High iso usage

[Manfred M]

I didn't make the conversion to digital until the quality began to equal the output of film and the holdback was color capture and resolution.

Same here and to me that really started when the generation of cameras that came out in the ~ 2008 to 2009 period. Once mid-range cameras started hitting 10 - 12MP, dynamic range ~ 12 stops, things started to get interesting.

The other part of the equation that got interesting about that time and perhaps a bit earlier is that zoom lenses started to be competitive with fixed focal length lenses; perhaps not with speed, but certainly with respect to image quality. Lower cost (and better quality) high index glass, apochromatic lens elements that came about through improvements in manufacturing technology all worked in digital's favour too. This technology used to be reserved for high end lenses. Add image stabilization and I was sold.

The only negative versus film cameras in my view is that manual focus has gotten more difficult. The short focus throw (angle of rotation) and terrible screens on viewfinders are a major downside of the modern camera, in my view.

[davidedric]

The only negative versus film cameras in my view is that manual focus has gotten more difficult. The short focus throw (angle of rotation) and terrible screens on viewfinders are a major downside of the modern camera, in my view.

Even using a mirrorless with focus peaking?

[xpatUSA]

The only negative versus film cameras in my view is that manual focus has gotten more difficult. The short focus throw (angle of rotation) and terrible screens on viewfinders are a major downside of the modern camera, in my view.

+1 to that. I now habitually use a 1.36 magnifier on my cameras' conventional viewfinder but have to move my eye around to check the framing.

[Manfred M]

Even using a mirrorless with focus peaking?

Yes even with focus peaking.

The problem with peaking is that it gives you a decent idea as to what is in focus, but it only shows what is and what is not in focus. I used to shoot hyperfocal distance in a lot of my work and that is just harder to do selectively with modern lenses.

As an example, there is no hard stop for infinity, so instead of hitting the hard stop at infinity and peeling back a bit, you have to "know" where each of your lenses actually focuses on infinity, which is close to, but not in the middle of the infinity mark, like it is on the older lenses. Likewise with the short throw on the autofocus lenses, the lens markings (if they are there at all) are so close together that they are really quite useless.

For certain types of shooting, things were easier with the old tools than with the new and improved modern ones.

[Black Pearl]

For certain types of shooting, things were easier with the old tools than with the new and improved modern ones.

Probably why I love the Samyang 12mm so much. It has a smooth nicely weighted long throw focus ring - with hard stops - and very positive clicks on the aperture ring. It is a joy to use. While I'm enjoying the Fuji lenses they have fly-by-wire focus so as you say no hard stops which is a shame. Some of them have traditional aperture rings with the 'stops' marked and hard stops, I absolutely love this because I can set the aperture I want without having to turn the camera on - some though have a ring that just spins so you can't see where it is set which just isn't the same. If all you had used was a modern DSLR with front/rear command dials I don't suppose it would be a thing but I do like the old ways at times.

[Dave Humphries]

Some of them have traditional aperture rings with the 'stops' marked and hard stops, I absolutely love this because I can set the aperture I want without having to turn the camera on - some though have a ring that just spins so you can't see where it is set which just isn't the same. If all you had used was a modern DSLR with front/rear command dials I don't suppose it would be a thing but I do like the old ways at times.

Yes, the 'detented' aperture ring; with the ability to set aperture by feel alone (count number of clicks from wide open), had its uses.

[rtbaum]

I frequently do miss the simplicity of setting 'detented' aperture ring, still have trouble remembering which command dial controls aperture. Being stuck with one iso I do not miss.

[davidedric]

I used to shoot hyperfocal distance in a lot of my work and that is just harder to do selectively with modern lenses.

Given it's trivial to calculate the hyperfocal distance, especially with an evf, it should be easy for the manufacturers to incorporate an indicator when manual focus is set there.

Similarly, there could (should?) be an actual focus distance scale displayed, making it easy to set to infinity.

Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Given it's trivial to calculate the hyperfocal distance, especially with an evf, it should be easy for the manufacturers to incorporate an indicator when manual focus is set there.

Similarly, there could (should?) be an actual focus distance scale displayed, making it easy to set to infinity.

Great ideas Dave - and initially I was all for both, e.g. I would use them too.
They have enough pertinent information available; format/sensor area in use, focal length, aperture, focus distance.

Unfortunately, because the AF of all common cameras and lenses are part of a feedback loop, they are 'self correcting' and don't rely upon an absolute measurement being accurate to function, tolerances can be wide, which reduces production costs.

I suspect that without spending a lot of money, the accuracy of the calculated focus distance wouldn't be good enough.

It also makes another thing that needs to be calibrated during manufacture and I bet only a small percentage of DSLR/ILC shooters would be able to productively use the information anyway - for the rest, it would just be more figures cluttering the viewfinder. (OK so we let them turn it off in a menu)

It would almost inevitably put the price of the camera and lenses up.

Yes, I know that sometimes focus distance is shown in EXIF data - it is rarely very accurate.
Calculated DoF is also sometimes available, but that can be inaccurate if post shot cropping is done.

If only ... (nice idea)

[William W]

That is fairly typical of the sort of noise levels I get when using a higher Iso, to cope with poor light levels.
Nothing excessive applied to the image during processing.
7D Mk II with Canon 70-200 (F4 model with IS on) handheld at 1/400 F8 Iso 400.
But fairly poor overcast light and a bit of water vapour from spray in the air.
Facing roughly south about 2 pm.
[. . .]
Just out of interest, here is the image straight from camera except for the crop. And resized for internet use with straight bicubic interpolation.

Geoff:

As an addition to my commentary Post #36 and also directly addressing the shooting scenario of your sample image.

Firstly, here is an extract from my teaching notes which might be useful to you:

Photographing through Fog, Haze and Mist

Fog, haze and mist generally create scenes with:
> less acutance (edge clarity)
> less definition
> lower contrast
> less colour saturation
> images generally appear as washed-out.

***

What happens?

What makes a fog, mist or haze is simply that particles of water and dust or both are “held in suspension”.
The key to mostly all the issues concerning shooting Scenes in Fog is: the particles inside the fog scatter light.

***

A) Basic facts: The result of the scattering of the “light” is twofold:

1. The fog acts like the soft box and disburses the light from the LIGHT SOURCE which falling ONTO the Subjects/Objects in the Scene. The scattering of the Light from the LIGHT SOURCE means that the Subjects/Objects in the Scene inside fog are usually illuminated by a SOFT / BROAD LIGHT and this is usually LOW LEVEL LIGHT.

2. The light reflected from the Subjects/Objects in the Scene is also scattered as it travels to the camera. Therefore it is difficult to make good focus on any Subject/Object in the Scene because it is like focusing through a thin translucent mesh.

It’s important to understand and also separate the two facts that the scattering of the light applies to both: the light FROM the LIGHT SOURCE onto the Subjects/Objects in the scene; also the light (the ‘image rays’) FROM the SUBJECTS/OBJECTS which travel to the Camera.

B) Other things that happen:

The scattering of the light from the LIGHT SOURCE off the little particles means that some of that light gets aimed directly into the camera’s lens. If this happens we can get VEILING FLARE. A consequence of Veiling Flare is lowered contrast (to an already low contrast scene) and Veiling Flare may introduce the appearance of a milky translucent coating on the image (to an image which already appears milky).

Subjects at a great distance in any scene tend to be rendered with less contrast than closer objects even in hard sunlight. Considering the above points we know about the scattering of light it is easy to understand why, when shooting through fog distant Subjects/Objects will have very low contrast and very little detail.

Because the Subjects/Objects in a Fog Scene are lit by comparatively Low Level Light, a longer exposure time is necessary to gain the “correct exposure” of those Subjects/Objects in the Scene than if the

Subjects/Objects in the Scene were illuminated by a sunny day.

