DSLRUsers.com

other than the half stop - why is a fixed aperture f4 considered so much better than a variable aperture in the f3.5-4.5 range??

The constant aperture means you dont have to worry about changing exposure as you zoom...I shoot in full manual so this is something that it important to me.

I am sure others will come up with more reasons.

usually it's 3.5 - 5.6. Most of the range will be above 4 towards 5.6. I agree with Cameron about the manual shooting.

Then there is one whole stop difference between 5.6 and 4. That is significant.

Sort of like an intermediate lens in between the cheap zoom and the constant aperture 2.8. The price and weight will reflect this.

surenj wrote:usually it's 3.5 - 5.6. Most of the range will be above 4 towards 5.6. I agree with Cameron about the manual shooting.

Then there is one whole stop difference between 5.6 and 4. That is significant.

Sort of like an intermediate lens in between the cheap zoom and the constant aperture 2.8. The price and weight will reflect this.

My Tokina 10-17mm fisheye is a 3.5-4.5 and from memory the Nikkor 18-70mm is as well. There are not many lenses with this aperture range, but those that come to mind are regarded to be better than standard consumer quality (ie the Nikkor 18-70).

Surenj has a good point in the F4 lenses forming a 2nd level pro grade lens that is cheaper than the F2.8 but better than the variable aperture 3.3(or 3.5 or 4)-4.5(or 5.6 or 6.3)

aim54x wrote:The constant aperture means you dont have to worry about changing exposure as you zoom...I shoot in full manual so this is something that it important to me.

I am sure others will come up with more reasons.

But you wont find this a problem if you stop down a little, If your shooting wide open this may be an issue.

surenj wrote:usually it's 3.5 - 5.6. Most of the range will be above 4 towards 5.6. I agree with Cameron about the manual shooting.

Then there is one whole stop difference between 5.6 and 4. That is significant.

Sort of like an intermediate lens in between the cheap zoom and the constant aperture 2.8. The price and weight will reflect this.

The rate that the aperture changes really depends on the lens, 24-120VR being a particularly bad one.

Mick

I was reading a review today of the sigma 10-20 f3.5. it got me thinking about the nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 (which I have) and what the advantages were in real usage over say the 12-24 f4.

LaurieE wrote:I was reading a review today of the sigma 10-20 f3.5. it got me thinking about the nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 (which I have) and what the advantages were in real usage over say the 12-24 f4.

the 10-20 f3.5...well from the review that i read (lenstip.com) I would say..not much if anything at all. But if you were to compare the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 then that extra stop would be great.

ljxphotography wrote:But you wont find this a problem if you stop down a little, If your shooting wide open this may be an issue.

AND I have a nasty habit of shooting wide open!

The f number is a ratio between the diameter of the lens and its focal length. So if you make a lens that changes its effective focal length, it is easiest to just keep the effective diameter fixed - set by the objective's diameter. This results in a sliding f number. Thus cheap lenses have a sliding aperture. This, as Cameron points out, is problematic for exposures as you slide the zoom.

So with better quality lenses, some effort is made to alter the effective diameter along with the effective length. This is more expensive to do, and is generally, but not necessarily, married to better quality optics overall.
Because of this, fixed maximum f number is associated with better quality lenses. So, all other things being equal, I would expect an f4 lens to outperform an f3.5-4.5 lens throughout its range. I would still want to test though.

aim54x wrote:the 10-20 f3.5...well from the review that i read (lenstip.com) I would say..not much if anything at all. But if you were to compare the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 then that extra stop would be great.

I didn't realise that the question was for a wide angle. It slightly changes things.

How do you plan to use the lens? Would you use it wide open??

I know that people say it is cheaper to make variable aperture zoom lens, but did not realise why. Thank to Greg for the explanation.

I shoot with a f3.5-4.5 lens in manual too. I sometimes use the auto iso to take care of the variable f stop while I zoom.

Regards,
Patrick

pwoo wrote: I sometimes use the auto iso to take care of the variable f stop while I zoom.

Patrick,

Auto ISO?

Or auto aperture ? (A mode on the camera)

These are very different items, and while it might appear that your aperture is being adjusted, if you are using auto ISO, the actual primary adjustment being made to your images is of the sensitivity to light that your sensor is recording the images at.

