|
Leperflesh posted:Right, yeah, I sort of meant that. That is: I am controlling aperture, and then the camera is controlling shutter speed to compensate. Although I suppose you could look at it as being the other way around, too. Hm. In your example the camera would be be increasing the shutter speed as you increased the ISO setting. Your image would also get more grainy the higher your ISO.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
OK. That actually explains something I'd wondered about. (Left ISO too high, took photo in good light, why is it so grainy?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
ISO is basically a compromise between sensitivity and grain/noise. Digital sensor tech has then improved over the years so you can reach higher sensitivities before noise becomes unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
I think I've been habitually shooting at a higher ISO than lighting conditions warrant. It's probably a leftover of my habit from film days to buy ISO 800 film, just so I could shoot indoors and outdoors; in outdoor conditions, I'd be shooting faster shutter speeds/narrower apertures, but my AE-1 figured all that poo poo out for me. I almost never shot with a tripod, so I preferred to err on the side of fast shutter, and higher-ISO film gave me that margin of error. Now it's just a setting, and I should probably be shooting ISO-200 outdoors instead of 400 or 800.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
On a modern Nikon (Sony) sensor, I don't think it even applies gain until you hit ISO1600. So really you can push it around in any direction at any point before then and you'd be fine as long as you were shooting in raw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Am I the only person that loves and uses Auto ISO 99% of the time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Am I the only person that loves and uses Auto ISO 99% of the time? Now I have a camera that has a good ISO range, yes - I love Auto ISO. And Easy ISO (because I'm happy in M mode where it doesn't change how my dials work and I constantly get an ISO reading in my eye sight). The only thing I don't like about Auto ISO, and there are workarounds but I think I'll just turn it off in these circumstances, is if you use a flash. It'll meter way higher ISO than you're expecting. Like, it'll top me out at 6400 which isn't ideal when you know you'll be flooding the scene with light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Am I the only person that loves and uses Auto ISO 99% of the time? Nopes. It's on 99% of the time on my 800.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
If you're doing any fast action photography (sports, autocross, wildlife, and especially birds) not using Auto-ISO is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Are there many compelling reasons not to use it? It's easily overridden and all it's doing is balancing the triangle based on the 2 points you're providing to give you a calculated 'correct' exposure. The amount of times on my old camera I thought I was having a good shoot, just to find I was pointlessly creating noisy images because the last time I set the ISO it was in bad lighting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Are there many compelling reasons not to use it? If you're taking a lot of shots in the same lighting and you've already adjusted for it would be my guess. I don't use auto-ISO because I feel like it's easier to pull detail out of an underexposed shot than deal with noise on an auto-ISO'd shot where the ISO was higher than I'd like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
I usually only turn off Auto ISO and set ISO manually if I am doing something with flash or a long exposure on a tripod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Using auto iso seems like madness to me but I'm coming from the D80 which has unusable noise levels above iso 800.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
It kind of annoys me that the D7000 can't turn auto ISO on or off without going into the menus. There's already a dedicated ISO button and the secondary dial doesn't do anything when it's pressed down. Seems like a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Using auto iso seems like madness to me but I'm coming from the D80 which has unusable noise levels above iso 800. Same reason I didn't used to use it - D50 and same ISO level really. Went to 1600 if I really, really had to but the noise was too much for most shots. Didn't seem much point having an Auto between 100-800. Now I can go up to 3200 or 6400 without worrying too much... 404notfound posted:It kind of annoys me that the D7000 can't turn auto ISO on or off without going into the menus. There's already a dedicated ISO button and the secondary dial doesn't do anything when it's pressed down. Seems like a missed opportunity. Probably something they could fix in firmware, but hey the 7100/7200 fixed this so it's something to put on a spec list I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
404notfound posted:It kind of annoys me that the D7000 can't turn auto ISO on or off without going into the menus. There's already a dedicated ISO button and the secondary dial doesn't do anything when it's pressed down. Seems like a missed opportunity. Mega Comrade posted:Using auto iso seems like madness to me but I'm coming from the D80 which has unusable noise levels above iso 800.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