But - remember that the camera is also recording the REFLECTIONS from the LIGHT SOURCE that bounce off the tiny particles inside the Fog – which means that, although not necessarily always apparent to the naked eye, because our brain filters what our eyes see – A Fog Scene (usually) has a very large Dynamic Range: if we reckon the Dynamic Range as being the most brilliant reflection from a dust or water particle in the fog rendered as ‘white-white’ 255:255;255 and then extending to the darkest shadow detail on the Subject/Object in the Scene rendered as ‘black-black’ 0:0:0.

Therefore if we want to Photograph a Fog Scene in one exposure, then both accuracy and a compromise is necessary: what often happens when we make that compromise is we often do not expose for those white-white highlights AND rarely do novices push even further into the camera’s headroom – in this case there is usually more noise apparent at any given ISO than what we would expect.

With a large Dynamic Range any areas of SHADOW the in the Scene are very susceptible to NOISE.
MOREOVER – there are lots of little SHADOW DETAILS from the little particles of water and dust, which constitute the fog - these are also very susceptible to NOISE and this is the main reason why we often see a lot of noise in “fog” or “mist” which we don’t expect to see if the scene had no fog or mist.

We also know that:

1. > If we bump the ISO for the purpose of maintaining a necessary Shutter Speed and Aperture – then we exacerbate the appearance of noise.

2. > If we UNDERexpose we exacerbate the appearance of noise

Therefore when shooting through a Fog the above two points are exceptionally critical, and much more important considerations than when we have Hard Light (direct Sunlight) or Soft Light (Open Shade) and there is not any scattering of the IMAGE RAYS form Subject to Camera and no SHADOWS from lots of particles held in suspension in the air.

Tips if we are photographing a Subject/Object through Fog, Mist or Haze

It is usually best to:

> use as low and ISO as possible (bests for Dynamic Range and Shadow Detail Reclamation)

> use a mid-aperture (reduces the probability of Veiling Flare)

> remove filters (reduces the probability of (reduces the probability of Veiling Flare) *(caveat: for Digital there is some credence to using a CPL which can reduce some of the reflections off the particles of water and dust entering the lens in the first place. This usually will be more effective for Normal and Telephoto shots – but on the other hand a CPL might cost about One Stop (or a bit more) of Shutter Speed or ISO – another compromise to consider.

> meter on “white” and push the exposure to the absolute limit, including using up the entire camera’s headroom – this is a shot where each ⅓ Stop accuracy REALLY counts.

> consider blowing-out some areas if there is Dappled Light streams through the Fog if you are sure you can later rebuild that area

> set White Balance manually – I’d typically set 10000°K. I am reasonably confident this is appropriate advice for most DSLR’s. Typically AWB in a fog scene will dramatically miscalculate the Colour Temperature by as much as 5000~8000°K too low. I am not 100% sure but I think such a miscalculation can affect the effective DR and/or the headroom/clipping limits at any given ISO.

> Make time to Bracket on Exposure

© AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996
REF: My Documents / Teaching Notes

***

Secondly – comments on your image specifically.

EXIF reveals:
EOS 7DMkII
F/8 @ 1/400s @ ISO800
Av Priority
EC = 0
Metering Evaluative
White Balance: AWB

By your description of the Lighting Scenario “fairly poor overcast light and a bit of water vapour from spray in the air” and my experiences of shooting at sea and evaluating EV of a scene - that scene is about at EV = 10

If so, the “correct” exposure would be in the order: F/8 @ 1/100s @ ISO800

Referring to my notes above and expecting the headroom on the 7DMkII is about 1 Stop, then for the best possible outcome ready for Post Production and especially addressing the noise, that you do not want, I expect the shot would have been better pulled at about:

F4/ @ 1/400s @ ISO1600
Bracket -1 Stop +⅔Stop in ⅓Stops
Remove Filter (if you had a filter on)
Manual White Balance K= 8,000°

*

One accurate way to measure your starting exposure for that shooting scenario:

Meter in “Evaluative Mode” something nearby: your open palm or lush grass.