Probably should have said "let the auto iso take care of the reduction of maximum aperture available due to zoom adjustment (between f3.5 to f4.5), while shooting wide open and with fixed shutter speed".

In situation where I want to shoot at the largest aperture (lowest f number), I would dial in aperture of f3.5 at the widest zoom range, then select a shutter speed (e.g. 1/60) to get the correct exposure (using the +..|..- meter on the camera) as usual. I would turn on Auto ISO. If I need to zoom in, the aperture will reduce (to f3.8, f4, f4.2 or f4.5 depending on the focal length). Instead of manually dial in a slower shutter speed, I let the camera raise the ISO to compensate.
If I zoom back out to widest range, the aperture will go back to f3.5 and iso will drop back to the value I started with.

Note: The above ignore the possible effect on the metering of the scene due to the change of focal length.

Regards,
Patrick.

pwoo wrote:I shoot with a f3.5-4.5 lens in manual too. I sometimes use the auto iso to take care of the variable f stop while I zoom.

Shudder!!! Auto ISO....maybe I am a bit of a strange person but I like to have complete control of my ISO, but it would be a nice way to get around the issue of a variable aperture in terms of keeping your shutter speed and exposure in check.

pwoo wrote:Probably should have said "let the auto iso take care of the reduction of maximum aperture available due to zoom adjustment (between f3.5 to f4.5), while shooting wide open and with fixed shutter speed".

In which case, I'm unconvinced that you are using the available tools correctly.

First of all, in absolute terms, the observable differences, and the practical differences, that you will see when traversing the range of f/3.5 - f/4.5 is such that it probably doesn't make all that much difference in terms of your photographic outcomes.

Auto ISO really has nothing much to do with aperture settings. Sure, its use can certainly affect the aperture that will be put into play for any given image that you shoot, but to my mind, this simple makes no sense.

If you want to use the maximum aperture available to you, then set the camera to A mode, use your secondary command dial to set the aperture to its maximum value, set your ISO to the desired sensitivity at which you wish to shoot, and go.

I'm not sure it would work anyway.
It's been a long time since I read that part of the manual, but I seem to recall that Auto ISO only cuts in under certain circumstances. I suspect having the camera in M, as you must be to do this, would negate those.

I started on a reply then got distracted by other work. When I got back to the post, the login timed out and lost all my typing. I wish there is a "save draft" function.

Anyway, back to the reply.

gstark wrote:First of all, in absolute terms, the observable differences, and the practical differences, that you will see when traversing the range of f/3.5 - f/4.5 is such that it probably doesn't make all that much difference in terms of your photographic outcomes.

(unless the subject is very close)
I did says in the original message that I use it "sometimes". It was more of a response to Cameron's comment of "worry about changing exposure as you zoom".

gstark wrote:Auto ISO really has nothing much to do with aperture settings. Sure, its use can certainly affect the aperture that will be put into play for any given image that you shoot, but to my mind, this simple makes no sense.

The objective is to maintain the same exposure while zooming at maximum aperture. If the lighting is unchanged, shutter speed unchanged, and the aperture changes from f3.5 to f4.5 as you zoom in, then unless the ISO sensitivity is increased correspondingly, (e.g. from iso400 to iso640) the exposure will be 'darker'.

gstark wrote:If you want to use the maximum aperture available to you, then set the camera to A mode, use your secondary command dial to set the aperture to its maximum value, set your ISO to the desired sensitivity at which you wish to shoot, and go.

1. Yes, I do. I use A mode with fixed iso when I know that the shutter speed is not going to be too slow. Usually for outdoor (daytime) with static or slow moving subject.
2. Note the qualifier "while shooting wide open and with fixed shutter speed".

Mr Darcy wrote:I'm not sure it would work anyway.
It's been a long time since I read that part of the manual, but I seem to recall that Auto ISO only cuts in under certain circumstances. I suspect having the camera in M, as you must be to do this, would negate those.

It works for my D50 and D300s.
The "cuts in" you refer to could be the "minimum shutter speed" setting in the ISO sensitivity control. It only affects P and A mode. See page 98-99 of D300s manual. I don't have the D200 manual, not sure if it's the same.

Regards,
Patrick.

pwoo wrote::ot:
I started on a reply then got distracted by other work. When I got back to the post, the login timed out and lost all my typing. I wish there is a "save draft" function.