I never used auto ISO on my D700 because it was continuously variable, which sounds great until you find out that on older sensors nonfull stop ISO settings tended to be noisier because reasons. Fuji's auto is great and only sets full stops so now I use it anytime I'm not using a strobe. Seriously did they ever fix that whole ISO 250 is noisier than ISO 400 thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
The sensors in the newer full frames don't apply any gain until 1600 or so, so going up in that case is really just moving your exposure up and losing 2/3 stops of headroom in the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
404notfound posted:It kind of annoys me that the D7000 can't turn auto ISO on or off without going into the menus. There's already a dedicated ISO button and the secondary dial doesn't do anything when it's pressed down. Seems like a missed opportunity. I have the Auto ISO settings set to my first My Menu item and my front Fn button set to pull up the first My Menu item.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
I have the D3300 but am considering an upgrade. Budget isn't a huge concern but realistically I'd like to spend as little as possible to meet my needs. I mostly shoot indoor/outdoor natural light family sessions and birthday parties. Started out as a fun hobby but I'm getting a lot of referrals lately. I feel like I'm reaching the limits of the D3300 (lack of manual temperature control is really frustrating). I considered upgrading to FX and was eyeing up the D750, but I'm not sure I really need that much camera at this stage and I don't do much low light photography. And I'd have to replace my lenses if I go FX. A friend has a used D7000 for sale and I could probably get him down to $350 which would leave a lot left over for glass. Or I can buy a used D7100 for $800 on keh. Or I could go to FX but with less $$ left over for lenses. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
amethystbliss posted:I have the D3300 but am considering an upgrade. Budget isn't a huge concern but realistically I'd like to spend as little as possible to meet my needs. I mostly shoot indoor/outdoor natural light family sessions and birthday parties. Started out as a fun hobby but I'm getting a lot of referrals lately. I feel like I'm reaching the limits of the D3300 (lack of manual temperature control is really frustrating). I considered upgrading to FX and was eyeing up the D750, but I'm not sure I really need that much camera at this stage and I don't do much low light photography. And I'd have to replace my lenses if I go FX. D7k in good shape for $350 is a no brainer in my opinion, a good bridge to full frame down the line when used prices of d800s or d750s become even better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:D7k in good shape for $350 is a no brainer in my opinion, a good bridge to full frame down the line when used prices of d800s or d750s become even better. Plus you'll be able to use non-onboard AF glass, which will set you up for when/if you do decide to go to full frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
amethystbliss posted:I have the D3300 but am considering an upgrade. Budget isn't a huge concern but realistically I'd like to spend as little as possible to meet my needs. I mostly shoot indoor/outdoor natural light family sessions and birthday parties. Started out as a fun hobby but I'm getting a lot of referrals lately. I feel like I'm reaching the limits of the D3300 (lack of manual temperature control is really frustrating). I considered upgrading to FX and was eyeing up the D750, but I'm not sure I really need that much camera at this stage and I don't do much low light photography. And I'd have to replace my lenses if I go FX. D7000, is great. I jumped from a D3100 to it and couldn't have been happier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
amethystbliss posted:I feel like I'm reaching the limits of the D3300 (lack of manual temperature control is really frustrating) You shoot RAW right? If you use lightroom you can copy/paste edits which totally negates this as an issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:You shoot RAW right? If you use lightroom you can copy/paste edits which totally negates this as an issue.  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Get the D7000. Half the price and you're not really missing out on anything in the 7100.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
I just bought a Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 that has problems. The zoom doesn't work, at all. However, the person sold it to me for $150 because they didn't want to deal with it anymore. What's my best option for getting the zoom ring working? It's completely stuck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Bizzaro Quik posted:I just bought a Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 that has problems. The zoom doesn't work, at all. However, the person sold it to me for $150 because they didn't want to deal with it anymore. What's my best option for getting the zoom ring working? It's completely stuck. Send it to Nikon and prepare to pay !