> using your open palm and you are Caucasian/Anglo-Saxon Skinned- then open up about 1⅓Stops from that reading.

> lush green grass make no adjustment

WW

[William W]

. . . All cameras have ridiculous ranges of ISO - less than half the ranges are truly useful. . .

I disagree.

I cite three images in Post #14 and the image in Post #36 as examples of "usefulness"of the maximum ISO of two DSLR's.

I have many samples, from many other Digital Cameras.

WW

[William W]

Yes, the 'detented' aperture ring; with the ability to set aperture by feel alone (count number of clicks from wide open), had its uses.

I frequently do miss the simplicity of setting 'detented' aperture ring, still have trouble remembering which command dial controls aperture. Being stuck with one iso I do not miss.

On my Canon DSLR’s the Aperture is directly controlled by “clicks” of a dial.

Exposure Compensation in Av and P Mode is controlled by “clicks” of a dial.

These ”clicks” on a dial are audible and also provide physically (touch) feedback.

Moreover - I have set those clicks set to ⅓Stop Increments.

I find the Aperture functionality of my Canon DSLR's MUCH MORE useful and MORE accurate apropos tactile response; aural feedback; and detailed exposure settings, than a one stop increment aperture ring which is situated forward of the camera and which is stopped, physically, by mini ball-bearings and a spring.

Also, I note that on a zoom lens, where also there are the Focus and Zoom Turrets located forward of the camera, I only have four fingers and one thumb on my hand which supports the lens: the Aperture control on modern DSLR’s now being set to the other hand (the one supporting the camera) is a very useful and dynamically advanced functionality, for my uses and techniques.

Perhaps you're being a bit nostalgic? - I understand if that is so.

WW

[MrB]

I agree with Bill's Post #52. On my camera (Pentax), the function of each dial is user-selected, the settings are controlled in a tactile and audible way (in 1/3 stops) by the two control dials, and all important settings are visible in the viewfinder. I assume it is similar for other makes?

Cheers.
Philip

[Black Pearl]

Well I can have my cake and eat it

The Fuji X-T1 has aperture rings on each lens, which I rather like using, as well a shutter spread dial on the top plate - but - it also has front and rear commend dials which can be programmed F/SS or SS/F depending on your preference.

[Dave Humphries]

On my Canon DSLR’s the Aperture is directly controlled by “clicks” of a dial.

Exposure Compensation in Av and P Mode is controlled by “clicks” of a dial.

These ”clicks” on a dial are audible and also provide physically (touch) feedback.

The relevant factor (to my post) is whether there's a hard stop end point that means you could set a precise aperture value, without looking at the camera or through the viewfinder, what the aperture is?

In nostalgic days ...
You could rotate the lens barrel aperture ring, perhaps with the thumb, hard to one end and, remembering what aperture range the lens has, and that it is detented in half (or whole) stops, count to where you want to be while rotating.

Would I rather have all the other advances modern cameras and lenses bring us; heck yes!


The clicks on the front or rear dials of my Nikon are sufficient to 'feel count' steps for whatever parameter is assigned to them - as long as I know where I'm starting from, which requires a look at the camera or remembering, that's fine.

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

The relevant factor (to my post) is whether there's a hard stop end point that means you could set a precise aperture value, without looking at the camera or through the viewfinder, what the aperture is?

A hard stop isn't necessary to do that, at least not on a Nikon camera. As an example using my wife's camera and the lens that remains on it (because my camera isn't handy at the moment), rotating the command dial six times to the left or right will automatically set the aperture at its smallest or largest size, respectively. It will probably happen rotating the dial five times but it's safest to rotate it six times.

Similarly, on my camera, I often need to change the Auto ISO setting, which is buried in the menus. Once I'm in the proper menu, I only need to rotate the command dial three times to automatically display the proper menu item. Considering that that's the one menu item I would prefer to be accessed using a button on the camera, I consider the coincidence of that ease to be dumb luck. And I'll take it!

