# Auto ISO in manual = Shutter and Aperture priority.



## ORourkeK (Jul 7, 2014)

I took my D7100 to the zoo for my first actual outing with it. As soon as I got there I was messing with the settings to get the pictures how I wanted it. I was in manual mode, with my ISO set to auto, an aperture of 5.6, and shutter speed of 1/500. I then realized how truly awesome auto ISO is. It basically creates a "Shutter&Aperture" priority mode. Do most of you use auto ISO? What would be some examples of a time not to use it? The only thing I can think of is if your settings are set to a point where even a high ISO wont allow for enough lighting.


----------



## Pejacre (Jul 7, 2014)

Just started using it. Feels like cheating but damn, it makes life easy.


----------



## KmH (Jul 7, 2014)

I used auto ISO to shoot action sports, but if you use aperture priority be sure you keep an eye in the viewfinder what shutter speed the camera is choosing. To slow a shutter speed can cause subject motion/camera shake blurring.

If you use shutter priority you need to keep an eye on what lens aperture the camera is using _if DoF is a factor._


----------



## ORourkeK (Jul 7, 2014)

Pejacre said:


> Just started using it. Feels like cheating but damn, it makes life easy.



Haha it really does feel like cheating... I had to keep looking at the results of each shot to check and make sure the exposures were correct. I was amazed when they were consistently good. It makes me feel like I am in auto mode.


----------



## TWright33 (Jul 7, 2014)

The only thing auto I use is WB.

I can't change shutter speed, aperture, or ISO in post. 

I will always manipulate these manually.

I tell my camera what to do (for the most part)


----------



## ruifo (Jul 7, 2014)

I just used it a few times, with quite good results.
If in a hurry, yes, auto ISO is a great tool indeed for stills.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jul 7, 2014)

KmH said:


> I used auto ISO to shoot action sports, but if you use aperture priority be sure you keep an eye in the viewfinder what shutter speed the camera is choosing. To slow a shutter speed can cause subject motion/camera shake blurring.
> 
> If you use shutter priority you need to keep an eye on what lens aperture the camera is using _if DoF is a factor._



Since learning how amazing auto ISO is, what would be the point of even using aperture or shutter priority? You could just go into manual and set them BOTH to what you want. And this is truly a question. I can't think of a reason, but I am sure there is one.

EDIT: I do have to admit though, it makes me a little scared and uneasy relying on my camera to create a "proper" exposure. I am not sure I would be willing to use auto ISO on a high risk shot, but I feel like it is perfect for casual use.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I took my D7100 to the zoo for my first actual outing with it. As soon as I got there I was messing with the settings to get the pictures how I wanted it. I was in manual mode, with my ISO set to auto, an aperture of 5.6, and shutter speed of 1/500. I then realized how truly awesome auto ISO is. It basically creates a "Shutter&Aperture" priority mode. Do most of you use auto ISO? What would be some examples of a time not to use it? The only thing I can think of is if your settings are set to a point where even a high ISO wont allow for enough lighting.



I've been talking this up for the last month. For me, it has been a revolution, the way the newer Nikon cameras work in AUTO ISO in manual exposure mode. But there are a lot of fuddy-duddies who just cannot seem to grasp the idea that ISO 140 or ISO 160 isn't grossly inferior to ISO 100 or 200.

The newer Nikon cameras have AUTO ISO that works AMAZINGLY well--in MANUAL exposure mode!!! THat's the thing I think they're not actually "getting". You are the one who chooses the two critical parameters.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> And this is truly a question. I can't think of a reason, but I am sure there is one.



Since the light sensitivity of a digital camera sensor is physically fixed in manufacture and cannot otherwise be altered after the fact, look for your answer by finding out what really does happen in the camera when the ISO is changed either by you or by the camera software.

Taking a photo is an exercise in compromise. For every gain you make in one aspect make sure you understand what you just gave up in another. There's nothing wrong with making compromises -- the best photo is the result of the best compromise. The method of working that you're describing can be a good compromise choice as long as you've thought it all through.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Jul 7, 2014)

It's all in your methodology and what you're willing to compromise with.

if you're picking the shutter and aperture, it's for a specific reason and then you're saying: okay camera, use your meter and exposure based on my settings the best you can using only the ISO.  Any changes is light will only be handled by changes in the ISO.  This could easily ramp up to ISO 6,400 if it needed just 3 more stops of light at a base of 800.

But what happens if you're trying to shoot at say 1/250 on a bright day, and f/2.8, and a base of ISO 100...The camera is wont be able to auto-adjust down if the meter is saying you're over exposing shots.  And even if you decided to look at a histogram between shots, and then dial in any EV really fast, nothing would happen, you'd have to dial up the shutter speed or aperture on your own in order to remove more light.

at least if you were shooting just aperture priority it could be limited to 1/250 at the lowest shutter speed, and then it could ramp all the way up to 1/8000 if it had do while still keeping ISO 100 as a base first and foremost, only then sacrificing ISO in order to achieve the exposure.



To me, every shot is different. Last night I used auto-iso, shutter priority, and spot metering in order to shoot the hawk in my backyard.

I went with spot metering because I knew there'd be times where I might be shooting towards the sun, or with trees in the background that could influence the overall exposure.

I went with auto-iso for similar reasons.  I wanted to make sure that the hawk stayed exposed regardless of the on-the-fly changing lighting conditions.  I was using a lens with a 4.5-5.6, so if I needed more light, there wasn't going to be much on setting sun as far as aperture stops anyways and the ISO could ramp up.  But most of my shots were at 1/1000 f/5.6 and ISO 280, what happens if I was overexposing?  The Nikon will first adjust the aperture like normal, then move the ISO from the base.  So aperture is sacrificed first over "quality".

I went with shutter priority because it was most important that I stop motion/shake first and foremost.

...a few hours before that I was using manual mode and manual iso taking flash portraits.

...a week before that I was using aperture mode with auto-iso and taking indoor flash portraits.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I took my D7100 to the zoo for my first actual outing with it. As soon as I got there I was messing with the settings to get the pictures how I wanted it. I was in manual mode, with my ISO set to auto, an aperture of 5.6, and shutter speed of 1/500. I then realized how truly awesome auto ISO is. It basically creates a "Shutter&Aperture" priority mode. Do most of you use auto ISO? What would be some examples of a time not to use it? The only thing I can think of is if your settings are set to a point where even a high ISO wont allow for enough lighting.



I use it quite a bit - I shoot in shutter priority most of the time unless I really want a specific depth of field, in which case I switch over to Aperture priority.  I'll check the ISO real quick in the viewfinder, if it's really objectionable then I'll start making some adjustments but it's rare that I end up doing that, nice part is when I do I can just start bringing my shutter speed down a bit until I get something I can live with as far as a balance between ISO and the other settings I like.

I can also use it to keep my shutter speed at a certain point and adjust the ISO to get the aperture I like, makes controlling the 5200 with it's single command dial a real breeze.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jul 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> It's all in your methodology and what you're willing to compromise with.
> 
> if you're picking the shutter and aperture, it's for a specific reason and then you're saying: okay camera, use your meter and exposure based on my settings the best you can using only the ISO.  Any changes is light will only be handled by changes in the ISO.  This could easily ramp up to ISO 6,400 if it needed just 3 more stops of light at a base of 800.
> 
> ...



Cool, thanks for your explanation. I can definitely see where it could have its disadvantages now.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> Cool, thanks for your explanation. I can definitely see where it could have its disadvantages now.



that's why I try to go about each shot methodically.  I ask myself key questions first like: what's the desired DOF, shutter, etc. and go from there.


----------



## greybeard (Jul 7, 2014)

I use auto ISO with my 70-300 nikkor 4-5.6 non VR.  This is not a very good lens but as long as I stay above 1/500 and around f/8 I get descent images.  I set ISO to auto, shutter to 1/500 or above and the lens at f/8, point and shoot.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 7, 2014)

When I test drove a d7100 for a week I fell head over heels for auto Iso. First I turned it off. Then I was trying to catch birds in the backyard and kept getting frusterated when I would go in between tree shots and sky shots. I would be following the same bird and couldn't change exposure quick enough when it would fly away. I quickly set up auto Iso with my maxium acceptable limit and bam! Perfect exposure every time. It's so much more useful imho than sp or ap. 

Auto Iso is one of the biggest reasons that Nikon is my choice for next camera!


----------



## ruifo (Jul 7, 2014)

Don't forget that, at least in newer Nikon bodies, you can set an upper limit for your auto-ISO, according to your comfort level, to each specific situation, and it will never go beyond that limit. Depending how you do it, you may see some underexposed images sometimes, if you don't balance out with your aperture and your shutter speed. There's always a compromise, but it's a great feature to have anyhow, for the right situations.


