ISO settings

[Groucho]

now to top it off i just read a lens resolution article that mentioned it's kind of a moot point, some don't feel there is really a problem till you get over 20 mp and even then say it maybe isn't the resolution,could be something else showing up, you know, the usual 800+ opinions

Yeah, have that guy explain why people can see the difference in quality between a great lens and a junk one on a 6mp camera! Yeesh.

At 20mp, you're probably getting closer to out-resolving the better lenses, at least on a cropped sensor. The extra detail captured by the 24mp Sony FF DSLR over the 21mp Canon FF DSLR shows that at full frame at least, there's still extra detail to be captured.

Regardless - you're certainly more likely to notice the difference between a good lens and a great lens when going from 8mp to 15mp.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I will modify my statement to that they don't make any IS primes (other than the Nikon 105mm and perhaps the Canon 300mm F4) that mere mortals can afford!

Heck, that's not that much. If I'd decided to go big time lens shopping last week, pull all of my money out of the market, bought one of each of those lenses, and then put my remaining money back into the market on Friday, I'd still be ahead. I kind of wish I'd thought of that last Monday.

Besides, the IS makes them cheaper. Just check out how much Sony charges for equivalent lenses without IS.

 

[jann1033]

Heck, that's not that much. If I'd decided to go big time lens shopping last week, pull all of my money out of the market, bought one of each of those lenses, and then put my remaining money back into the market on Friday, I'd still be ahead. I kind of wish I'd thought of that last Monday.

Besides, the IS makes them cheaper. Just check out how much Sony charges for equivalent lenses without IS.

yeah, well hindsight isn't worth much more than those stocks

 

[Groucho]

Heck, that's not that much. If I'd decided to go big time lens shopping last week, pull all of my money out of the market, bought one of each of those lenses, and then put my remaining money back into the market on Friday, I'd still be ahead. I kind of wish I'd thought of that last Monday.

Besides, the IS makes them cheaper. Just check out how much Sony charges for equivalent lenses without IS.

Times like this I'm glad that I find the stock market rather disturbing, so I have very little in it. (I feel that it does more harm than good in the long run, or at the very least, encourages bad behavior by companies. But that's another issue...)

I wouldn't defend Sony prices, but on the other hand, you can get stabilization with lenses like 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 100mm macro, 135mm F1.8, etc... something not available at any price with the C/N bodies. I still say that it's only a matter of time C/N start putting IS in the body... that'd be a heck of a lot more compelling IMHO than half-baked video solutions. I am nothing if not full of opinions.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Times like this I'm glad that I find the stock market rather disturbing, so I have very little in it. (I feel that it does more harm than good in the long run, or at the very least, encourages bad behavior by companies. But that's another issue...)

I'm not sure I understand how owning shares of companies does more harm than good. Whatever. I have money in the stock market because it has always beat the returns on other investments in the long run. I'm saving money so that I can retire comfortably. I'd have to either save a lot more or lower my retirement expectations considerably if I didn't get the higher returns that equity investments offer. It's not pleasant during times like these, but these times are rare. Overall, my stock investments have still outperformed any other investments that I've made.

I wouldn't defend Sony prices, but on the other hand, you can get stabilization with lenses like 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 100mm macro, 135mm F1.8, etc... something not available at any price with the C/N bodies. I still say that it's only a matter of time C/N start putting IS in the body... that'd be a heck of a lot more compelling IMHO than half-baked video solutions. I am nothing if not full of opinions.

I'd like to see stabilizers in Canon's camera bodies, but I also don't see it as a really high priority. I'd be disappointed (and surprised) if they dropped the lens stabilizers on longer lenses, though, given the advantages of that approach.

