ISO settings

[Groucho]

One other thing, generally you really won't want to "play with" ISO like you would with aperture and shutter speed. Playing with aperture can have creative effects like changing the depth of field (though this is not as flexible with a PnS) and shutter speeds are necessary to play with in order to see how fast you need to shoot to stop motion or get a steady half-held shot at various zooms.

But ISO is generally the thing that you change when you can't get any more aperture and your shutter speed is slow enough that you're getting a blurry image - a "last resort" type of thing.

 

[praline3001]

Thanks everyone! I went to sleep last night. I think I am going to stick with more auto point and shoot just so I don't mess up any of my big family vacation pics.

DD and I are going back in june and I am going to do a lot more reading and practicing before that trip and try to get more fancy.

 

[seashoreCM]

The normal flash setting on a point-and-shoot constrains the shutter to usually no slower than 1/60 second. Increasing the ISO increases the flash range (where a smart flash has maxed out), given that a higher ISO needs less light to photograph that subject matter. Increasing the ISO will also increase the brightness of subject matter well beyond the range of the flash and that had substantial existing light upon it.

Changing the ISO when the smart flash is able to use its smarts (close subjects) should not make a change in how bright the subject comes out. Same as when changing the ISO for outdoor daytime shooting when the lens aperture is not maxed out, that should not make the picture brighter or darker.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Maybe not, but it's a neat helicopter! Does it fly well?

Yes, it flys very well. But, batteries go too fast for me.

 

[Hensandchickens]

I currently have a Sony Cybershot DSC-S75. Why I want a new camera:
1. My Sony is old, at least 5 years old, maybe older.
2. It's really heavy and bulky.
3. I don't think my pictures are crisp, clear, in focus as much as they could be.
4. This camera seems to take very slow shots. I miss action shots all the time.

What I want from a new camera:
1. Size. I want to be able to put this in a purse (not a huge tote bag) and still have room for my other stuff.
2. I would like to catch someone maybe jumping in the air, not when they have landed and are walking away. Or, someone with a fresh smile on their face, not that frozen "have you taken the picture yet" grimace.
3. Easy to use.

I'm thinking about a Cannon SD 850. I like the idea of Image Stabilization and Face Detection. I also love having the removable memory v's it being built in. I think having a view finder is another good thing. I can order this camera from Costco for $269. (I like Costco because of the return policy)

Is there another camera out there with the features that I'm looking for less money? Something that has good picture quality? I'd love to spend under $200, but I don't want something junky. TIA!

 

[Shir Kahn]

I'm just going to say that I think your choice of the Canon SD850 IS is a very good choice. I own the 870 IS, which is basically the same camera, except mine has a 3" LCD and no viewfinder and also has wide angle. Fantastic camera!

 

[mike_r]

http://community.webshots.com/user/mromero25?vhost=community

What I want from a new camera:
1. Size. I want to be able to put this in a purse (not a huge tote bag) and still have room for my other stuff.
2. I would like to catch someone maybe jumping in the air, not when they have landed and are walking away. Or, someone with a fresh smile on their face, not that frozen "have you taken the picture yet" grimace.
3. Easy to use.
:

1. It is definatley small enough to carry in your purse, I got the 870is for my last trip to Disney in January and its a great camera I carried it in my front pocket most of the time. Like the previous poster said the 870 and 850 are pretty much the same camera but what sold it for me was it was able to take wider pictures.
2. Unfortunatley its kinda hard taking action shots with a point and shoot camera because of the shutter lag between you pressing the button and it taking the first picture, it takes my 870 a second or less for it to actually take the picture once the button is pressed.
3. Very easy to use.

All of the pictures here taken in January 2008 where with the Canon 870is, except the Sea World one that says 30D:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mromero25?vhost=community

 

[Hensandchickens]

Thank you both! I love seeing the pictures from the camera. They look great.

 

[seashoreCM]

They're similar but each has something the other two don't.

SD850 -- A little more zoom
SD870 -- A little wider angle
SD1100 -- A little smaller, physically

The so called "Kids and pets" setting is really meant to snap the picture with less of the delay people expect with digital cameras, and thus capture the moment you wanted to take. (It's not a faster shutter speed per se for fast moving subjects.)

For under $200. you will probably give up the image stabilization.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

 

[Groucho]

Also, image stabilization won't help with freezing moving subjects (like people jumping in the air) - it only counteracts camera shake (from your hands), which allows the camera use a slower shutter speed when necessary. A slower shutter speed means blur of moving objects.

Face detection is a bit of a gimmick. Not completely useless but not really a must-have, IMHO.

 

[cmwade77]

I have an olympus stylus 770sw and it takes great action shots in the sports mode, very fast response, sometimes I am a little too quick on taking it as I am still adjusting from my previous camera. This one is virtually instant and it's waterproof (to 33 ft) as an added bonus. The newest version of it is a 10 MP camera and can stitch together photos in the camera for panoramic shots. Both are small enough to easily fit into a pocket and have great image stabilization features as well as features to help with moving subjects. They are also crush proof (the newest version even more so), freeze proof and take great shots.