----------



## cynicaster (Jul 7, 2014)

I was using shutter priority with auto-ISO just this weekend to get some action shots of a friend&#8217;s kids playing baseball.  I wanted to lock the shutter at 1/1000 to ensure frozen action, but I did not want to get caught fiddling with camera settings when something cool happened, so I switched on auto-ISO as a safety net.  Worked like a charm, and I was quite pleased with the results.  Obviously not all of the shots were keepers, but even the crappy throw-away shots were at least exposed properly.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 7, 2014)

I use Auto ISO all the time and use my exposure compensation as needed.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

KmH said:


> I used auto ISO to shoot action sports, but if you use aperture priority be sure you keep an eye in the viewfinder what shutter speed the camera is choosing. To slow a shutter speed can cause subject motion/camera shake blurring.



I think you must be referring to a camera made 12 or 13 years ago. The USER programs IN the desired minimum shutter speed. You're talking about the old, mostly useless typoe of Nikon AUTO ISO implementation. We're talking abiut the way it is done on "the NEW Nikons" and "Pentax" d-slr cameras. AUTO ISO in Nikon is not done the same way it used to be; it's now truly useful.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Don't forget that, at least in newer Nikon bodies, you can set an upper limit for your auto-ISO, according to your comfort level, to each specific situation, and it will never go beyond that limit. Depending how you do it, you may see some underexposed images sometimes, if you don't balance out with your aperture and your shutter speed. There's always a compromise, but it's a great feature to have anyhow, for the right situations.



Yet another example of now the NEWER Nikon cameras have *a different, improved AUTO ISO implementation* than what Nikon used to use. There's a persistent undertone of people who have not used the "NEW" Nikon's with their newer AUTO ISO system capabilities, and implying that a bit of an ISO boost is going to cause noticeable quality loss when shooting 12-bit uncompressed or 14-bit uncompressed RAW...you know, that the very BEST sensors in the world, the ones with the best dynamic range, and the best color depth, and the best low-noise/High-ISO performance, are going to cause noticeable picture quality loss. Uhhhh...welcome to 2014. It's no longer 2005. Or 2002.

I'll tell you one thing: if you have a NEW Nikon, with 24 to 36 megapixel capture size, you have so much dynamic range capability, and such deep color that you can throw away two stops' worth of either DR or color depth, and be in the same range as the "other" cameras can offer at their best...so...take the warning of those who have not tried the new Nikons and AUTO ISO with a grain of salt.

This is,again, NOT the auto ISO we had a few years back: this is an entirely better animal. Being used on the industry's BEST sensors, with the MOST shadow recovery potential, widest scene DR, and richest color. And you're capturing in 14- or 12-bit RAW...then making, eventually, 8-bit files for "actual use". The implementation is different, and the sensors are vastly better as well.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> It's all in your methodology and what you're willing to compromise with.
> 
> if you're picking the shutter and aperture, it's for a specific reason and then you're saying: okay camera, use your meter and exposure based on my settings the best you can using only the ISO.  Any changes is light will only be handled by changes in the ISO.  This could easily ramp up to ISO 6,400 if it needed just 3 more stops of light at a base of 800.
> 
> ...



I learned last week how nice Shutter Priority is ... trying to shoot scattered flying butterflies ..  I first tried manual .. instant changing lighting conditions in an inside building.  Then Aperture Priority .. shutter got way too low for those fluttering things.
Shutter priority was the only thing that made sense .. with AUTO ISO.

by then though they drove me batty with an excessive failure rate related to the non-linear flying patterns.
My camera needs a Butterfly mode.


----------



## hombredelmar (Jul 7, 2014)

Auto ISO works great for me !!!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 7, 2014)

Auto ISO is nice especially if you can tell the camera the minimum shutter speed on AV mode.  The one bad thing about Canon Auto ISO is that you cant have exposure compensation with M and auto ISO.

All that said... auto ISO is pretty much a semi automatic mode.  You are still telling the camera to set the exposure for you.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

FIRST time I used AUTO ISO was the first month I had my D3x. I had never shot skim boarders in my life. Late in the day, ocean sun very low, intense backlight. I KNEW that I ewanted to absolutely FREEZE as much water as I could, to get a true stop-motion effect. I also knew I wanted shallow depth of field, so I used my 85mm 1.8 G lens at f/2.2. As this kid went from right to left, the exposure shifted WILDLY, and i mean a loooong ways. I wanted to be able to shoot 5 frame per second sequences, and let the camera adjust, on the fly....but in EITHER S or A priority, my shutter would slow wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy down and then speed wayyyyyyyyyyyyy up,and then slow wayyyyy down depending on is he was 30 degrees north, in front of me, or off to the south of me. I knew that in Shutter priority, I would go from f/2.2 at the SUN-strip, and would literally "run out of range" when he was 20 degrees north or south of the sun-strip.

ANd to top it off, I really could not predict WHERE the best action would be...but I KNEW I wanted to be at f/2.2 and 1/8000 second, so I went to AUTO ISO. Gol' durn AUTO ISO gave me 140. Yup, ISO one-hunneert n forty...at the EXACT 1/8000 speed I wanted and at the exact shallow f/2.2 DOF I wanted to make sure the droplets were well-focused but the background dropped way out of focus,very fast. I made about 5 really great pictures out of 25 frames or so. Here's one as a B&W. This shot was literally made possible by AUTO ISO use in Manual mode.







[    _D3X8857_1400_screen-3.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]

THis is EXACTLY the kind of situation where I now think "Auto ISO, manual mode, *get it exactly the way I want it to look*, even as the light shifts a ridiculous amount in 1- to 2- seconds' time." ANy guesses on the degree of fall-off of the light as the sun-strip moves out of the frame and the silhouetted effect needs to be against less-intense light, which you can see at the side of the frame in the direction he will be headed in about .4 seconds?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 7, 2014)

You can have exposure compensation on the Nikon with M and auto ISO, right derrel?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> You can have exposure compensation on the Nikon with M and auto ISO, right derrel?



Yes, you can dial in + or - comp in Manual mode, and it will adjust the brightness up or down from the meter's reading, while moving the ISO to get the settings in synch with the lighting.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 7, 2014)

Yes nikon allows compensation in M and Canon only does bracketing on M which sucks.Why in the world would I need bracketing if I know what value I want to dial in.What a joke.I love my gear but should have stuck with nikon long ago.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 7, 2014)

Yeah.. Canon cant do that.  No exposure compensation in Manual Mode + Auto ISO.  It sucks.  Only on AV and TV you can have the compensation with auto iso.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

AUTO ISO in manual exposure mode with +/- comp option is an idea that Nikon STOLE directly from Pentax. Pentax was the ONLY company that offered this, and it was an actual, *on-the-top-deck-mode-dial exposure mode*. Pentax considered AUTO ISO in Manual to be an actual, separate,distinct *exposure mode*.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 7, 2014)

Birds in flight.  Will drive you nuts without it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 7, 2014)

Yup. More and more I think this is just a factor of the kind of things I shoot. I just don't shoot much that moves around really fast through drastically changing light.

So... ignore me.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> Pejacre said:
> 
> 
> > Feels like cheating





TWright33 said:


> The only thing auto I use is WB.
> I can't change shutter speed, aperture, or ISO in post.
> I will always manipulate these manually.
> I tell my camera what to do (for the most part)



Making pictures isn't some test of dexterity that the person with the fastest fingers wins.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 7, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Birds in flight.  Will drive you nuts without it.


They drive me nuts even with it..  lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 7, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> I never said I was trying to win. Are you trying to say I shouldn't learn how to operate my camera to the best of my ability?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I guess a lot for me depends on the shooting situation.  If I have the time to prep a shot, sure, I like being able to control all the variables.  A lot of times I just don't have that kind of time though, I have to be ready to shoot in variable lighting conditions and often find myself just having to grab the camera and fire - because a lot of my subjects can't be posed or told where to stand or what to do, so as a result auto iso has a lot of real world benefits to my style of photography.

If I were working in conditions where I had control of my lighting, my subject, etc - or a few moments to setup each shot, then I might not find it as useful as I do - but it has nothing to do with operating the camera to "the best of my ability", it has to do with adapting to each individual shooting situation and finding the most efficient solution.