Wandering back to the original thread topic, IS is still the smallest part of the equation. I don't have it in my camera bodies, but I can get even better than IS by just sticking my camera on something stable like a tripod, bean bag, or rock. The problem is that neither IS nor tripods help with moving subjects in low light. That's why fast apertures and high sensitivities are so important.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not sure I understand how owning shares of companies does more harm than good. Whatever. I have money in the stock market because it has always beat the returns on other investments in the long run. I'm saving money so that I can retire comfortably. I'd have to either save a lot more or lower my retirement expectations considerably if I didn't get the higher returns that equity investments offer. It's not pleasant during times like these, but these times are rare. Overall, my stock investments have still outperformed any other investments that I've made.

I think it's bad for the companies. I spent over eight years at a company that was one of countless damaged by the pursuit of higher stock prices. A new CEO came in, ballooned the stock with unsustainable (and unstable) growth, was kicked out, got a $40 million "golden parachute" while the stock tanked and many employees lost much of their retirement, meanwhile the new CEO and board attempted to bring back the stock price by the usual tactics of offshoring employees and generally putting employee morale in the toilet, with plenty of reorgs along the way. This is hardly an isolated incident!

I'm not saying that a company cannot do well by going public, but the greedy pursuit of quick stock gains often means making choices that are bad for the company in the long run.

I'd like to see stabilizers in Canon's camera bodies, but I also don't see it as a really high priority. I'd be disappointed (and surprised) if they dropped the lens stabilizers on longer lenses, though, given the advantages of that approach.

I doubt they ever will. Even if there truly is a worthwhile advantage to in-lens IS with long lenses (which I'm a little skeptical about, I suspect it's mostly marketing), they can surely set the camera to only use in-body IS with lenses without in-lens IS. Heck, if they can auto-apply image corrections based on the lens, that should be trivial! You can also always turn it off manually even if they didn't put it that option.

The point is that in-body IS is pretty much a system with zero disadvantages. The only reason not to include it is because they spent so much time talking about how their in-lens IS is better. If one started offering it, it would be a big selling point for them, and might even lead to one of the other big three pulling out. (Probably Sony, I don't know if they have enough to differentiate themselves other than IS, and their very expensive lenses are certainly a negative.) Who knows, it's an interesting topic to pontificate about.

 

[jann1033]

this is kind of off topic but imo i think image stabilization has been built up via marketing as way more useful than i have really found it to be. ie just like double digit mp, is will solve all your problems ... big deal, i don't need to take a monopod ( that weighs a couple ozs, which is basically what i have read the difference to be) for a few shots. it doesn't replace a tripod so to me it is helpful but not earth shatteringly so. maybe my problems with it early on colored my opinion but i just don't see an incredible difference in my lenses without is and my is lens at the same basic situation. maybe if i had a lower light is lens, i'd see an enormous difference but right now my experience hasn't shown it.
however after taking some iso 800 shots last time i was out and not able to use any i'm drooling for the higher iso camera ( ps i was using my is lens for stationary objects at the time so that didn't help at all ) or a lower light lens which ever i can get first

 

[Groucho]

It's no magic bullet but it definitely makes a worthwhile difference... try turning off IS on your IS lens and take some of the "harder" photos and see if you notice the difference. With the in-body one, you can see it working if you go in live view mode, and it's amazing what a difference it can make.

Point is, in-body IS is a legitimately helpful photographic tool with absolutely no negatives. C/N will have to add it at some point no matter how much they resist... and as I've said before, I'm sure they'll qualify their lateness with some variation of "the technology has finally matured to the point where it's good enough for us...."

 

[MarkBarbieri]

It's no magic bullet but it definitely makes a worthwhile difference... try turning off IS on your IS lens and take some of the "harder" photos and see if you notice the difference. With the in-body one, you can see it working if you go in live view mode, and it's amazing what a difference it can make.

Point is, in-body IS is a legitimately helpful photographic tool with absolutely no negatives. C/N will have to add it at some point no matter how much they resist... and as I've said before, I'm sure they'll qualify their lateness with some variation of "the technology has finally matured to the point where it's good enough for us...."

With in lens IS you can clearly see the difference in the viewfinder. You don't need to use LiveView. It's one of the major advantages to optical rather than sensor based stabilization.