There is. See the "Save" button.

gstark wrote:First of all, in absolute terms, the observable differences, and the practical differences, that you will see when traversing the range of f/3.5 - f/4.5 is such that it probably doesn't make all that much difference in terms of your photographic outcomes.

(unless the subject is very close)

Even if the subject is quite close, the differences would not be all that noticeable. Not at the stated apertures.

gstark wrote:Auto ISO really has nothing much to do with aperture settings. Sure, its use can certainly affect the aperture that will be put into play for any given image that you shoot, but to my mind, this simple makes no sense.

The objective is to maintain the same exposure while zooming at maximum aperture. If the lighting is unchanged, shutter speed unchanged, and the aperture changes from f3.5 to f4.5 as you zoom in, then unless the ISO sensitivity is increased correspondingly, (e.g. from iso400 to iso640) the exposure will be 'darker'.

In theory, yes.

In practice, are you actually able to observe such a minor difference?

And - again in practice - what are you gaining?

Truly?

Yes, the aperture certainly changes, but my point is that the changes are minimal, and will typically be non-critical.

I would certainly not see this as a reason to use auto ISO.

I use A mode with fixed iso when I know that the shutter speed is not going to be too slow.

Define "too slow".

Note the qualifier "while shooting wide open and with fixed shutter speed".

But when shooting wide open, you often have faster shutter speeds available.

gstark wrote:

pwoo wrote::ot:
I started on a reply then got distracted by other work. When I got back to the post, the login timed out and lost all my typing. I wish there is a "save draft" function.

There is. See the "Save" button.

Where is the "Save" button exactly? Is this another "member only" feature? I can only find the 'Preview' and 'Submit' buttons.

gstark wrote:Even if the subject is quite close, the differences would not be all that noticeable. Not at the stated apertures.

I mistakenly thought that at "macro distance" (1:1), it may be noticeable. A quick calculation using the formula in Wiki proved me wrong.

gstark wrote:In practice, are you actually able to observe such a minor difference?

I actually took a few test shoots at f3.5 and f4.5 without auto iso, and I can honestly say I see the difference in overall image brightness on the screen.

gstark wrote:And - again in practice - what are you gaining?

That I am not too sure, given that PP should be able to correct the exposure difference. May be for someone that doesn't do PP and direct print from out of camera jpeg?

gstark wrote:I would certainly not see this as a reason to use auto ISO.

Hmm, let's look at it in another way. What are the disadvantages of using auto ISO?

gstark wrote:Define "too slow".

With my imperfect technique, anything slower than 1/50 handheld is too slow, regardless of focal length. I like to use 1/80 or faster in general. For kids on the move, 1/200.

Regards,
Patrick

pwoo wrote:

gstark wrote:

pwoo wrote::ot:
I started on a reply then got distracted by other work. When I got back to the post, the login timed out and lost all my typing. I wish there is a "save draft" function.

There is. See the "Save" button.

Where is the "Save" button exactly? Is this another "member only" feature? I can only find the 'Preview' and 'Submit' buttons.

Perhaps, but that was not my impression. I will need to have a look. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

gstark wrote:In practice, are you actually able to observe such a minor difference?

I actually took a few test shoots at f3.5 and f4.5 without auto iso, and I can honestly say I see the difference in overall image brightness on the screen.

On the LCD on the back of the camera?

Have you turned its brightness up?

Or down?

When was this screen last calibrated?

The reality is that the LCD is NOT a calibrated screen. It should NEVER be used as a guide to correct exposure. Not by istself.

By all means, switch it to histogram view, and then look at the histograms; that will give you a good indication of what is happening with your exposure. But it is not, by itself, a good tool for exposure evaluation, because it's a totally uncontrolled device.

gstark wrote:And - again in practice - what are you gaining?

That I am not too sure, given that PP should be able to correct the exposure difference. May be for someone that doesn't do PP and direct print from out of camera jpeg?

Which brings us back to the practical differences that one might be able to see when comparing a properly exposed image with one that's less than a stop out one way or the other.

Or what about if the images might be a third stop over vs a third stop under, due to poor judgment of the exposure mode in use?

My contention is that these errors may be very easily - and transparently - compensated for in printing. If you're using a bulk printing facility, you haven't got a clue as to what their calibration settings might be anyway, and who knows what your outcomes might be?

gstark wrote:I would certainly not see this as a reason to use auto ISO.