----------



## coastalconn (Jul 7, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I took my D7100 to the zoo for my first actual outing with it. As soon as I got there I was messing with the settings to get the pictures how I wanted it. I was in manual mode, with my ISO set to auto, an aperture of 5.6, and shutter speed of 1/500. I then realized how truly awesome auto ISO is. It basically creates a "Shutter&Aperture" priority mode. Do most of you use auto ISO? What would be some examples of a time not to use it? The only thing I can think of is if your settings are set to a point where even a high ISO wont allow for enough lighting.


I use auto-ISO exclusively for my bird photography (which means 98%) of the time.  I shoot in manual and use EC to adjust ISO as needed based on metering/bird color.  It is invaluable for how I shoot.  I know where my lens is sharpest, I know what shutter speed I need.  If I'm shooting a stationary bird at 1/250th and it takes flight, my mind is programmed how many clicks on the thumb wheel to get to 1/1000th or more.  Shoot with Auto-ISO and enjoy it!


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 7, 2014)

@ techboy,I don't think anyone said that nikon has better Auto ISO but with nikon in manual with auto ISO you can set your shutter speed,aperture and adjust the exposure comp.For example with nikon you can set the shutter speed,aperture and then adjust the exposure comp in increments + or minus values. Canon you can not do this but only in bracketed shots.I want to hold the shutter with birds in flight maybe 7 frames of the same  value,I don't need or want a 3 or more shots bracketed of different exposure,this does nothing for me,except give me over,under and normal exposures. I might want 1/1600 @ f/8 and EV+1/3 but no can do in manual.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 7, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> This thread is giving weird advice at this point and kind if going south. Wish I would have just stayed out of it at this point.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I guess I'm a little confused as to what you find "weird" about the idea of using Auto-ISO.  For me it's pretty simple, there are a lot of times where I don't have the time to be adjusting aperture, shutter speed, and ISO all manually especially on my D5200 - which has a limited set of external controls which means I'd have to resort to accessing menus in many cases.

By using auto-iso I can select aperture priority and control the aperture, or shutter priority and control my shutter speed depending on whats more important to the shot, and then let the camera select the ISO and I'm ready to fire at a moments notice.  If I have the time and I want more control, I can alter the ISO to perfect the shot and even use it to manipulate the aperture if I'm in shutter priority or the shutter speed if I'm in aperture priority - so I have pretty much have the best of all worlds.  

I don't have to worry about setting it for proper exposure if I lack the time to do so prior to getting the shot I need, but I have the option of doing so if I have sufficient time and wish to use it to manipulate the aperture or shutter speed depending on what shooting mode I'm using.  I find it efficient.

If I were using a camera that had more external controls or found myself in shooting situations where I had plenty of time to setup or more control over various factors then I might not find it as useful, but for me it is an extremely useful feature to have.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2014)

DarkShadow said:


> @ techboy,I don't think anyone said that nikon has better Auto ISO but with nikon in manual with auto ISO you can set your shutter speed,aperture and adjust the exposure comp.For example with nikon you can set the shutter speed,aperture and then adjust the exposure comp in increments + or minus values. Canon you can't not do this but only bracketed shots.



Oh okay, fair enough


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2014)

An earlier, 2011 article on Auto ISO for Canon d-slr users is here: An In-depth Discussion of M + Auto-ISO for Canon SLRs: Digital Photography Review

A later, October 2013 min-update mentioned a few comments regarding the use of AUTO ISO in *Aperture-priority mode*:How to Use Av + Auto-ISO: Digital Photography Review

"Nikon is several steps ahead of Canon when it comes to Auto-ISO. You set a fixed MSSS (minimum safe shutter speed), or you can choose between five different rules. Under the slowest rule, the MSSS is 1/ (0.25 x FL); under the fastest rule, the MSSS is 1 / (4 x FL), with the three rules in between: 1 / (0.5 x FL), 1 / FL, and 1/ (2 x FL). So the photographer can choose the rule that suits his hand steadiness the best. Even more impressive is the fact that some Nikon DSLRs have User Mode which you can assign a different rule. For example on my D600, I have made U1 mode Av + Auto-ISO with MSSS being 1/ (2 x FL). Whenever I need someone else to take a picture for me, I set the camera to this mode, set the aperture, and I know that their untrained hand is not going to ruin the shot with shake blurs regardless which Focal Length they choose to use on my 24-85mm VR. On the other hand when I use Av mode myself, I stick to 1/FL."

There seems to be a misunderstanding that AUTO ISO use somehow automatically leads to "*High ISO*". That is in fact, not necessarily true, whatsoever. Besides, what is "High ISO? 400? 500? 640? 800? 1600? 3200? It depends on the camera's sensor, and the lighting conditions, and  the intended use of the image. The user sets the A)preferred ISO, as well as B)the ISO ceiling. The camera will use the preferred ISO value, and will only increase ISO up to the ceiling ISO, which is determined by the user, and the user's understanding of the situation and priorities. Ergo, AUTO ISO does not directly lead to "high ISO" values being used; the USER still has control, but no longer needs to constantly risk interrupted shooting and yo-yo'ing the settings to avoid compromising a fixed manual shutter speed and a specific f/stop preference when his ISO value is not high enough. Indoors under artificial, narrow-spectrum light at arenas and stadiums, HIGH ISO can look poor, but under full-spectrum daylight, higher ISO can look fine, especially in areas where there's a lot of fill light and limited shadows, like...over or near water. Like--*at the beach.*

One of THE biggest uses for AUTO ISO I think is when using slowish lenses like the 70-300 VR-G at places like the beach. Or, when using a camera aboard a boat in activities like saltwater salmon fishing, where the ISO levels are LOW on one side of the boat, but the brightness dropoff on the "shadow side" of the boat, looking down into green water, is simply HUGE. The conditions there demand a FAST shutter speed, to freeze movement from wind and waves, but you're pretty much desirous of a small f/stop to get depth of field over a wide distance range, and especially aboard the boat. Other people mentioned birds in flight; now that we're gonna see the new Tamron 200-600mm f/5~6.3 become the new, popular birder's lens, we're gonna see more and more people using AUTO ISO because they are "stuck" in a very, very narrow range of usable f/stops. AUTO ISO in Manual is a feature that has become more useful as variable maximum aperture tele-zoom lenses kind of "crimp our style". 

I shot a beach portrait session a few weeks back with some AUTO ISO, and the 80-200 2.8 AFS and 200 VR-G as my only two lenses. I went for Low 1.0 (E.I. 50) to Low 0.7 (EI 64) to a maximum of 400 ISO. Worked GREAT, and the issue was mostly wind of 20-25 MPH, all danged day long, necessitating fast speeds, as well as f/5.6 or f/6.3 for desired depth of field, no matter where the subject was, in relation to the sun and ocean. f/5.6 at 1/1000 second at ISO 400 was my ending exposure around 6:00 PM. *I was able to keep the NEEDED speed and f/stop pairing constant in front-lighted, side-lighted, and backlighted conditions *without even a second thought to ISO as I directed my subject how to pose and move, even with the low ocean sun causing huge brightness level fluctuations. And there's really no need to worry about ISO levels when working by the seashore on light sand...there's just not a lot of penalty at 400 ISO on FX Nikon as opposed to 100. As always, the key is understanding what the most-critical parameters are. And the goal is to get the best "pictures"...not to come home with the highest pure, technical image quality by always slavishly using baseline ISO. The pictures are much more-important to me than some idea that only the bottom two ISO values are any good.

This is actually a fairly new way to shoot photos. This is a HUGE advantage if you understand when it's a huge advantage. I've had scenarios over the last five years where, near the ocean, the LACK of AUTO ISO has ruined shots, and had entire days where the sun played peek-a-boo all day long, as it does here in most of late winter and springtime. AUTO ISO in Manual mode is a Godsend, now that I know how to use it, and have actually given it a fair shake.


----------



## awp (Jul 8, 2014)

Everything you mention is available in the D3 and it's 6-7 years old now. Auto ISO is great. Don't know why it's taken so long for some people to discover it.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 8, 2014)

manaheim said:


> If you're all running around in auto ISO in direct sunlight... well... errr.... ok, I guess?
> 
> I mean no offense to anyone, seriously. I'm just sort of baffled by the whole thread.



I was showing the extreme on purpose--of course the iso3200 f/29 image looks like trash at 100%.

But there are plenty of situations in direct sunlight in which I will use it.  Just like my hawk example above, I had it turned on.  Give it a base of 100, lock in your other settings: 1/1250sec to stop motion, f/6.3 stopped down one for sharpness, and then let the camera swing the ISO in order to get the correct exposure based on those settings. There's only 1 stop of give in the aperture if it becomes darkened out, and unless you're willing to accept a blurry bird image, the only thing else you can do is allow the ISO to change.  If you're shooting in S mode and not M, then I believe the camera will first stop down the aperture, for any reason, before compromising the ISO.