Please note that none of the following photos have been edited in anyway (except perhaps a resize by Photobucket)
Taken while riding Grizzly River run

The next two are also while on grizzly river run, I think that the pictures can speak for themselves though.

Note the following is my littlest sister trying Beverly, I didn't know she was going to, so the camera was in the case when she did, I still managed to get it out and get this shot, so it is a little blurry as I was taking the picture while getting the camera out of the case, still shows what the camera CAN do.

I also just discovered that I can change ISOs, shutter speeds, exposure compensation, white balance, etc. on this camera the other day, so I am now playing around with that.

 

[AlienBrain]

I wanted to open up a thread about ISO. I know what ISO is, but I do not understand when is a good situation to use it (i.e. I don't "understand" it). Obviously if you want a faster shutter speed at a fixed aperture, turning the ISO up will be able to provide; but if you turn it up too much, things become grainy. What has really confused me is when I look at the EXIF data for great pictures taken in good lighting (broad daylight) where the photographer decided to use an ISO above 100. Could some of you comment on ISO and how it fits into your framing of the picture? When you are composing a picture, what causes you to go "Aha, I need to adjust the ISO"? I have yet to get a good explanation on ISO and its uses (advantages and disadvantages). Maybe Mark Barbieri can do an entry on ISO in his blog, b/c I am sure other people may not be totally familiar with this topic either (just a suggestion ... you are good a describing things IMO).

THANKS!!!

 

[AndrewWG]

I wanted to open up a thread about ISO. I know what ISO is, but I do not understand when is a good situation to use it (i.e. I don't "understand" it). Obviously if you want a faster shutter speed at a fixed aperture, turning the ISO up will be able to provide; but if you turn it up too much, things become grainy. What has really confused me is when I look at the EXIF data for great pictures taken in good lighting (broad daylight) where the photographer decided to use an ISO above 100. Could some of you comment on ISO and how it fits into your framing of the picture? When you are composing a picture, what causes you to go "Aha, I need to adjust the ISO"? I have yet to get a good explanation on ISO and its uses (advantages and disadvantages). Maybe Mark Barbieri can do an entry on ISO in his blog, b/c I am sure other people may not be totally familiar with this topic either (just a suggestion ... you are good a describing things IMO).

THANKS!!!

Really all I can answer here is that if I need the shutter speed, I will up the ISO like you said. I think that some cameras don't have ISO's less than 200, so that may answer your question about why a photographer chooses something above 100 for an otherwise normal lighting situation. Someone can correct me if I am wrong here, but I think it is some of the Nikon or Pentax cameras that start at ISO 200?

 

[YEKCIM]

I don't know that I ever considered ISO in terms of composition/framing. My rule of thumb, when shooting film, was "use the slowest ISO film you can get away with". I use the same theory with digital. The trick is to know when to bump the ISO up a notch or two, to compensate for the lighting. For example, let's say you are using a 200mm lens, and you want to use an aperture of f/8. The lighting conditions, using ISO 100 and f/8, result in a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. You know that you probably cannot hand-hold the 200mm and get a sharp image at 1/30 sec. In order to get your shutter speed up to a hand-hold-able setting, you'd need to increase the ISO, in order to get an adequate shutter speed. Ideally, you would want something around 1/250 sec, which is three stops faster than 1/30 (1/30 > 1/60 > 1/125 > 1/250, 3 stops). To maintain the f/8 aperture *and* get the 1/250 shutter speed, you would need to increase the ISO setting on the camera, proportionately, to ISO 800 to compensate (100 > 200 > 400 > 800, 3 stops). Full stops are double or half.

I hope that didn't just confuse the issue for you. Understanding f/stops, shutter speed, and ISO is not too complicated, but it takes some practice to get proficient with it.

~Ed

 

[Master Mason]

I wanted to open up a thread about ISO. I know what ISO is, but I do not understand when is a good situation to use it (i.e. I don't "understand" it). Obviously if you want a faster shutter speed at a fixed aperture, turning the ISO up will be able to provide; but if you turn it up too much, things become grainy. What has really confused me is when I look at the EXIF data for great pictures taken in good lighting (broad daylight) where the photographer decided to use an ISO above 100. Could some of you comment on ISO and how it fits into your framing of the picture? When you are composing a picture, what causes you to go "Aha, I need to adjust the ISO"? I have yet to get a good explanation on ISO and its uses (advantages and disadvantages). Maybe Mark Barbieri can do an entry on ISO in his blog, b/c I am sure other people may not be totally familiar with this topic either (just a suggestion ... you are good a describing things IMO).

THANKS!!!

I'll give it my take.

I think you undestand the 3 legs of the triangle thing. Where Apeture, Shutter speed, and ISO meet to form a proper exposure. If one item is adusted up, another must be adjusted down inorder to retain the proper exposure.

I tend to shoot a lot of sports shots, so I need my shutter speed to be pretty quick. I also tend to shoot wide open at f/2.8, so the only way I can control shutterspeed is to raise the ISO setting.