I'm not holding my breath on Canon adding sensor stabilization. I agree that it's a nice feature that could be added cheaply, but I think that is not their direction. My reasoning is based on history.

At the time that Canon made the move to AF, their engineers thought a step ahead of everyone else and decided that it made more sense to put the AF motor at the point where the force was needed - in the lens. They were one of the later makes to move to AF and everyone else was putting the motor in the body. Canon argued that it was better to have it in the lens. At the time, the difference wasn't that big and there was extra cost for each lens. In fact, 3rd party lens makers charged more for their Canon versions because of that.

History has shown that they made the right decision. In-lens AF motors improved and started offering significant benefits. The cost per motor dropped to the point of being trivial. Now, everyone is following Canon's lead and moving to lens based focus motors and Nikon has even phased out body based motors on some of their cameras.

I suspect that they see history repeating itself on stabilization. Their design philosophy says that the stabilization should occur at the most effecient location (near the nodal point of the lens). It provides significant advantages over sensor based stabilization. As noted above, it stabilizes the image for the viewfinder. The spot meter and the AF sensor also benefit from a stabilized image. In-lens stabilization can also be customized to work well for longer focal lengths where small deflections could overwhelm an in-body stabilizer. Finally, it also allows for a more consistent image because the same part of the image circle is used. That means using the more of the center of the lens rather than the edges of the image circle. That will be increasingly important with greater use of software (and even firmware) for lens correction. If the image was taken from the left reach of the stabilizer, the distortion will be different than if it was taken from the center.

None of the advantages on in-lens stabilization is huge, but they are real. There are no significant disadvantages to in-lens stabilization other than the cost. With the new rebel using a stabilized kit lens, I think that Canon has signalled that it will push down the price of in-lens stabilization rather than go to in-body stabilization. Some lenses still have huge price markups for stabilization (about $500 for the 70-200 f/2.8). If it truly costs Canon hundreds of dollars per lens to develop and build stabilizer modules, then there strategy needs to change. If it's a $20 cost, that's another story.

 

[Groucho]

With in lens IS you can clearly see the difference in the viewfinder. You don't need to use LiveView. It's one of the major advantages to optical rather than sensor based stabilization.

I'm not debating that, my point was merely that you can easily (on a liveview DSLR with in-body IS) see how well the IS works (in case some - and I'm not saying you - doubt its effectiveness.)

History has shown that they made the right decision. In-lens AF motors improved and started offering significant benefits. The cost per motor dropped to the point of being trivial. Now, everyone is following Canon's lead and moving to lens based focus motors and Nikon has even phased out body based motors on some of their cameras.

Did they make the right decision? They instantly made every previous camera of theirs an abandoned product (for the fourth time in their history, IIRC.) Non-EOS Canon equipment is very nearly worthless today. Anyone who had a big investment in pre-EOS glass found themself with a pile of lenses that weren't valuable any longer. And for what? Many of the in-lens AF motors aren't much faster, if at all, than in-body AF. (Especially compared to the high-speed motors in the latest Sonys.) Sometimes they need to be sent back to be "re-chipped." Meanwhile, Nikon/Pentax/Sony have proven that you can add in-body AF motors without abandoning your customers.

Obviously, it worked out well for Canon in the long run, but it didn't need to be mandated the way it was.

None of the advantages on in-lens stabilization is huge, but they are real. There are no significant disadvantages to in-lens stabilization other than the cost. With the new rebel using a stabilized kit lens, I think that Canon has signalled that it will push down the price of in-lens stabilization rather than go to in-body stabilization. Some lenses still have huge price markups for stabilization (about $500 for the 70-200 f/2.8). If it truly costs Canon hundreds of dollars per lens to develop and build stabilizer modules, then there strategy needs to change. If it's a $20 cost, that's another story

The huge disadvantage of in-lens stabilization is obvious - it only works on stabilized lenses! What if you don't want to buy stabilized lenses? What if the lens you want is not available with IS? What if you're shooting an 85mm F1.4 handheld on a C/N and you could really use an extra 2-3 stops of stabilization?