I also used it shooting indoors, with flash, in a dimly lit room where depending on where I was shooting/bouncing flash might be under/over exposed.  But I was already shooting at 1/60 and didn't want to drag the shutter, and also unwilling to compromise DOF so I stuck with f/4-5, and all I had left was ISO. I printed a few of these shots at 4x6" that were taken on ISO 2800 and ISO 4000.  You'd be none-the-wiser.  Maybe if I blew them up to poster size, sure, but whatever.

Sure, it's a compromise, but what else choice can you make: Deal with less than optimal image quality due to digital noise, but a nice, well exposed image or a less than optimal capture (blur/exposure/etc) but lacks any digital noise?



> YES... cameras these days handle higher ISOs REALLY well, and YES you should absolutely use that tool when you need to... but like a lot of things... just because you can, doesn't mean you should.



okay, so then what's your point?  it's a tool; use it wisely.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 8, 2014)

^ I already said it's probably because I don't shoot things that require this particular tool, and have- therefore- been educated.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 8, 2014)

aiight, bro!


----------



## ruifo (Jul 8, 2014)

I am not a fun of high ISO (but I do like, a lot, the auto-ISO in mordern Nikon sensors, if you know how and when to use it). And high ISO these days, when well used, is not a monster anymore. Here is a recent experiment I did to experiment on ISO 6400 in my entry level D5200. Pretty good!!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/364102-iso-6400-test-d5200.html


----------



## cynicaster (Jul 8, 2014)

I&#8217;m glad to see so many people sharing their positive experience with auto ISO.  I remember shortly after joining this forum, I posted in a thread to recommend auto ISO to somebody for a specific situation (forget what it was), and was promptly berated.  I figured &#8220;heh, guess auto ISO is not what the cool kids are using.&#8221;

But I&#8217;ve continued to use it anyway, and am now even more convinced of its efficacy.  That Nikon system sounds sweet with all of its settings, but even the comparatively basic Canon system has been useful for me as a hobbyist just trying to get the best shots possible with budget gear.    

As an aside, I&#8217;m not sure what it is about ISO that some people find so repugnant.  Yes, it introduces noise, we all know this.   Zooming into 150% on a 24&#8221; monitor may reveal some ugly noise, but OCD aside, how bad is it really, when the picture is viewed in a real-world way?  How many more sharp non-motion-blurred keepers did you manage to grab in the process, not only due to the faster shutter speeds attained, but the reduced amount of time you spent spinning dials and chimping?    

There&#8217;s a fine line between a reasoned desire to optimize image quality and an affliction of irrational ISO-phobia.  Sometimes, I think we fail to see the picture, for the pixels are in the way.


----------



## cowleystjames (Jul 8, 2014)

I use auto ISO on both my D4s and D800e, but only between defined upper and lower points depending on the camera and situation.
With the D4s, I'll use ISO 100 to 6400 in general as my goalposts, but on the D800e, I wouldn't go above ISO 1600. However, with D810 I will probably up that upper limit to 3200 after trialling that ISO a bit. 
In certain situations, auto ISO can be a boon as long as you don't let the camera go mad. For instance, I was shooting an athletic meet in constantly changing weather conditions. It was between brilliant sunshine but then a dark cloud would come over and almost instantly plunge the arena into really overcast, almost dark light. With auto ISO on, I didn't have to bother and could concentrate on shutter speed, aperture and following the action.
However, I realise it doesn't suit everyone, but in my case it's used on a pretty regular basis.


----------



## WayneF (Jul 8, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I used to think AUTO ISO was of very little use, until sensor performance got really good at higher ISO levels,




Me too, I always considered ISO to be one of the most important parameters to be controlled myself.  But recently on vacation, in various museums and dark castles, I tried it, and was surprised that it seemed able to adapt. Worked pretty well, with only a few surprises.  We can see the ISO value in the viewfinder.   So I have to reluctantly agree  that Auto ISO does seem to have a use for casual snapshots, in varied situations, in that way. 

 But still, for any studied serious picture, I think ISO is certainly my job to decide and approve.


Novices do need to know this following:

Auto ISO is a problem for flash.  Certainly any manual flash cannot adapt to changing ISO.  Nikon cameras will not allow Auto ISO to increase if Manual flash is detected present (hot shoe).  But if a studio flash (PC cord or radio trigger), the camera cannot detect the flash, so the user absolutely must know this.  Turn Auto ISO off (the camera will still work.     )

Nikon cameras have varied in their method of Auto ISO with TTL flash.  Older  DSLR (D70, D40, D90, D300, etc) never allowed Auto ISO to increase if flash was detected present. So that was a good thing.  There was one exception, if it was metered that a hot shoe TTL needed greater power capability (bounce at f/16), it would boost Auto ISO then, to help it.

Newer models (beginning with the D300S, and continuing ALMOST to this day) changed.  Now Auto ISO was set for the ambient, first, regardless if we intend to use flash or not.  The flash has to work into that high ISO (high in dim places where flash would be needed).    No big deal outdoors in sunlight (flash and sunlight are about the same color), but now, the high ISO indoors sees the orange incandescent lights well, and the green fluorescent lights well, etc.  The flash color is about Daylight (more blue), so this causes serious white balance problems.  This was about the same time Nikon brought out flashes with filter holders, so we could also make the flash also be orange or green, to manage it.  Not many bother to do it.

But about the last three models (D800, D600, D7100) have changed back, and now if TTL flash is detected present, Auto ISO is only allowed to increase two stops (typically to ISO 400, which is good for bounce flash).  Auto ISO won't go higher if flash is detected present.   This is a very good thing again, IMO.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 8, 2014)

I won't use auto ISO if the situation permits. When the situation demands (when needing to fix shutter speed and aperture) auto ISO is a blessing.

It's just like using Av, Tv or M. Whatever the situation demands. And there's no shame using any of these given options even though some people swear by using M only


----------



## sfaust (Jul 8, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> I won't use auto ISO if the situation permits. When the situation demands (when needing to fix shutter speed and aperture) auto ISO is a blessing.
> 
> It's just like using Av, Tv or M. Whatever the situation demands. And there's no shame using any of these given options even though some people swear by using M only



Can't agree more. No matter the mode used (other than full Program modes) the photographer stills has complete control. If you want to shoot at 1/125, f8, ISO 400, you can get there in M, Av, Tv, or Auto-ISO modes. You just need to manipulate the controls differently depending on the mode to get there, but you'll end up there if you wish.

There are only three primary controls to getting the proper exposure. Aperture, Shutter, and ISO. The various modes just pre-set one or two to save time, and leave the others up to the photographer. Either way, the photographer still has complete control with the spin of a dial or button to get any settings they desire. Av and Tv are just 'speed-manual' modes where the photographer gives the camera the most important control, the camera suggests the other, and the photographer tweaks it from there with Exposure Compensation. He stills ends up at the same place, just faster. 

Auto ISO is unique in that it gives the photographer an 'Aperture + Shutter' priority mode. It is a blessing when shutter speed and aperture are key for a shot, and the ISO for a good exposure is changing from shot to shot.
Derrel gave a perfect example of when that mode outshines any other for the given circumstances. And under those conditions, Auto-ISO will deliver far more usable images than any other mode, and it would be a frustrating exercise for the manual only crowd.

Shooting commercially, the situations are ever changing, always challenging, and there are cases where all modes are extremely useful and warranted. If one is pigeon holed into one specialty or technique, the other modes may be of little use to them. But for photographers shooting in changing and challenging environments, the more modes the merrier, and once learned, a more well rounded photographer they become.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2014)

Ya'll killing me tonight.....seriously. 

OK, so..you all know I don't particularly like locking threads, and even though this one deserved it, I have decided to go through it, clean up the debacle, and reopen the thread. I think this is a particularly interesting subject and people should be able to discuss it. 
There probably should have been infractions given out for having to do this much cleaning, but im too tired now so...
The next rabble rouser i find stirring up trouble in this thread gets an automatic TPF vacation. 
You have been warned, so keep it civil. 

In case anyone was wondering, I set max iso to what I think the camera will handle for the situation i am in and shoot auto ISO fairly regularly. 
both the D7000 and D7100 do quite well with it.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2014)

I wonder if dslr will have 3rd wheel to change iso value.


----------



## WayneF (Jul 8, 2014)

tecboy said:


> I wonder if dslr will have 3rd wheel to change iso value.