Hmm, let's look at it in another way. What are the disadvantages of using auto ISO?

Total lack of control of the image making processes.

While the intrusion of unwanted artifacts at ISOs higher than what you might otherwise have chosen is a pretty big issue, the absence of control - and for no noticeable or practical gain - is the real kicker here.

Apart from the simple fact that your stated reason - controlling the aperture - is just, to me, plain wrong.

Let me put this another way: in about 30 years behind the lens, I have yet to see any reason for the use of auto ISO. I think were there such a reason, it might have jumped out at me and hit me over the head by now.

Or perhaps I can put this another way: I can accept that some people - many people - don't understand the concept of ISO and film/emulsion/sensor sensitivity. Many of those people only ever use the PHD facilities of their cameras, and that is their choice, and that is fine. By all means, they will need to use the auto ISO facilities due to their lack of knowledge and understanding of what is happening under the hood.

But to claim to use auto iso to control one's exposure settings, to me, is an abrogation of one's responsibilities in setting out to achieve correct exposure through knowledge, control and understanding of the photographic processes involved.

One may as well be drinking Ben Ean.

gstark wrote:Define "too slow".

With my imperfect technique, anything slower than 1/50 handheld is too slow, regardless of focal length. I like to use 1/80 or faster in general. For kids on the move, 1/200.

Then perhaps you might need to work on your "imperfect" technique. With correct technique, a 50mm lens should be able to be handheld down to 1/30, and 1/15 if you're trying. Even longer intervals are possible with good technique and modern tools like VR/IS.

For kids on the move, consider the use of flash, where your effective shutter speed will be a lot faster again, even with 1/200.

pwoo wrote:With my imperfect technique, anything slower than 1/50 handheld is too slow, regardless of focal length. I like to use 1/80 or faster in general. For kids on the move, 1/200.

You might like to have a look at this:
http://www.chimp.com.au/2009/10/how-to-hold-a-camera-in-three-steps/
The general rule of thumb you should be aiming for is Handhold no slower than 1/nnn seconds where nnn = focal length of the lens you are using. so 200mm lens use 1/200 sec. for an 18mm lens use 1/18 sec With good technique, you can better these, but you should be able to at least equal these easily. If you use VR/IS, you can slow down even more e.g. 200mm lens at 1/50 Sec

gstark wrote:Perhaps, but that was not my impression. I will need to have a look. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Can't say I've ever noticed a save button either Gary

I have to say I am with Gary on the Auto ISO thing. I used it when I first got my camera, and couldn't work out why some of my shots were so noisy If you are not careful, you will be shooting at ISO1600 or higher.

Can I say that this thread is getting a bit painful to read......can we be less aggressive in tone (or is just me who is feeling the aggression???)

That aside I have two things to add.

no save button...never seen one...would love one

Auto ISO (cringes) on the newer bodies (D300, D60 both have it so I guess the D90, D5000 and D3000 will as well, not sure about anything older) you can set the maximum ISO setting that Auto ISO can use. So if you decide to use Auto ISO you can limit how high the camera is allowed to go (ie maybe 800 or 1600 would be a good limit depending on what you are comfortable with).

aim54x wrote:Can I say that this thread is getting a bit painful to read......can we be less aggressive in tone (or is just me who is feeling the aggression???)

To cool everyone down and potentially put y'all to sleep, I suggest that the less knowledgable of you read the following simple description on ISO.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/09/sense-and-sensitivity.html BTW, I can see a save button while I type this; it's immediately left of the preview button.

gstark wrote:

gstark wrote:I would certainly not see this as a reason to use auto ISO.

Hmm, let's look at it in another way. What are the disadvantages of using auto ISO?

Total lack of control of the image making processes.

While the intrusion of unwanted artifacts at ISOs higher than what you might otherwise have chosen is a pretty big issue, the absence of control - and for no noticeable or practical gain - is the real kicker here.

Apart from the simple fact that your stated reason - controlling the aperture - is just, to me, plain wrong.

Let me put this another way: in about 30 years behind the lens, I have yet to see any reason for the use of auto ISO. I think were there such a reason, it might have jumped out at me and hit me over the head by now.

I have to disagree with this quite strongly.