[doomed forever]

Yes of course Mancanon, you can also use 6400 with good results. Personally, from my film days... i never go >800 ISO, seldom really at ISO 1600, but never higher. I don't need it for my kind of photography, and otherwise my ISO stays low, mostly 100-400, or i just use a tripod. I don't do sports, or people.

[rpcrowe]

I shot this hand-held in 2010 using a Canon 30D with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens at 1600 ISO...



Shot in RAW with post processing done with Photoshop CS6 and NIK software. Noise reduction done with NIK Dfine...

Despite the relatively ancient body (I was shooting with a 30D and a 40D at the time) the quality is reasonable.

BTW: I had to shoot this hand held to shoot over the heads of the crowds assembled on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong Harbor. No way to use a tripod...

[Geoff F]

Geoff:

As an addition to my commentary Post #36 and also directly addressing the shooting scenario of your sample image.

Firstly, here is an extract from my teaching notes which might be useful to you:



© AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996
REF: My Documents / Teaching Notes

***

Secondly – comments on your image specifically.

EXIF reveals:
EOS 7DMkII
F/8 @ 1/400s @ ISO800
Av Priority
EC = 0
Metering Evaluative
White Balance: AWB

By your description of the Lighting Scenario “fairly poor overcast light and a bit of water vapour from spray in the air” and my experiences of shooting at sea and evaluating EV of a scene - that scene is about at EV = 10

If so, the “correct” exposure would be in the order: F/8 @ 1/100s @ ISO800

Referring to my notes above and expecting the headroom on the 7DMkII is about 1 Stop, then for the best possible outcome ready for Post Production and especially addressing the noise, that you do not want, I expect the shot would have been better pulled at about:

F4/ @ 1/400s @ ISO1600
Bracket -1 Stop +⅔Stop in ⅓Stops
Remove Filter (if you had a filter on)
Manual White Balance K= 8,000°

*

One accurate way to measure your starting exposure for that shooting scenario:

Meter in “Evaluative Mode” something nearby: your open palm or lush grass.

> using your open palm and you are Caucasian/Anglo-Saxon Skinned- then open up about 1⅓Stops from that reading.

> lush green grass make no adjustment

WW

Some very useful technical information there, Bill.

Just one thought about my choice of aperture though. It was an F4 lens so shooting at that setting would mean being wide open, which is usually best avoided. One of the occasions where the expensive F2.8 version may have been worthwhile. Also, I wanted to include as much as possible of the rough sea so I was worried about losing focus depth by opening the lens any wider; although F6.3 might have been an acceptable alternative.

[William W]

. . . Just one thought about my choice of aperture though. It was an F4 lens so shooting at that setting would mean being wide open, which is usually best avoided. One of the occasions where the expensive F2.8 version may have been worthwhile. Also, I wanted to include as much as possible of the rough sea so I was worried about losing focus depth by opening the lens any wider; although F6.3 might have been an acceptable alternative.

Sure, it is a compromise, we make choices considering the variants and the outcomes of those variants.

***

Comments on the above:

1.In that shooting scenario I’d have no hesitation using either of the EF 70 to 200F/4L lens at F/4 on a 5D Series body: on a7DMkii the IQ would be exceptional, that’s even considering the possibility of a little bit of Veiling Flare which in sea spray under thick cloud cover is mostly unlikely. Both the F/4L’s are excellent; the IS version is slightly better wide open. I have used both extensively.

*

2. For all practical purposes the vessel is at large distance away. I recall you mentioned the image is cropped, (probably a fairly large crop?). So judging by the apparent length of the vessel (about 20m? and the angle to the camera lens), it looks to me as if it is at least 500 meters away, probably more?

For the sake of discussion now and also relevant rough data to rely upon to make informed choices on site next time: for a subject that far away the difference in the DoF at F/8 and DoF at F/4 with the lens at 200mm wouldn’t be much of a concern apropos 'most of the sea being in acceptable focus'.

WW