One of the buttons on top of my Nikon D300 and D800 is an ISO button - press it and turn the rear wheel to change ISO.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 8, 2014)

WayneF said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if dslr will have 3rd wheel to change iso value.
> ...



And the 70D he has, has the same thing.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 8, 2014)

I meant 3rd wheel would be easier and quicker that way instead pressing the button on top.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 8, 2014)

60D and 6D has a dedicated ISO right on Top. Push and turn the dial Ba Bam.I rather have a two step so it don't easily get changed off of Auto.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 9, 2014)

tecboy said:


> I meant 3rd wheel would be easier and quicker that way instead pressing the button on top.



On my Nikon I have "Easy-ISO" turned on.

So If I'm in A or S modes, the front wheel changing either the shutter or aperture, and the thumbwheel will change the ISO.

I most often will shoot in A mode.  So when I line up a shot, I first think: okay, what the DOF I want here? And I'll dial in say f/5.6.

Then I'll glance at the shutter speed and if I see something like 1/60, and I'll go: well that's too low for my 125mm focal length, and I'll just dial up the ISO until I get a shutter speed of 1/250sec.

Then I take the picture--it's hardly even measurable the time it takes to do this--and I end up with a well exposed picture with the DOF I wouldn't compromise on and a shutter speed that leads to a sharp image.  I have little regard to what the ISO number ended up with--it is what it is.

Now only in manual mode do you have to push a button and spin.  And otherwise, that wheel would be useless and unused.

Nikon was also nice enough to place the wheels in logical, ergonomical positions for me, where even if you had this option on a Canon (which I dunno if you do) would still be hard to manage.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 9, 2014)

Maybe because I came from the film era and very much like the idea of having individual control dials for S, A, ISO and EV compensation like the cameras mentioned above. I wished more Nikon cameras are designed like the FF DF.


----------



## jake337 (Jul 9, 2014)

Auto ISO is pretty sweet on the Nikon Df.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> I think this is a particularly interesting subject and people should be able to discuss it.



Ok, how about a different twist on the concept and consider this:

We could actually start using our digital cameras as if they were digital cameras and stop pretending they're old film cameras. Just stop the silly ISO business entirely since it doesn't really have any effect on the what the sensors in our cameras actually record and otherwise just slows us down and encourages us to be less precise.

I understand the implications of what I'm suggesting -- I'm suggesting kicking the JPEG crutch out from under us entirely and that's a really big crutch. It's complicated by the fact that the cameras are all designed with the "crutch" built in. But there are benefits. I know a lot of the people posting here do in fact save raw files. But most folks who work with raw files still only embrace that discipline partially.

What I'm saying here goes back to a point that Derrel made earlier in the thread about modern camera sensors and how good they really are. The only thing increasing the ISO does in camera is apply an analog amplification to the sensor data which results in less noise on the front end. It does not produce one iota of additional real data. In post processing, my available options for noise filtering are far more sophisticated and I can do a much better job starting from scratch. Furthermore, if you do go ahead an apply that analog amplification up front in the camera then there's no way to back that off and it's burned into your raw file. Any bad results (there can be many) of that amplification become part of your raw file. In other words I'm suggesting there are advantages to saving "really raw" raw files by just giving up the ISO crutch entirely. *In terms of the data recorded by your sensor, ISO isn't real so what happens if you stop pretending it is?*

I understand what I'm suggesting would not be practical for most and is in fact an extreme position. But when this thread began, the idea that you could put the camera in full manual and just ignore the ISO by letting the camera take care of it got some raised eyebrows. What that method in effect does is allow you to take the photo at the shutter speed and f/stop you require and then hands over to the camera electronics the job of amplifying the sensor signal the appropriate amount. OK, take it a step further and just turn off that camera amplifier as well -- now you have even less to worry about. Since that ISO amplification doesn't in fact give you any real additional data, and it does in fact degrade the image relative to what you can do in post without it's interference, then you have a logical argument for taking this all the way. The concept of variable ISO does not apply to a digital camera sensor. It only applies to electronic image processing -- the JPEG crutch side of the camera.

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Jul 9, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> I understand what I'm suggesting would not be practical for most and is in fact an extreme position. But when this thread began, the idea that you could put the camera in full manual and just ignore the ISO by letting the camera take care of it got some raised eyebrows. What that method in effect does is allow you to take the photo at the shutter speed and f/stop you require and then hands over to the camera electronics the job of amplifying the sensor signal the appropriate amount. OK, take it a step further and just turn off that camera amplifier as well -- now you have even less to worry about. Since that ISO amplification doesn't in fact give you any real additional data, and it does in fact degrade the image relative to what you can do in post without it's interference, then you have a logical argument for taking this all the way. The concept of variable ISO does not apply to a digital camera sensor. It only applies to electronic image processing -- the JPEG crutch side of the camera.
> 
> Joe



So you just want everyone to shoot at ISO 100?

I'd rather shoot a well exposed image at 3200 then to shoot the same at ISO 100 and then try to recover +5 EV out of the RAW image.


I put a subwoofer in my car but I didn't add an amplifier.  You can't really hear it, because it requires greater amounts of power in order to reproduce low frequencies, but it's still there.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 9, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is a particularly interesting subject and people should be able to discuss it.
> ...



I guess the equation here for me would be two-fold, could I actually regularly and consistently produce images of a higher quality than the camera's on-board systems by doing it this way, and if so would the difference in the final output really be so much better than what the camera can accomplish on it's own that it would be worth the additional time it would take to do this in post?


----------



## WayneF (Jul 9, 2014)

If only ISO 100 were used, the image needing ISO 2400 would be rather dark and hard to judge on the rear LCD preview.     I guess that would make it more like the film days, but I'm not going back.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I understand what I'm suggesting would not be practical for most and is in fact an extreme position. But when this thread began, the idea that you could put the camera in full manual and just ignore the ISO by letting the camera take care of it got some raised eyebrows. What that method in effect does is allow you to take the photo at the shutter speed and f/stop you require and then hands over to the camera electronics the job of amplifying the sensor signal the appropriate amount. OK, take it a step further and just turn off that camera amplifier as well -- now you have even less to worry about. Since that ISO amplification doesn't in fact give you any real additional data, and it does in fact degrade the image relative to what you can do in post without it's interference, then you have a logical argument for taking this all the way. The concept of variable ISO does not apply to a digital camera sensor. It only applies to electronic image processing -- the JPEG crutch side of the camera.
> ...



Base sensitivity varies from one sensor to another. They're not all ISO 100.

Raising a digital camera's ISO above base either does (1) absolutely nothing to the sensor signal prior to A/D conversion (camera model dependent) or it (2) engages an analog amplifier that amplifies the sensor signal prior to A/D conversion.

1. Doing nothing is doing nothing -- if you're saving raw files that you intend to process yourself and nothing has been done to the raw data then are you concerned about nothing? In other words in some cameras raising the ISO from 100 to 400 produces the exact same raw data file with the only difference that the metadata notes the ISO change. In this case the camera's image processor simply uses the information that the ISO was increased and raises brightness when processing the JPEG and likewise raw converters read the ISO value from the stored metadata and boosts the brightness when they default display the demosaiced image. With the raw file being identical either way (ISO 100 or 400) the only thing that raising the ISO accomplished was to provide info for the camera JPEG processor or possibly your raw conversion software -- much ado about nothing or something to do about nothing but either way it's about nothing. It has the negative result of allowing some photographers to believe that something substantive is taking place when in fact it's really nothing. No substantive variation exists in the actual data the sensor records. This is worth understanding.

2. The analog sensor signal is amplified prior to A/D conversion. This really does effect the stored raw file as the amplification is done prior to A/D conversion. It is however critical to note that this process does not in fact alter the sensitivity of the sensor and does not in any way allow the camera to actually record more data. The amount of data the sensor can record is fixed and it's base sensitivity is fixed. You can amplify what you've got but if you've got bupkis then amplifying bupkis just give you bupkis. 1 * 2 = 2 but 0 * 2 = 0.

In this case you have a choice between amplify or don't amplify. That's the substantive thing changing ISO does to the raw capture (then there's all the JPEG related benefits like being able to chimp the LCD). This begs the question, relative to the integrity and usefulness of the raw data, what are the pluses and minuses of signal amplification? Signal amplification is implemented by each specific camera manufacturer and will hopefully reduce noise and keep artifacts at a minimum. If your focus is getting a camera JPEG then how your chosen camera manufacturer implements signal amplification becomes a concern. *If your only focus is getting the raw data then you have the additional option of not engaging the signal amplification at all.* Is there a difference? Yes. Meaningful? Only in the extreme -- I did originally say extreme. So if you want me to process a raw file for you and squeeze the very last drop of "best possible" from that raw file and you give me a choice between an NEF that was underexposed 3 stops at ISO 100 versus one that was shot at ISO 800 and so signal amplified prior to A/D conversion, I'll take that first option -- I can do better without the prior signal amplification. I have a much more sophisticated capacity to manage noise and artifacts in post.