First of all, auto ISO has really only been the realm of digital photography and was not possible (at a single image perspective) with film. It was possible with film for all frames on a roll of film by film pushing (and pulling) and was actually used frequently with black and white - especially if one had shot a roll of film with the wrong ISO. Many people used film pushing or pulling simply because they didn't have the "correct" ISO of film available. But anyway, I digress.

In my opinion, auto ISO gives you MORE control (especially creative control) not less. With auto ISO you have control over BOTH shutter speed and aperture without having to compromise because of the amount of available light (within reason). If you need a certain shutter speed and a certain aperture you can choose those and let the camera choose the necessary ISO for that combination. This is more control than using a fixed ISO and fixed shutter speed or aperture and letting the camera choose the aperture or shutter speed.

I can think of two situations where this would be useful (and I'm sure there are more). You are shooting sports in varying lighting conditions. You need a certain shutter speed to capture the action, but not too fast as you want some motion blur. So you choose a shutter speed. You want a certain aperture to give you the desired depth of field. Set the camera on manual, choose the shutter speed you want, choose the aperture you want and set the camera on auto ISO. As you follow the action (and the lighting changes) the camera chooses the ISO appropriate for the situation.

The second one I have done myself while shooting dragonflies. Again, varying lighting conditions, but also harsh lighting conditions (full to dappled sunlight). I wanted to use flash fill to soften the light. I set the shutter speed to 1/250s (if I remember correctly) as this was the maximum I could get with the flash (I find FP doesn't work well for nature stuff). I set the aperture to f/11 as this gave me the DOF that I needed - separation of the dragonfly from the background and sufficient sharpness on the dragonfly itself. I set the EV for the camera to -2/3. I set the EV for the flash to around -2/3. Set the camera on auto ISO. Went shooting. It worked well. Without auto ISO I would have had less control as I would have had to compromise on either shutter speed or aperture, or I would have been spending time manually changing ISO when I should have been composing the shot.

I'm sure there are loads of other examples where auto ISO is an advantage.

By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

ATJ wrote:First of all, auto ISO has really only been the realm of digital photography

It was possible with film for all frames on a roll of film by film pushing (and pulling) and was actually used frequently with black and white - especially if one had shot a roll of film with the wrong ISO. Many people used film pushing or pulling simply because they didn't have the "correct" ISO of film available.

But I would not call pulling or pushing film the older equivalent of auto-iso.

Yes, you could adjust your processing of the film to force the emulsion into a different level of sensitivity. But only one per roll of film - it was never variable amongst discrete images within the roll, and it was always a known, fixed ISO equivalency.

In my opinion, auto ISO gives you MORE control (especially creative control) not less. With auto ISO you have control over BOTH shutter speed and aperture without having to compromise because of the amount of available light (within reason). If you need a certain shutter speed and a certain aperture you can choose those and let the camera choose the necessary ISO for that combination. This is more control than using a fixed ISO and fixed shutter speed or aperture and letting the camera choose the aperture or shutter speed.

Actually, I view this as having less control.

My basis of comparison is that I am choosing the ISO. I am choosing the aperture. I am aware of, if not actually choosing, the shutter speed. If I find that I need greater (or lesser) sensitivity, I can simply adjust my ISO.

There are two things that I really do not want the camera choosing for me: ISO and WB. As good as Nikon's geeks in Japan might be, they have no concept of what I might be shooting.

Neither do I, of course, and that's what makes their choices have even less validity to me.

As you follow the action (and the lighting changes) the camera chooses the ISO appropriate for the situation.

And potentially delivers you an image that looks like it was shot with buckshot!

Without auto ISO I would have had less control as I would have had to compromise on either shutter speed or aperture, or I would have been spending time manually changing ISO when I should have been composing the shot.

I accept what you're saying, but not the underlying premise. I would think that with whatever the prevailing conditions might be, you should be able to select an appropriate ISO value that gives you the desired latitude, without needing to revert to auto-iso.

And especially if you're shooting with fill. I would be setting my reduced power flash as my primary EV parameter; the rest should just fall into line.

ATJ wrote:By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

While you're typing the message?

And yet Cameron does?

That is very bloody strange.

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:First of all, auto ISO has really only been the realm of digital photography

It was possible with film for all frames on a roll of film by film pushing (and pulling) and was actually used frequently with black and white - especially if one had shot a roll of film with the wrong ISO. Many people used film pushing or pulling simply because they didn't have the "correct" ISO of film available.