The "real-world" comparisons I've seen have shown little difference in effectiveness between in-body and in-lens IS. As I said - in-body IS is completely without negatives (apart from cost, and P/O/S have shown that you can have IS and an inexpensive body.) If you have IS in the lens, fine. But you're punishing the consumer by declaring that they just can't have the option of in-body IS.

I also find it a very important feature as I like shooting with older, unique lenses. I'm certainly not alone in this - just the other day, I was reading a thread on another forum by a Canon shooter who was picking up some old German lenses because his L 70-200mm F4 was technically excellent but "boring" - he wanted a unique look. With in-body IS, all those lenses benefit from modern stabilization technology, while you still get the build quality and feel and look of the wonderful old manual focus lenses.

Example... I just picked up my first Zeiss lens, a 135mm F3.5. It's a beauty and a good 20-30 years old. It produces a different look (the "Zeiss look") than many other lenses, and I get full IS with it. Why shouldn't everyone have that option when using old lenses? The Canon DSLRs have possibly the best lens adaptability of any DSLR; offer IS to the manual focus crowd and you'll have many happy customers. Imagine a nice IS Leica lens on your camera...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Did they make the right decision? They instantly made every previous camera of theirs an abandoned product (for the fourth time in their history, IIRC.) Non-EOS Canon equipment is very nearly worthless today. Anyone who had a big investment in pre-EOS glass found themself with a pile of lenses that weren't valuable any longer. And for what? Many of the in-lens AF motors aren't much faster, if at all, than in-body AF. (Especially compared to the high-speed motors in the latest Sonys.) Sometimes they need to be sent back to be "re-chipped." Meanwhile, Nikon/Pentax/Sony have proven that you can add in-body AF motors without abandoning your customers.

Just a few clarifications. First, switching to in-lens focus motors had nothing to do with making their old lenses obsolete. The old FD mount was a manual focus mount (with the exception of a few crummy attempts at crude AF). It was a decision to completely revamp and modernize their mount at the same time that they added electronic communication that made the old lenses obsolete. Ironically, while they made their old lens lineup obsolete, they added the ability to use almost everyone else's (except Minolta) MF lenses on their bodies with adapters. The new lens mount is larger than the other major manufacturers, which has allowed them to produce lenses with wider apertures.

No Canon lens, to my knowledge, has ever needed to be re-chipped. Some third party lenses needed this in the past because they reverse engineered rather than licensed the communication protocol and made mistakes.

In-lens motors are clearly superior, which is why everyone has started using them on their newer lenses. Canon's is Ultrasonic Motor, Nikon's Silent Wave Motor, Sony's SuperSonic Motor, Pentax's Supersonic Drive, Motor, and Olympus's Supersonic Wave Drive. They are faster, quieter, more precise, and use less power.

As for sensor stabilization, I'll repeat one last time that I don't have a problem with it and would like to see Canon add it. I would just prefer that they continue development of in-lens IS as well and lower the price. I much prefer the in-lens system, I just don't want to pay $500 per lens for it. Make that $50 per lens and I'm a happy camper.

As for using ancient and oddball lenses, well, that's your thing, not mine. I honestly couldn't care less about using a 30 year old manual focus lens. On the flipside, for people that want a true film look by using film, they can get IS with any Canon EOS body. Again, I couldn't care less because I have no desire to shoot film either. But why shouldn't Pentax film shooters have the ability to use stabilized lenses?

 

[Groucho]

We're going round and round here so I'll bow out after this one. (I see to be doing that in few threads...)

In-lens motors are clearly superior, which is why everyone has started using them on their newer lenses. Canon's is Ultrasonic Motor, Nikon's Silent Wave Motor, Sony's SuperSonic Motor, Pentax's Supersonic Drive, Motor, and Olympus's Supersonic Wave Drive. They are faster, quieter, more precise, and use less power.