Then in the spirit of the OP's original post where he's found it very freeing to sort of ignore ISO by putting it on auto, I'm saying I can get "best possible" end results by taking that one step further and just setting ISO to OFF since it isn't making it possible to actually record more data and the signal amplification that it is doing is more of a hindrance than a help. CAVEAT: all the JPEG benefits.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

WayneF said:


> If only ISO 100 were used, the image needing ISO 2400 would be rather dark and hard to judge on the rear LCD preview.     I guess that would make it more like the film days, but I'm not going back.



Yep, like I said -- JPEG crutch. I know it sounds a little flippant and it's intentional, but you're exactly right. Kick the chimping crutch out from under us and we're all falling down.

For me the more important aspect of this and why I posted this is just understanding. We do all realize that we can't change the ISO of the sensors in our cameras? Right?

Joe


----------



## runnah (Jul 9, 2014)

I say this about any auto function. It's a tool in your arsenal that you can use to help you get the job done. It's a fool who discards a tool at their disposal.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> I guess the equation here for me would be two-fold, could I actually regularly and consistently produce images of a higher quality than the camera's on-board systems by doing it this way,



yes, absolutely.



robbins.photo said:


> and if so would the difference in the final output really be so much better than what the camera can accomplish on it's own that it would be worth the additional time it would take to do this in post?



absolutely not.

Joe


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 9, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the equation here for me would be two-fold, could I actually regularly and consistently produce images of a higher quality than the camera's on-board systems by doing it this way,
> ...



Well that saved me a ton of time testing that theorem.. auto ISO it is!  Lol


----------



## Braineack (Jul 9, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> So if you want me to process a raw file for you and squeeze the very last drop of "best possible" from that raw file and you give me a choice between an NEF that was underexposed 3 stops at ISO 100 versus one that was shot at ISO 800 and so signal amplified prior to A/D conversion, I'll take that first option -- I can do better without the prior signal amplification. I have a much more sophisticated capacity to manage noise and artifacts in post.



I feel like I misunderstand how the A/D conversion and amplification works.

I just did this and cant see any difference.

1/25, f/5.6 ISO 200 EV+3.0 and ISO 1600 EV 0


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 9, 2014)

He meant off camera processing of raw file ..of an under exposed image


----------



## Braineack (Jul 9, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> He meant off camera processing of raw file ..of an under exposed image




i did that.

both were taken at 1/25 and 5.6.

I added +3.0 in LR to the ISO 100 image.


only thing is, that's not practical when you need shutter speeds in any usable range.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 9, 2014)

Braineack said:


> i did that.  both were taken at 1/25 and 5.6.  I added +3.0 in LR to the ISO 100 image.  only thing is, that's not practical when you need shutter speeds in any usable range.



Oh ok. I see what you mean. I feel as long as high ISO is visibly acceptable, why take the trouble or extra step to process the exposure in LR or PS. Auto ISO still works pretty well in practice.


----------



## Overread (Jul 9, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Exactly - if the amount of work in editing is increased significantly and if the gain is nothing to negligible I don't see any virtue in changing how everyone uses ISO currently. 

Plus added to that everything I've read has always stated very clearly that a higher ISO gives less noise than underexposing using a lower ISO. In fact this theory goes against the tried and tested "expose to the right" theory. 

Considering that it makes photo review harder - editing longer and more complex - and offers little to no gain (and might even have a negative impact) I just don't see any reason other than a hatred of ISO


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 9, 2014)

Analog amplification prior to A/D doesn't create more info, but it does let you measure more of the info that's there. If you have a known analog signal in hand, you can always do better by adjusting levels in the analog domain to match your A/D.

I guess I have no idea what the heck Ysarex is on about.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > So if you want me to process a raw file for you and squeeze the very last drop of "best possible" from that raw file and you give me a choice between an NEF that was underexposed 3 stops at ISO 100 versus one that was shot at ISO 800 and so signal amplified prior to A/D conversion, I'll take that first option -- I can do better without the prior signal amplification. I have a much more sophisticated capacity to manage noise and artifacts in post.
> ...




Yep, and if in fact you can't see any difference at all, that means your camera's electronics are doing a great job with the analog amplification. But in terms of the final image, if in fact you do want only the raw file, then the ISO 1600 gave you nothing substantive (there's all the JPEG advantages of course). Again in the spirit of the OP's original post here, that means if the ISO gives no benefit then you lose nothing substantive to ignore it.

Again I wanted to add this here to also make the point that raising the ISO on a digital camera doesn't get you more recorded data.

In my experience the analog amplifiers out there aren't all as good as the one you're using. I've got to run right now but I'll post an example a little later.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 9, 2014)

Bumping the ISO will always reduce quantization noise as compared with adding back exposure in post. Unless the analog amplification is introducing enormous amounts of noise, bumping the ISO at the sensor will give you better results than digitally amplifying the signal in post. I can't imagine why anyone would bother building an analog amp that bad, but I suppose it's possible.

Assuming that you're not clipping anything that matters to you, bump the ISO.

Incidentally, quantization noise will basically vanish when you resize a photo. So use caution if you choose to dispute my remarks.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Bumping the ISO will always reduce quantization noise as compared with adding back exposure in post. Unless the analog amplification is introducing enormous amounts of noise, bumping the ISO at the sensor will give you better results than digitally amplifying the signal in post.



No argument. All of my empirical tests verify what you just said there. We get less noise by raising the ISO -- I made the very point in my first post right? You did read where I said that right?

Hang on -- I'm working on posting an example with more info. 



photoguy99 said:


> Assuming that you're not clipping anything that matters to you, bump the ISO.



This point about clipping does add an interesting twist because the typical amplifier in a camera will take solidly recorded data and gladly push it right into oblivion for you whereas had you not raised the ISO you could have kept that data.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 9, 2014)

No I have not read the whole thread.

I'm just not sure why anyone would rather work with a file that had the same data only with more noise. Honestly I'm wondering if either I missed a word (repeatedly, I did re read, but sometimes once you've missed a word you just can't see it) or if you didn't type a word. Possibly I simply have your meaning reversed.

Unless your point is mainly about clipping?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 9, 2014)

Oh wait, I did read that. Actually I take exception the the very next sentence. It does, or at least can, produce real data, to amplify the analog signal. Reducing noise, as opposed to removing it, reveals additional signal. Normally, anyways.

In fact, a standard noise reduction techniques is to simply increase the signal. See Dolby.

I look forward to tomorrow morning when I will look in to see your further details!


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Oh wait, I did read that. Actually I take exception the the very next sentence. It does, or at least can, produce real data, to amplify the analog signal. Reducing noise, as opposed to removing it, reveals additional signal. Normally, anyways.
> 
> In fact, a standard noise reduction techniques is to simply increase the signal. See Dolby.
> 
> I look forward to tomorrow morning when I will look in to see your further details!



Hang in there, I'm working on the further details right now. I'll be posting an example in a few minutes but I want to post in response to Overread's comment. Bottom line is that once I have the more noisy non amplified sensor capture I can do my own noise reduction. Including if I want 5 different levels of different types of noise reduction applied selectively to different parts of the photo. The amplifiers can't do that. And I did say extreme more than once.

In originally posting here I wanted to make the point that raising the ISO doesn't permit recording more data. It just alters how the recorded data is processed. Amplification revealing additional signal? Nothing usable in my experience or tests.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 9, 2014)

Overread said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



No problem there; again I added this to make the point: Raising the ISO in a digital camera doesn't help or permit that camera to capture one iota of additional low-light data. It does all kinds of beneficial things like allow us to chimp the LCD, but it doesn't get us any more information. If that's the case I don't have to hate it but I can just ignore it. And maybe there's a benefit to ignoring it? I did say *extreme*.



Overread said:


> Plus added to that everything I've read has always stated very clearly that a higher ISO gives less noise than underexposing using a lower ISO.



Absolutely, and I acknowledged that in my original post. If we amplify the sensor signal before A/D conversion we're going to get less noise up front. But, and this is camera make/model dependent, we're going to get different noise and noise uniformly applied.