But I would not call pulling or pushing film the older equivalent of auto-iso.

Yes, you could adjust your processing of the film to force the emulsion into a different level of sensitivity. But only one per roll of film - it was never variable amongst discrete images within the roll, and it was always a known, fixed ISO equivalency.

Which was exactly what I said, but you chopped that out of my quote. Here it is again for you:

ATJ wrote:First of all, auto ISO has really only been the realm of digital photography and was not possible (at a single image perspective) with film.

I have to wonder why you went to the trouble of deleting that from my quote and then stating the same thing yourself.

gstark wrote:

In my opinion, auto ISO gives you MORE control (especially creative control) not less. With auto ISO you have control over BOTH shutter speed and aperture without having to compromise because of the amount of available light (within reason). If you need a certain shutter speed and a certain aperture you can choose those and let the camera choose the necessary ISO for that combination. This is more control than using a fixed ISO and fixed shutter speed or aperture and letting the camera choose the aperture or shutter speed.

Actually, I view this as having less control.

My basis of comparison is that I am choosing the ISO. I am choosing the aperture. I am aware of, if not actually choosing, the shutter speed. If I find that I need greater (or lesser) sensitivity, I can simply adjust my ISO.

There are two things that I really do not want the camera choosing for me: ISO and WB. As good as Nikon's geeks in Japan might be, they have no concept of what I might be shooting.

Neither do I, of course, and that's what makes their choices have even less validity to me.

Do you ever use shutter priority or aperture priority? If not, then perhaps your comments have some relevance. If you let the camera choose the shutter speed or the aperture, you are letting Nikon's geeks in Japan decide for you, even though they have no idea what you might be shooting.

gstark wrote:

As you follow the action (and the lighting changes) the camera chooses the ISO appropriate for the situation.

And potentially delivers you an image that looks like it was shot with buckshot!

And you base this one what, pray tell? You can set the upper limit of the ISO to avoid getting into the realm of noise, etc. With a D300 you have a range of ISO 100 to 800 where noise is not going to be a problem. That's 4 stops. That's a lot.

gstark wrote:

Without auto ISO I would have had less control as I would have had to compromise on either shutter speed or aperture, or I would have been spending time manually changing ISO when I should have been composing the shot.

I accept what you're saying, but not the underlying premise. I would think that with whatever the prevailing conditions might be, you should be able to select an appropriate ISO value that gives you the desired latitude, without needing to revert to auto-iso.

Not when you are shooting action or animals. You don't have time to constantly change the ISO. If the camera can meter to choose the shutter speed (in A mode) or the aperture (in S mode), it can just as easily use the exact same meter information to change the ISO. That's all it is doing.

In fact, that's all you are doing when you manually change the ISO. You look at what the meter is telling you and adjust the ISO until the meter tells you it is correctly exposed. Why not let the camera do that for you? If you think it will screw it up, then you will screw it up, too, as you would be using the same (well probably less) information that the camera is using.

gstark wrote:And especially if you're shooting with fill. I would be setting my reduced power flash as my primary EV parameter; the rest should just fall into line.

And when I do this the shot is overexposed. I'm not talking theory, here. I experimented to get the result I wanted.

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

While you're typing the message?

No, but then I am using http://www.d70users.com at the moment (as per your request).

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

While you're typing the message?

No, but then I am using http://www.d70users.com at the moment (as per your request).

I don't either. I have tried with dslrusers.com, dslrusers.net and d70users.com

I would argue that pushing film is NOT the same as AutoISO in any way. To do this you need to make a conscious decision to change the ISO, not let the camera decide for you. That is the same as changing the ISO setting using the dials. That is NOT autoISO.

I like your scenarios Andrew. Both make sense to me. Sadly my camera has noticeable noise even at relatively low ISO, so I don't think I will be trying them. Still it's better than Kodachrome 25

Mr Darcy wrote:I would argue that pushing film is NOT the same as AutoISO in any way. To do this you need to make a conscious decision to change the ISO, not let the camera decide for you. That is the same as changing the ISO setting using the dials. That is NOT autoISO.

