could guess what I wanted the image to look like. So the cameras often made the wrong decisions and I switched to using at least some manual again ...

A magical camera that is only spoken about in hushed tones in the back corners of camera stores.

 

[Gavjenks]

Apparently none you guys read past the first clause of what I wrote. Did I say that I use full auto on my camera? No. Did I say you should? No. Here, I'll try again, with emphasis to make it easier:

IMO, you shouldn't be setting any of your settings manually unless you have a good reason to believe that in your current situation, the camera is going to guess incorrectly with its auto functions.

So the cameras often made the wrong decisions and I switched to using at least some manual again ...

So in other words: You encountered a good reason to believe that in your situations, the camera would probably guess certain things incorrectly, and so you started using those particular settings manually again.

Which means you did precisely what I just suggested people should do.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[Alex_B]

I'm glad we agree.

I never said there was disagreement on that level!

I am just amazed that you (seem to) be happy with what the camera usually suggests to you.

 

[Gavjenks]

I am just amazed that you (seem to) be happy with what the camera usually suggests to you.

Eh? I didn't say that I was... :scratch:

In fact, the whole point of this thread was that I am frustrated that my cameras' built in features are NOT well customized to my individual usage preferences. Thus, I wanted a way to reach in and recustomize them.



Let me try to rephrase this time:

A) IF your camera has an auto function that you expect to make the same decision that you would make, you should always use it.
B) IF your camera has an auto function that you expect to make the wrong decision according to you, then you should not use it.

^ That's all I'm saying. That people shouldn't be manually setting things IF AND WHEN their camera has an auto function that would make the same decisions as them, because to do so wastes time and concentration. And I'm rather baffled why people would take issue with it. It seems like basic, uncontroversial common sense to me.

 

[runnah]

Apparently none you guys read past the first clause of what I wrote. Did I say that I use full auto on my camera? No. Did I say you should? No. Here, I'll try again, with emphasis to make it easier:

So in other words: You encountered a good reason to believe that in your situations, the camera would probably guess certain things incorrectly, and so you started using those particular settings manually again.

Which means you did precisely what I just suggested people should do.

I'm glad we agree.

When shooting most advanced users have a precise idea of what they are looking to get from the shot and adjust accordingly. The camera guesses what you want based on programming.

 

[jwbryson1]

Holy heck long thread poster! My attention span isn't that long.

It's the "blond" hair.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Nikon Software Development Kit (SDK).

Apparently, the folks who make Magic Lantern, DSLR Controller, and the variety of Android and iApps that take advantage of being able to control, monitor or transfer data to and from our cameras, and so forth, aren't having much trouble getting the info they need to make that possible.

And DigiCamControl as well.

And Lightroom tethered as well as the software that came with your Canon camera

 

[480sparky]

And Lightroom tethered as well as the software that came with your Canon camera

I have a Canon camera? Oh, the shame of it all!

 

[Gavjenks]

Apparently none you guys read past the first clause of what I wrote. Did I say that I use full auto on my camera? No. Did I say you should? No. Here, I'll try again, with emphasis to make it easier:

So in other words: You encountered a good reason to believe that in your situations, the camera would probably guess certain things incorrectly, and so you started using those particular settings manually again.

Which means you did precisely what I just suggested people should do.

I'm glad we agree.

When shooting most advanced users have a precise idea of what they are looking to get from the shot and adjust accordingly. The camera guesses what you want based on programming.

Yes, but not every variable is RELEVANT to the precise vision of the shot you have in your head, in some situations.
What does a sports photographer care whether the shot was at 1/1000th of a second or 1/2000th of a second, as long as there is no motion blur?
What does he care if it's ISO 100 or 400, if he is using a modern full frame camera, and neither is going to show visible noise at his final print size?

He doesn't care, and thus it would be a waste of time for him to manually shuffle between 1/1000th or 1/2000th or ISO 100, 200, 400. The auto math system would do better, as long as it is constrained within the range of values that don't matter for this particular shooting situation.

Similarly, if auto focus is precise enough to focus on what you intended it to focus on, then it would be a waste of time to use manual focus ANYWAY, because it wouldn't do anything to help you better accomplish your vision for the shot.

In fact, spending your time doing either of these things, if they are unnecessary, would actively hurt your photography, because you would be more likely to miss shots while fumbling.



You're right that the camer guesses based on generic programming. But whenever generic programming is expected to match your own decisions (which is predictable as to when it will), then the programming is better, because it's faster than you.

 

[HughGuessWho]

And Lightroom tethered as well as the software that came with your Canon camera

I have a Canon camera? Oh, the shame of it all!

Well, not YOU, of course.