Now I did say *extreme*. Let me repeat one more time that I used the word *extreme* in my first post about this. I'll admit to being an *extremely* obsessed pixel peeper here who's favorite quote is by Michelangelo, "_Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle."_




So I did the same thing here that Braineack did. That's a screen shot from PhotoNinja's file browser. The first photo is for reference: ISO 200 properly exposed. In the middle file the ISO was raised to 1600 and you can see the shutter speed change. In the last photo the ISO was set back to 200 and the sensor was simply underexposed by 3 stops. In PhotoNinja the only thing I've done is what Braineack did in LR -- raise the exposure comp. 3 stops. PhotoNinja then adjusted the browser preview.

Now let's have a close look deep into the shadows. You need to examine this image full-res:







*edit:* I was afraid of this wouldn't get posted here full-res and it didn't. Here it is at full resolution: basket_noise.


The left image is again just for reference. You can see in the ISO 1600 image the reduced noise compared to the next image where the sensor was just underexposed 3 stops. Raising the ISO certainly has an effect and it certainly does deliver a less noisy result as you noted and as I noted. Examine how the noise is different though. Although the underexposed ISO 200 image is at first noisier it's noise that is very easy to filter. The next image over is pretty simply noise filtered. As good or even better than the ISO 1600 image?

Now we take it a step further. In post we always have the option to make local adjustments to our photos -- things like burning and dodging and so on. You can sharpen a photo in camera (how crude) but in post you can sharpen the midtones more and the shadows less and even use different sharpening algorithms on different parts of the photo. Did I mention extreme already? Well the same applies here. I don't have the option to just noise filter a photo I have the option to noise filter it in different ways to different amounts in different places. Trifles make perfection. 

Now here's another interesting twist that came up in one of Photoguy99's posts. This photo was an extreme high contrast lighting condition. Note the window light in the upper left. In the ISO 200 correct exposure the window in the upper left has just begun to clip in the green channel. This scene was selected because it takes full advantage of the sensor's recording capacity. Now there really is nothing you can do to get a sensor to record more data than it can record. But if you're in a tight spot and you need as much data as possible be very careful raising the ISO. In other words what would you rather have; less noise and clipped highlights you can't fix or noise you can filter to have less noise? Now I didn't really say that because I would never want to advocate sloppy exposure.



Overread said:


> In fact this theory goes against the tried and tested "expose to the right" theory.



Not at all -- it actually works really well in conjunction with ETTR theory. ETTR theory is all about capturing all the data the sensor is capable of recording. This is just another aspect of the same thing: If you think raising ISO is helping you capture more data, think again. That was the most important point I was making. And if that really is the case then ignoring it is no foul.

The OP was delighted at how freeing it was to just hand off the ISO chore to the camera. Derrel and Kristof and Todd all gave great examples of how valuable it can be to work that way. I agree. When I teach a first semester photo class I start them out with the ISO set to auto so they can concentrate on understanding what shutter and f/stop do. But as we continue and learn to process raw files and understand what a raw sensor capture really is I eventually take the ISO away from them entirely. They can have it back later, but it helps at some point to understand what's really going on. They get this strange notion (Lord knows from where) that raising the ISO is allowing them to record more information in low light situations. They need to learn that's wrong.

Armed with that knowledge and out with my little pocket camera that I always carry I find I need a faster shutter speed in low light. Do I raise the ISO or just twirl the EC dial and force the faster shutter speed? The only thing raising the ISO does is get me that faster shutter speed. Twirling the EC dial gets me the same faster shutter speed faster. The sensor is underexposed by the same amount either way.

Joe


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 10, 2014)

You guys should work for camera manufacturers


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 10, 2014)

What Ysarex is doing will work pretty well, to be honest. He may find the results more pleasing, all the time, and that's OK.

Here's the thing. Quantization Noise (which isn't really noise _per se_, it's lost signal which we model as noise for most analyses because that works quite well) is usually associated with low spectral frequencies. That is, it's most visible is large more or less "flat" regions of very similar tone. It shows up as banding or posterization. In these cases, we've oversampled, we have tons and tons of pixels to play with in other words. We can fix this trivially. Ysarex example fixes quite a bit of it trivially and does a fine job. Anything with details that a are more than a handful of pixels across is going to be perfectly OK.

The places where it's less obvious are in areas where there is almost no tonal separation, but there's a fair bit of fine detail. Shadows are an obvious case. We could shoot something that comes out black at base ISO, but renders a (crummy) picture at ISO 1600. Still, this follows throughout the tonal range. Consider a cloud, with a lot of detail that's all very very much the same grey. Quantization noise will show up here by simply rendering entire regions as the same tone, losing the fine structure in the photo. It will actually look un-noisy. Noise removal won't do anything here, but the cloud is botched.

These are pretty subtle effects, and probably not much to worry about.

You can see this exact effect, I think, in Ysarex' example, and judge for yourself. Examine the band around the top of the basket. On the rear of the basket, it presents a dark, shadowed, vertical face to to. In a couple of places in the ISO1600 photo there are a couple of slightly lighter horizontal lines. These are pretty obvious in the correct exposure, but still visible in the ISO1600 photo. This detail is reduced to only the brightest of the lines, in the ISO 200 picture, and then largely obliterated by noise removal.

For a more middle range example, there's some sort of metal to the left of the basket, with floral decorations embossed (?) on it. Some of the petals have a pattern of parallel vertical lines, very subtle. Quite obvious in the correct exposure, IF you're looking for areas with fine detail contained in a very very narrow tonal range. The ISO1600 has a lot of noise in this area, but does preserve some of the feeling of those vertical lines, some sense that there's pattern in there. The underexposed photo loses all of that, and noise removal turns it into smooth mush.

These are very very subtle effects. 4 bits of quantization noise versus 1 isn't lot, and when the final is going to be crushed back down to 8 bits or so for viewing anyways, a host of sins get concealed. It's not the kind of thing I worry about personally in the slightest, but I am definitely not a pixel peeper by nature.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 10, 2014)

Ysarex said:


> Now let's have a close look deep into the shadows. You need to examine this image full-res:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Based on this I'd rather 1600; I don't use detail removal software.  

Simply changing the ISO is easier, in my test there was no difference in quality between the shots, but you've demonstrated it's better.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 10, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Based on this I'd rather 1600; I don't use detail removal software.
> 
> Simply changing the ISO is easier, in my test there was no difference in  quality between the shots, but you've demonstrated it's better.



Your test shows no difference and you get no argument from me. That's  the big point I wanted to make in the first place. Put the esoteric and  extreme processing aside. Photoguy99 is right -- at best we're talking  subtleties that are only meaningful in the extreme. Todd asked if it  really mattered and I said "absolutely not."

By saying you see no difference you're confirming what I was primarily  interested in getting across. Variable ISO is not a capability of  digital camera sensors. Their light sensitivity and recording capacity  is fixed in manufacture. Raising the ISO on a digital camera  underexposes the sensor period. All you get from the ISO increase is the  JPEG support. The JPEG support is great but as I said, my students all  get this idea that raising the ISO on their cameras is actually allowing  the camera to record more low light data when in fact it's doing the  opposite. It allows them to get a hand-holdable shutter speed or smaller  f/stop but it's underexposing the sensor to permit that.

So I'm completely happy that your test shows that raising the ISO and  underexposing the sensor produce no visible difference. If there is a  difference it takes us into the esoteric realm of trying to sort out  extreme differences in noise processing. I'll defer to photoguy99 as the  electronics expert there. I'm the raw file processing nut job.

It's my job to make sure new photographers really understand what  they're doing. To that end I spend a lot of time testing stuff. The  extreme processing lunacy comes from my testing and also from the  advantage that I get from getting my hands on all of my students  different make/model cameras. During a semester if I want a T5i or a  D5300 or even a D700 or a 5DmkIII I can usually just grab one from one  of my students. So a few years ago when I first got my hands on  NoiseNinja and tested it I was pretty impressed. Eventually I got around  to testing what I could get from it versus the camera's analog  amplification and often I'd end up deciding I actually preferred  NoiseNinja without the ISO amp. Last year DXo released their Prime noise  filtering algorithm -- very impressive tool. So I think that deferring the  noise processing step to post and skipping the analog amplification can  give me a slight edge sometimes (different camera dependent), but my  answer to Todd asking is it something that should give him pause to  consider remains: absolutely not.

Back then to my original post and the advantage of using auto ISO: The  speed advantage you get by just letting the camera deal with applying  the sensor underexposure for you is invaluable. I agree. I just wanted  to point out that that is what we're doing, auto underexposing the  sensor, and that if you want to just leave the ISO at base and not even  bother with setting it to auto you'll really get the same thing -- at  best no visible difference. So when you first responded to my post by  asking, "So you just want everyone to shoot at ISO 100?" Well, if that's  the base sensitivity of your camera sensor then as far as the usable  data that the sensor is recording that is what you're doing. Signal  amplification doesn't add data. Of course the data has to be processed;  amplifying what you've got can be done pre-A/D conversion or post-A/D  conversion but neither way gives you more.