I'm regretting I even mentioned film pushing now. My intent was in no way to compare film pushing to auto ISO. As per my first point, which people choose to ignore, Auto ISO only has relevance in digital photography. I only raised the idea of film pushing because it is the closest thing to changing ISO (but is not nearly the same thing) and was being thorough. I only raised film at all because Gary commented that he never needed auto ISO in 30 years behind the lens. Well, only 5 years (since his D70) is relevant and as you say, ISO on the D70 is such that it really isn't an option. On a D300 is is a fantastic feature.

ATJ wrote:Auto ISO only has relevance in digital photography

Umm. I was agreeing with you. That comment was directed at Gary, not you

ATJ wrote:On a D300 is is a fantastic feature.

Now you're just making me jealous. One day... (Sigh. After I win Lotto... after I can afford to buy a ticket.

Mr Darcy wrote:

ATJ wrote:Auto ISO only has relevance in digital photography

Umm. I was agreeing with you. That comment was directed at Gary, not you

And you agree with Gary, too.

gstark wrote:But I would not call pulling or pushing film the older equivalent of auto-iso.

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

While you're typing the message?

And yet Cameron does?

That is very bloody strange.

Not sure which Cameron you are referring to Gary

aim54x (Cameron) wrote:no save button...never seen one...would love one

Not to get anyone worked up but, I CAN see a save button to the left of the preview button.

ATJ wrote:

First of all, auto ISO has really only been the realm of digital photography and was not possible (at a single image perspective) with film.

I have to wonder why you went to the trouble of deleting that from my quote and then stating the same thing yourself

Perhaps because it was (and still is) possible to alter the ISO of film at an individual frame level, depending upon what and how you're shooting.

With sheet film, you are always shooting one frame at a time.

But to be honest, I can't say why I selectively edited that,except perhaps for brevity. My apologies if it seemed that I misquoted you; that was certainly not my intent.

gstark wrote:

In my opinion, auto ISO gives you MORE control (especially creative control) not less. With auto ISO you have control over BOTH shutter speed and aperture without having to compromise because of the amount of available light (within reason). If you need a certain shutter speed and a certain aperture you can choose those and let the camera choose the necessary ISO for that combination. This is more control than using a fixed ISO and fixed shutter speed or aperture and letting the camera choose the aperture or shutter speed.

Actually, I view this as having less control.

My basis of comparison is that I am choosing the ISO. I am choosing the aperture. I am aware of, if not actually choosing, the shutter speed. If I find that I need greater (or lesser) sensitivity, I can simply adjust my ISO.

There are two things that I really do not want the camera choosing for me: ISO and WB. As good as Nikon's geeks in Japan might be, they have no concept of what I might be shooting.

Neither do I, of course, and that's what makes their choices have even less validity to me.

Do you ever use shutter priority or aperture priority? If not, then perhaps your comments have some relevance. If you let the camera choose the shutter speed or the aperture, you are letting Nikon's geeks in Japan decide for you, even though they have no idea what you might be shooting.

About 50% of my shooting would be in M.

Regardless, the unintended consequences of shooting with auto-iso are very different from those of shooting with fixed ISO.

And no, even in A and S mode, the geeks are not doing a whole lot: most of that time - 90%+ - I'm shooting using spot metering, which pretty well eliminates most of their algorithms.

If I were using matrix metering, then yes, I would be letting them make my decisions. I don't, and thus they don't.

gstark wrote:

As you follow the action (and the lighting changes) the camera chooses the ISO appropriate for the situation.

And potentially delivers you an image that looks like it was shot with buckshot!

And you base this one what, pray tell? You can set the upper limit of the ISO to avoid getting into the realm of noise, etc. With a D300 you have a range of ISO 100 to 800 where noise is not going to be a problem. That's 4 stops. That's a lot.

Let's just say that I wasn't happy with the results that I obtained, and I much prefer to not use auto iso.

Not when you are shooting action or animals. You don't have time to constantly change the ISO. If the camera can meter to choose the shutter speed (in A mode) or the aperture (in S mode), it can just as easily use the exact same meter information to change the ISO. That's all it is doing.

Except for the unintended consequences. I prefer to live on the edge of what might be acceptable shutter speed selections, rather than go down the auto iso route.

I guess this comes back to personal preferences, and one's ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds. Shooting with filum, in dark churches, this is a technique that I learned a long time ago. I'm quite comfy shooting handheld at 1/15, but I accept that this is not suitable for fast moving subjects.