Nikon has because their cost-cutting on D40/D60 bodies has forced the issue. Ironically, third-party makers seem to be refitting in-lens motors to their older lenses faster than Nikon is! (Still no 50mm F1.8 with in-lens motor...) I'd also say that some are faster but not all. Quieter? Of course. More precise? Ehh... not sure if I buy that one.

As for sensor stabilization, I'll repeat one last time that I don't have a problem with it and would like to see Canon add it. I would just prefer that they continue development of in-lens IS as well and lower the price. I much prefer the in-lens system, I just don't want to pay $500 per lens for it. Make that $50 per lens and I'm a happy camper.

I'm sure they would, because they have legions of fans who are convinced that they need it in the lens and it's a very easy money-maker for them.

As for using ancient and oddball lenses, well, that's your thing, not mine. I honestly couldn't care less about using a 30 year old manual focus lens. On the flipside, for people that want a true film look by using film, they can get IS with any Canon EOS body. Again, I couldn't care less because I have no desire to shoot film either. But why shouldn't Pentax film shooters have the ability to use stabilized lenses?

Touche. (I will note that lots of Pentax film shooters are shooting medium format. Mmmm, medium format. ) Regardless, forget the ancient and oddball lenses. Wouldn't it be nice if you could get IS with Canon's 135mm F2? Or their 85mm F1.4? Or their 50mm F1.2? Or any of their macro lenses? Or any tilt-shift lenses? I just can't believe there aren't more C/N owners screaming at their companies to incorporate this feature. With their "good" lenses, only ones popular with paparazzi and wildlife shooters seem to get the IS treatment.

Boy, did this thread go off topic.

 

[boBQuincy]

I see the advantage of in-lens stabilzation from mechanical and electrical standpoints. The stabilizing mechanism does not need to move as far, and thus can be faster and use less power. Faster = more accurate, whether this speed is really needed is another point but when looking at efficiency the in-lens stabilization is superior.

 

[Belle_princess]

Ok, I just got a dSLR, and I'm still fumbling with ISO and F-stops. Can someone give me a good generic ISO and F-stop for

night time park icons (castle, SE, hat, tree)
night time parades
fireworks
dark rides

and any others you can suggest. I'll probably copy them and put them in my camera bag for future referenence!!

Thanks,
Kristin

PS: Also, a short explanation would be nice. I know the higher the ISO, the 'faster' the film type, but how does that translate to digital? F-stops confuse me- is it the larger the f-stop number, the less light (smaller appiture) is getting in or more light is getting in (larger appiture)??

 

[broberts]

A lot of good info here:


http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1794070

 

[zackiedawg]

Ok, I just got a dSLR, and I'm still fumbling with ISO and F-stops. Can someone give me a good generic ISO and F-stop for

night time park icons (castle, SE, hat, tree)
night time parades
fireworks
dark rides

OK...first, generic advice. Regardless of what type of camera you have, for most nighttime shots you want to select the lowest ISO possible, and use your camera's sharpest aperture (F-stop), then adjust the shutter speed as long as necessary to get the scene as light as you want it. Tripods or level surfaces to place the camera on would be a must - no handheld shots for this stuff. If there are alot of bright lights in the shot, you sometimes need to go with a smaller aperture (bigger F-stop number) and longer shutter speed, while if the scene is very dark, you may have to open the aperture a bit more (smaller F-stop number) to pull in more light.

Dark rides are very different from other night shots. For dark rides, you need to shoot handheld, since you are in motion, and you have to try to get the fastest shutter speeds you possibly can, since you are trying to take a snapshot of something while moving past and don't want blur. So for these situations, you typically would need a very sensitive lens with a nice, wide aperture - and you would typically shoot wide open (smallest F-stop number available on your lens). You also typically have to increase the ISO very high to increase the sensor's sensitivity to get as much light as possible. Ideally, you want to see a shutter speed of no slower than 1/50, and that's even pushing it - if you are using a stabilized lens, it can help a little. 1/100 or faster shutters would be best, which may require you to go to ISO1600 or 3200 on your camera.