I may be just an old man rambling on too much, but this all gets to one  of my persistent concerns and a reason I jumped in to this thread. I get troubled when the language we use  disguises what we're really doing. The "language of ISO" on digital  cameras disguises the fact that any increase in ISO is equivalent to  underexposing the sensor. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, I'm  saying we should understand what we're doing and call it for what it is.  Correct understanding helps us make the best choices. I get a constant  stream of students who are confused about what ISO on a digital camera  really does and all we have to do is look around here on TPF to find  more of the same. My students are shocked when I tell them that raising the ISO reduces the camera's capacity to record low-light data. The ISO language used in the industry has twisted their understanding a full 180 degrees.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 10, 2014)

I quibble slightly, I think it's more than simply JPEG support. I think the results are different, and that they preserve certain detail.

The detail that's preserved is pretty hard to retain. You can destroy it by accident any number of ways after the fact, and you're not likely to notice it.

Mainly, there's a slight difference in feel in the results, in at least some cases. Noise by itself can increase the feeling of overall sharpness, and the noise in play here is somewhat correlated with certain fine detail. So, if you're willing at accept some noise, you really are getting a sharper photo. Slightly sharper.

If you're allergic to noise, and that's not a judgement it's just a matter of taste, then it's going to matter less to you.

And, again, these are all very very subtle effects that don't matter if you're not printing large or otherwise digging quite deeply into the photos. I cheerfully bang the ISO all over the place, because I quite dislike mucking about with things in post and I trust the camera to be a decent job with the whatevers.

How detail oriented are you? What are your thoughts on ultimate sharpness, noise, and the tradeoffs between them? Choose your weapons wisely, now that you are.. exhaustively.. informed.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

To me the answer is simple:

ISO 1600 thanks to Auto-ISO jacking it up:





ISO 400 which is where I would have set it:





Identical processing on both, or as close as I could get with the crop.  The shots were taken 31 seconds apart, the amount of time it took me to disable Auto-ISO and setup the shot again.

Just after daybreak and the bird was in a rather dim area, much like the majority of my shots.   Auto-ISO jacked the ISO to 1600, the ceiling I had set, for 1/30 second whereas I would have shot at ISO 400 and settled for 1/8 second exposure.  The first is a throwaway due to what I consider excessive noise.  The second is not.

Oh, and I did NOT enable Auto-ISO again after I took the second shot.  To each their own, I'm content with what works for me.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 12, 2014)

Rabbits are super slow, they are not fast at all! Why, I stuffed this rabbit into a sack and totally kicked its ass in a 50 meter foot race.

If you'd accept 1/8 why did you cripple auto ISO by restricting it to 1/30?


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> If you'd accept 1/8 why did you cripple auto ISO by restricting it to 1/30?


I didn't.  I set the ceiling to ISO 1600 so that's the shutter speed it chose at ISO 1600.  I did say it was dimly lit.

After taking those shots I truly DID cripple Auto-ISO by turning it off entirely.


----------



## Overread (Jul 12, 2014)

To be honest even at 1/30sec you're darn lucky to get a sharp shot of a living animal. Even a tiny motion will blur at that speed to say nothing of having a tripod or very steady hands (esp with a long lens). 

Auto ISO I think did right in those conditions; you're just pushing the settings way beyond normal tolerances. Which is basically when most auto software fails.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

Overread said:


> To be honest even at 1/30sec you're darn lucky to get a sharp shot of a living animal. Even a tiny motion will blur at that speed to say nothing of having a tripod or very steady hands (esp with a long lens).
> 
> Auto ISO I think did right in those conditions; you're just pushing the settings way beyond normal tolerances. Which is basically when most auto software fails.


That's my point.  Much of the time I *AM* shooting in conditions where software fails so, despite all the accolades in this post, there are times when Auto-ISO is a detriment rather than an asset.

My personal opinion is that Auto-ISO is nothing more than a gimmick.  I choose the ISO I want to use based on the light conditions at the time and don't want my camera arbitrarily jacking it up to some ceiling that I chose.  If I'm going to do that then I'll set the ceiling at the ISO I want to be used and allow it to DROP the ISO but never raise it.

If I'm shooting in manual then I'm shooting in manual for a reason and I don't want my camera changing the settings.  If I'm shooting in aperture priority or shutter priority then I have already chosen an ISO that I want used and allow the camera to choose the appropriate shutter speed or aperture.  I have yet to run into a situation where I want the camera choosing more than one variable which is why I never, ever use full-automatic.

Again, my personal opinion and the way that I personally choose to do things.

Oh, and notice that the 1/8 second shot is sharper than the 1/30 second shot although both were shot at 500mm.  I nearly always use a tripod.  Once again, my personal choice.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 12, 2014)

a) the thread is about using auto ISO in manual, not Av
b) I don't see that it's possible to just set the max ISO on any Nikon. There is also an shutter speed.

Are you saying that you did set the min shutter speed before 1/30 and the camera elected to use the higher ISO and faster shutter anyways?


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> a) the thread is about using auto ISO in manual, not Av
> b) I don't see that it's possible to just set the max ISO on any Nikon. There is also an shutter speed.
> 
> Are you saying that you did set the min shutter speed before 1/30 and the camera elected to use the higher ISO and faster shutter anyways?


a)  You are the one responding to my posts.

b)  No, I'm saying, once again, that I set the ISO ceiling to 1600.  I set the minimum shutter speed to 1/500 second, I think, however the camera was not able to achieve that shutter speed before reaching the ISO ceiling I had selected so it used 1/30 second.  It would not have mattered if I had chosen ANY shutter speed above 1/30 since the camera could not use it based on the lighting conditions and the ISO ceiling I selected.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 12, 2014)

1/500??!

You chopped the rabbit's legs off before stuffing it into the sack. If you're using a feature wrong, it's pretty unlikely to produce good results.

I suspect that Nikon and you mean opposite things by 'minimum' and I acknowledge that it's an easy mistake.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2014)

nikons you set min shutter and max iso.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 1/500??!
> 
> You chopped the rabbit's legs off before stuffing it into the sack. If you're using a feature wrong, it's pretty unlikely to produce good results.
> 
> I suspect that Nikon and you mean opposite things by 'minimum' and I acknowledge that it's an easy mistake.





Braineack said:


> nikons you set min shutter and max iso.


^^ What Braineack said.

Regardless of the minimum shutter speed set the Auto-ISO functionality will NOT go above the ISO ceiling set.  If it cannot get to the minimum shutter speed without exceeding the ISO ceiling then it just will not get there.  Had it used 1/500 second at ISO 1600 then the shot would have been 4 full stops underexposed.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 12, 2014)

i just tried it.  if you are way over the ISO cap, it will lower the shutter speed past the min.

I dunno at what EV point it decided to override, but it seems it will go past the min shutter to achieve the exposure.  When it does, the flash light blinks, so I guess that's your warning.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 12, 2014)

You wanted a minimum of 1/8 not 1/500. You and Nikon disagree about what 'minimum' means, and you were setting the wrong end of the range.

Well, as I understand it, anyways.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You wanted a minimum of 1/8 not 1/500. You and Nikon disagree about what 'minimum' means, and you were setting the wrong end of the range.
> 
> Well, as I understand it, anyways.


No, you and Nikon disagree about what 'minimum' means.

I suggest you download the D7100 manual from Here and pay particular attention to the line in Section 3, Page 81 that reads "Shutter speeds lower than the minimum value may be used if optimum exposure can not be achieved at the ISO sensitivity value selected for Maximum sensitivity."  I set the minimum shutter speed to an arbitrary 1/500 second value, the firmware did exactly as it said and lowered the shutter speed to achieve the proper exposure AT THE ISO CEILING I HAD SELECTED.

I'm done here.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 12, 2014)

It's too bad you left before I could point you to the sentence that begins 'In modes P and A'


----------



## bc_steve (Jul 12, 2014)

I really like auto ISO but I do find it worthwhile to set a maximum value and keep an eye on the exposure meter because if the ISO hits its limit on either end you will end up with an image that is over/under exposed.  Also you can adjust aperture/shutter speed so that the meter is showing over exposure and then back off a bit, then you know you are at a low ISO.

If I am shooting a landscape or something and I have all the time in the world I turn everything off auto (except WB but I deal with that in post)


----------