In fact, that's all you are doing when you manually change the ISO. You look at what the meter is telling you and adjust the ISO until the meter tells you it is correctly exposed.

Actually, no.

I decide when the image is correctly exposed. The histogram helps me make my assessment, but it's always my call. I have often shot two or three stops under (according to the meter) but the outcomes that I achieved were exactly what I was wanting.

Had I permitted Nikon's settings to override my choices, I would have ended up with total shit. Instead, I was pleased to achieve partial shit.

gstark wrote:And especially if you're shooting with fill. I would be setting my reduced power flash as my primary EV parameter; the rest should just fall into line.

And when I do this the shot is overexposed. I'm not talking theory, here. I experimented to get the result I wanted.

Which probably suggests to me that maybe a bit more experimentation might be in order. Maybe this is something (a technique) that we could workshop as a group?

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:By the way... I don't get no steenking save button.

While you're typing the message?

And yet Cameron does?

That is very bloody strange.

Not sure which Cameron you are referring to Gary

aim54x (Cameron) wrote:no save button...never seen one...would love one

Sorry, it was Surenj who was seeing the save button.

As do I, but not if I am editing a post.

And I've also had a look through the forum options, and I cannot see anywhere where these may be set.

And Andrew, using the different URL would not be a factor in this.

To my mind, (what's left of it) each of you would be members at the same membership level, and thus you should all be able to see these buttons. Very bloody strange.

gstark wrote:And no, even in A and S mode, the geeks are not doing a whole lot: most of that time - 90%+ - I'm shooting using spot metering, which pretty well eliminates most of their algorithms.

If I were using matrix metering, then yes, I would be letting them make my decisions. I don't, and thus they don't.

That's the difference then. I use matrix metering so auto ISO works well for me. I will do some experimentation, though, with spot metering because in theory it should also work - but probably not as well.

gstark wrote:I decide when the image is correctly exposed. The histogram helps me make my assessment, but it's always my call. I have often shot two or three stops under (according to the meter) but the outcomes that I achieved were exactly what I was wanting.

Had I permitted Nikon's settings to override my choices, I would have ended up with total shit. Instead, I was pleased to achieve partial shit.

A similar thing can be achieved with exposure compensation (with S, M or auto ISO).

gstark wrote:Which probably suggests to me that maybe a bit more experimentation might be in order. Maybe this is something (a technique) that we could workshop as a group?

What I mean was that experimenting showed me that -2/3 on the ambient and -2/3 on the flash gave me the results I wanted under the conditions I was in for the subjects I was shooting. When I went with 0 on ambient I had over exposed results.

gstark wrote:And Andrew, using the different URL would not be a factor in this.

I'm back to using www.dslrusers.com and I still don't have a save button. I'm running Firefox 3.5.3 on Windows XP SP2 (in case that makes a difference).

gstark wrote:To my mind, (what's left of it) each of you would be members at the same membership level, and thus you should all be able to see these buttons. Very bloody strange.

Any changes in this now?

Nope. Just Preview & Submit

(Are we getting just a little too far

Mr Darcy wrote:Nope. Just Preview & Submit

(Are we getting just a little too far

+1 on both counts....still no Save button...and

I must be in a parallel universe. I not only get a SAVE button, also occationally have seen a LOAD button as well. I have never pressed any of them however.

After doing some testing with my D300 I can confirm that (at least for my D300), Auto-ISO plus Manual mode can be used in any situation where you would have used either shutter or aperture priority with a fixed ISO. In all 3 cases, the camera will use its meter to choose the appropriate ISO, shutter speed or aperture.

Any of these three methods will result in an equivalently exposed image to either of the other two methods. Auto-ISO plus M mode will be no worse than S or A modes and, in my opinion, offer benefits over them as both aperture and shutter speed have a greater impact on the resulting image than ISO (assuming the image is satisfactorily exposed and has acceptable levels of noise).

An added plus was that the AE-L (Auto Exposure Lock) also works with Auto-ISO. So, for someone who uses spot metering and A or S modes, meters on an area of the subject, presses AE-L and then reframes the image, you can do the same thing with Auto-ISO and M mode as AE-L locks the determined ISO. For example, if you want to expose for shadows, point the centre of the frame at the shadows, press AE-L and then frame the shot as desired. The ISO will be set for the shadows based on the shutter speed and aperture already selected.