PS: Also, a short explanation would be nice. I know the higher the ISO, the 'faster' the film type, but how does that translate to digital? F-stops confuse me- is it the larger the f-stop number, the less light (smaller appiture) is getting in or more light is getting in (larger appiture)??

Yes...with the aperture, the larger the F-stop number, the smaller the actual aperture, and therefore the less light getting to the sensor. The aperture is the hole you're shooting through (look inside the lens and you'll see those little blades that look like a collander, with a hole in the middle). Think of the aperture like your pupil...in a dark room your pupil gets really big to let in as much light as possible to help you see in the dark. But walk out into sunlight, and it gets really small, because there's plenty of light and your eye actually needs to let less in. Apertures are the same. That's why when you are looking to shoot indoors in low light, you look for a lens with good low light capabilities, which is a lens that has a very small F-stop number at the widest aperture - F1.0, F1.4, F1.7, etc. Most 'kit' lenses can't come close, and don't perform real well in dark rides - they usually have a maximum aperture of around F3.5 or so.

ISO in a digital camera is basically 'turning up the gain', or increasing the sensitivity of the sensor to grab more light in a dark scene. It is doing this electronically, by boosting the signal...the downside of this is increased noise or graininess in the shot. By turning up the sensitivity, some pixels 'blow out', or overexpose - or fail to expose properly - you get blue & red dots, white and black dots, etc all throughout the photo. Most consumer cameras perform some 'noise reduction' algorithm to reduce the visible noise when using higher ISO, but then instead of noise, you end up with some smearing and loss of detail, since removing the noise also means removing or obscuring some of the detail too. The higher the ISO, the more you turn up the sensitivity, and the more you'll see noise. DSLRs have bigger sensors than P&S cams, and therefore can turn up the sensitivity higher with less adverse effects - which is why a P&S can't shoot much above ISO400 without bad noise, while a basic DSLR can shoot at ISO800 or 1600 before the noise gets too overwhelming. Advanced DSLRs with full frame sensors can go even higher, often shooting at ISO3200 or even 6400 with decent results.

Shutter and aperture should be the first and primary controls you adjust to get the shot you need...then and only then, if you can't get a fast enough shutter or open the aperture enough to get the light you need, start increasing the ISO. For beginners, this is usually the best approach. Adjust shutter speed, then aperture, then ISO.

Hope that helps.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Well Kristen, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question, as with anything creative. The best guidance I can give, for night shots in your examples, is to start at ISO 640 and see if you can get good results. If so, step down your ISO until you can no longer get good results then return it to something that works. Normally, the lower the ISO, the cleaner the final image (although this is not always true). I use 640 above as a starting point for my camera. Anything higher, and I am usually not happy with the "graininess". Your mileage may vary. One exception to your examples is dark rides. I find that the darker ones really need all the speed you can get so, in my case, I set ISO to 1600. This may still not be enough for some (such as Pirates).

BTW: ISO is ISO. There is a direct translation between film and digital.

As for F-stops, think of high school math (yuk, I know). The f-stop number is like the denominator (bottom number) in a fraction. So, the f/2 is 1/2, f/4 is 1/4, and f/64 is 1/64. So, the bigger the number, the smaller the aperture.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have mostly stopped using intermediate ISO settings and now use 100 when it is very bright, 400 when it is not, and 1600 when it is dark.
Noise reduction software works better than blur reduction software so 1600 (or whatever is your highest setting) should be best for the dark.
Night photos of stationary objects will be best with lower ISO but only if you have a tripod or some steady camera support.

Fireworks are very bright and I use ISO 100 for them, usually with a tripod and a long shutter speed (2 seconds or so).

Aperture is backwards from what would be intuitive, bigger numbers = smaller openings (less light). For dark rides the best strategy is a lens with a wide (small number) aperture such a 50mm f/1.8 or some photographer's favorite, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

 

[pjacobi]

I suggest that you purchase a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure":

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224518850&sr=8-4


-Paul

 

[handicap18]

I suggest that you purchase a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure":

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224518850&sr=8-4


-Paul

Ditto that.