Depending on where the sun is, even on a bright sunny day, the subject may have some shadows on them, which will make the camera pick a slower shutter speed, because it is darker, so I may have to boost the ISO to 400 to make sure that when I shoot into those shadow areas, the shutter is still moving fast enough.

I think that all of the current dSLR's are capable of handling at least to ISO 400 with almost no existant noise, so your not hurting yourself or your IQ any if you use 400.

As for High ISO and getting noice, I would rather have some noise than a blurry picture myself, so I'll move to 3200 with no issues with my 40D, it is really personal preference I think.

 

[AlienBrain]

I'll give it my take.

I think you undestand the 3 legs of the triangle thing. Where Apeture, Shutter speed, and ISO meet to form a proper exposure. If one item is adusted up, another must be adjusted down inorder to retain the proper exposure.

I tend to shoot a lot of sports shots, so I need my shutter speed to be pretty quick. I also tend to shoot wide open at f/2.8, so the only way I can control shutterspeed is to raise the ISO setting.

Depending on where the sun is, even on a bright sunny day, the subject may have some shadows on them, which will make the camera pick a slower shutter speed, because it is darker, so I may have to boost the ISO to 400 to make sure that when I shoot into those shadow areas, the shutter is still moving fast enough.

I think that all of the current dSLR's are capable of handling at least to ISO 400 with almost no existant noise, so your not hurting yourself or your IQ any if you use 400.

As for High ISO and getting noice, I would rather have some noise than a blurry picture myself, so I'll move to 3200 with no issues with my 40D, it is really personal preference I think.

That makes good sense. I think I am getting it now. Thanks!

 

[SonyaM]

They have you covered, but another instance where high ISO is valuable is in shady areas and indoors. I tend to shoot a MINIMUM of ISO 400 indoors to allow some abient light into the photo, usually I go up to ISO 800. I use bounced flash when I need flash, but I still stick to a higher ISO to make the photo look *less* flashy. The same applies to open shade. I like the look of ambient light rather than just fill flash. Using the flash as lightly as possible to fill the shadows. Hope this is of help.

 

[Groucho]

Really all I can answer here is that if I need the shutter speed, I will up the ISO like you said. I think that some cameras don't have ISO's less than 200, so that may answer your question about why a photographer chooses something above 100 for an otherwise normal lighting situation. Someone can correct me if I am wrong here, but I think it is some of the Nikon or Pentax cameras that start at ISO 200?

Yeah, the 6mp Sony sensor used in the Nikon D50/D40/(maybe another?) and Pentax (all models except the K10D, K200D, and K20D) starts at ISO 200.

The others have already said what I would have said about the OP's question so I won't bother retyping it.

 

[AlienBrain]

They have you covered, but another instance where high ISO is valuable is in shady areas and indoors. I tend to shoot a MINIMUM of ISO 400 indoors to allow some abient light into the photo, usually I go up to ISO 800. I use bounced flash when I need flash, but I still stick to a higher ISO to make the photo look *less* flashy. The same applies to open shade. I like the look of ambient light rather than just fill flash. Using the flash as lightly as possible to fill the shadows. Hope this is of help.

Thanks for the advice ... I just looked at your website and I really liked it. It has a neat theme. Nice work!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

It looks like it's been pretty well explained already, but I'll throw in a few more thoughts. First, I want to strongly emphasize what Gregg said - a sharp but noisy picture is almost always vastly preferable to a blurry picture with no noise. If you can't get your shutter speed low enough, don't hesitate to increase your ISO.

It helps to understand that increasing the ISO doesn't really make your sensor more sensitive. It increases the gain applied to the output of the sensor. It does the visual equivalent of turning up the volume on your radio. That makes the music louder, but it also makes every bit of static and hiss louder as well.

They have you covered, but another instance where high ISO is valuable is in shady areas and indoors. I tend to shoot a MINIMUM of ISO 400 indoors to allow some abient light into the photo, usually I go up to ISO 800. I use bounced flash when I need flash, but I still stick to a higher ISO to make the photo look *less* flashy. The same applies to open shade. I like the look of ambient light rather than just fill flash. Using the flash as lightly as possible to fill the shadows. Hope this is of help.

Here's a trick for getting the best possible flash shots indoors. First, try shooting without the flash. Second, make sure that your flash is in rear/second curtain sync mode. If the shutter speed is going to be too low or you'll have to set the ISO too high, use as little flash as possible. To do that, switch your camera to manual exposure mode. Open the aperture as wide as possible. Adjust the shutter speed so that your meter says that you are properly exposed. Presumably, the shutter speed is too slow at this setting. Increase the shutter speed by one stop (usually 2 or 3 settings depending on whether your camera adjusts in 1/2 or 1/3 stops). Now try taking the picture.

Here's what should happen. First, the camera will expose a lot of the scene without the flash (preventing the pitch black background problem). Then, the flash will fire to illuminate your subject that final stop. The flash will help freeze motion even if your shutter speed is a little long (like 1/15 seconds, not like 4 seconds). This will give you a reasonably good balance between ambient light and light from your flash.

Of course, all the other usual rules on flash apply:

1) The further from the lens the better.
2) Bouncing is better than direct.
3) The larger/closer the light source, the softer the light.