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
In preparation for an upcoming trip I'm thinking of selling my N90s and picking up an F100. The two lenses I want to use on it are this Sigma : http://goo.gl/oOp24q and the 35-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor with the screw drive AF. The F100 should allow me to shoot in any PASM mode with both lenses, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
I've been shooting with a half decent Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 since forever and want to get something a bit sharper. Any recommendations on what lens I should consider? This will be paired with a D7000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Ashex posted:I've been shooting with a half decent Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 since forever and want to get something a bit sharper. Any recommendations on what lens I should consider? This will be paired with a D7000. Can you please post some examples of your un-sharp photos caused by your Sigma lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Can you please post some examples of your un-sharp photos caused by your Sigma lens? Maybe sharp isn't what I'm looking for, perhaps I need a longer lens? I've got this one and a 70-200 f/2.8 that's huge so I only use it if I'm planning to. I guess these are a couple where I'm not entirely satisfied on how crisp things are. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashex/17123667652/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashex/17093147975/ Basically when I compare this to my Nikon 70-200 2.8 I see a noticeable difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Well the bee photo seems pretty sharp, you are just operating with a pretty thin DoF. The hallway shot is too small to really tell if something looks wrong with it, but I dunno, it looks okay to me. If you are shooting a super wide scene with lots of shadows, wait actually, is that a photo of a photo? I dunno, i'm just not seeing a lack of sharpness in your photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
No inception shots here. I uploaded a few of my other shots here since I probably cherry picked. I actually think I want a "longer" lens as I frequently end up focusing to infinity for shots that are across a courtyard and generally end up losing the detail I'm looking for. There a lens which will straddle the gap between the two I have now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Ashex posted:No inception shots here. I uploaded a few of my other shots here since I probably cherry picked. I actually think I want a "longer" lens as I frequently end up focusing to infinity for shots that are across a courtyard and generally end up losing the detail I'm looking for. There a lens which will straddle the gap between the two I have now? 24-70 2.8? The Tamron one I think its a pretty solid option, and gets you VC as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
I used to shoot film, so I'm not exactly new to photography but I am to DSLR and digital cameras. I got a d3300 last october and it's been great I haven't use it that much, but tonight I realized something and I have no clue if is normal: when I have the camera on Live View I can hear a very distinct noise coming from inside the body of the camera, like the motor or something. This also happens when I have it on automatic focus or when I'm holding the shutter button. I never noticed before probably because I usually shoot in loud places, but now that I was playing with it in the middle of the night it seems quite.. loud? Everything works perfectly, but the noise is making me kinda worried Any ideas? Edit: It was the VR motor. That thing can be pretty loud. Souvlaki ss fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Ashex posted:No inception shots here. I uploaded a few of my other shots here since I probably cherry picked. I actually think I want a "longer" lens as I frequently end up focusing to infinity for shots that are across a courtyard and generally end up losing the detail I'm looking for. There a lens which will straddle the gap between the two I have now?  Why would you focus on infinity to do that? It doesn't make things larger. (or did you mean you zoom all the way in?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 08:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
tijag posted:24-70 2.8? The Tamron one I think its a pretty solid option, and gets you VC as well. Sweet jesus now I remember why I only have 2 lenses, all the ones I want are out of my budget in the short term. blowfish posted:
I regularly end up trying to take shots of buildings or things and have to step back to get it in frame, by that point the focus has shifted to infinity if I want to get those objects in focus. Hell maybe I just need a wide angle, I just know this lens doesn't do the job for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Ashex posted:I regularly end up trying to take shots of buildings or things and have to step back to get it in frame, by that point the focus has shifted to infinity if I want to get those objects in focus. Hell maybe I just need a wide angle, I just know this lens doesn't do the job for me. I think what blowfish is trying to get at, is that this is a technique problem, not a gear problem, you need to read this: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I think what blowfish is trying to get at, is that this is a technique problem, not a gear problem, you need to read this: Okay, this makes a lot of sense and would explain the things I'm bitching about. I've generally relied on the aperture to manage "sharpness", never considered hyperfocal distance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 11:53
|
|