So, I ditched the RX100...

[ian in lancs]

That's decided it for me! I am frustrated with both a Nikon P7000 and Fuji 100S. I bought both on the back of tests and posts. I was mulling over a Sony RX100 based on the hype but the OP sums up the difficulties of going from SLR to compact.

I have ended up using either SLR DX/FX(sans battery pack and zooms) or my iPhone for dicking about and full on FX / Holy Trinity lenses for serious work. I am much more content with SLRs and the handling is almost intuitive for me it just does what I want how I want with switches and not buried in chuffing compact menus; by the time the option is found the moment has passed!

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

@ Will: I'd dispute that Auto-ISO is a 'fundamental feature' of a camera. It's an electronic add-on that, if this forum is anything to go by, does more to confuse than to solve problems, or help people understand what's going on in their camera.

Photography is actually simple. Box, hole, thing to cover hole. Adding a largely unecessary layer of complexity such as Auto-ISO, and then having to remember complex workarounds to defeat it, doesn't seem sensible to me. Just remove the first complexity! After all, the OP didn't even know it was enabled, and it seems it was actually stopping him achieving what he wanted.

I'm certainly no hairy-chested devotee of manual exposure; I only use it in the studio - partly because there's no choice but partly because it's not time-critical. Otherwise I mostly use Aperture Priority auto. Having only one variable to deal with means I know exactly what my camera's thinking and I can change it to suit changing situations in a second. Throw Auto-ISO into the mix and suddenly you're trying to turn left and the camera's trying to turn right.

But in summary, what counts most is the result, and the wonder of DSLRs is that different people use them in different ways. If you want to use ABS, DSC and Auto-XYZ and it works for you then carry on

Sorry, we seem to have wandered OT a bit.

I agree that photography is simple - there are only three variables after all (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). Any of those that you choose can be automated by the camera. I'll admit that the more of them that you automate the more difficult to predict it becomes but they are all just as fundamental as each other.

Regarding ISO as somehow special is a hangover from the days of film, when auto-ISO was a physical impossibility. Those days are long gone. With a modern camera (assuming you want the exposure to adjust automatically) then best practice is to lock in the settings that you care about and let the camera adjust the ones that you don't. Very often the one that we care about least is ISO - we just want it as low as possible. Auto-ISO gives you this.

You admit that for most of your shooting you fix two of those, aperture and ISO, and put the shutter speed on automatic (i.e. Aperture Priority, manual ISO). How is this different to fixing the aperture and shutter speed and putting the ISO on automatic (i.e. Manual with Auto-ISO)? Why fix your ISO artificially high, just to guarantee the shutter speed doesn't fall too low? What makes aperture priority any better or more predictable?

Edited by Mr Will on Thursday 17th September 12:14

[Simpo Two]

Because aperture and its alter ego shutter speed have an effect on resultant image. ISO doesn't, it's merely an electronic 'volume control'.

I don't fix my ISO 'artifically high'; I usually use 320 or 400. If that doesn't give me an adequate shutter speed I open the aperture or use flash. I usually shoot around f3.2-4.0 (or f8-11 in the studio where I need more DOF). On the very rare occasions where I've run out of aperture and shutter speed THEN I will raise ISO - by turning the little knob.

Sure, I had my first SLR in 1980 and learned on film (simply as a snapper in those days), but have happily embraced the benefits of digital imaging where they've helped me produce better results. Auto-ISO isn't one of them.

Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 17th September 12:32

[fido]

Simpo Two said:

Because aperture and its alter ego shutter speed have an effect on resultant image. ISO doesn't, it's merely an electronic 'volume control'.

The enemy of ISO is noise (both luminance & chrominance) - so it does affect the image quality. I suppose it matters less to the extent you still get an image. But yes I sort of see your point - that even on film (or a CCD camera, because many modern sensors have usable high ISO) - you can often crank up one of the other two to retain enough image quality. Still the ISO does matter.

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

Because aperture and its alter ego shutter speed have an effect on resultant image. ISO doesn't, it's merely an electronic 'volume control'.

I don't fix my ISO 'artifically high'; I usually use 320 or 400. If that doesn't give me an adequate shutter speed I open the aperture or use flash. I usually shoot around f3.2-4.0 (or f8-11 in the studio where I need more DOF). On the very rare occasions where I've run out of aperture and shutter speed THEN I will raise ISO - by turning the little knob.

Sure, I had my first SLR in 1980 and learned on film (simply as a snapper in those days), but have happily embraced the benefits of digital imaging where they've helped me produce better results. Auto-ISO isn't one of them.

Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO all affect the image, the fact that it is electronic is an arbitrary distinction. All three are controlled by the same computer. Every extra stop of ISO increases noise, reduces dynamic range and flattens colours.

You do not realise it but you are setting your ISO higher than needed and sacrificing an (admittedly small) amount of quality in the process. Instead of setting ISO400 and the aperture, set the same aperture and an appropriate shutter speed. Then let the camera pick the appropriate ISO, which will be lower than 400 since you don't need the safety margin to ensure an adequate shutter speed.

This also has the advantage of failing more safely. If the light drops and you don't notice (for example), at the moment you'll get motion blur/camera shake and the image is useless. Switch to Manual with auto-ISO and all that will happen is the ISO will increase, you'll still get a usable image.

My take on it is that the camera should be left to control the least important variable in any given situation. You seem to agree that most of the time that is the ISO. Why are you so adamant that you need to control it if it's so unimportant? Why are you prepared to let the camera mess about with the shutter speed just so you can fix the ISO in one place?

[Simpo Two]

fido said:

The enemy of ISO is noise (both luminance & chrominance) - so it does affect the image quality. I suppose it matters less to the extent you still get an image. But yes I sort of see your point - that even on film (or a CCD camera, because many modern sensors have usable high ISO) - you can often crank up one of the other two to retain enough image quality. Still the ISO does matter.

Modern cameras have excellent high ISO ability so in the real world it's not an issue. I'm talking about the photograph - in this case depth of field, freezing action etc. We need to separate photography from electronics.

Mr Will said:

You do not realise it but you are setting your ISO higher than needed and sacrificing an (admittedly small) amount of quality in the process. Instead of setting ISO400 and the aperture, set the same aperture and an appropriate shutter speed. Then let the camera pick the appropriate ISO, which will be lower than 400 since you don't need the safety margin to ensure an adequate shutter speed.

This also has the advantage of failing more safely. If the light drops and you don't notice (for example), at the moment you'll get motion blur/camera shake and the image is useless. Switch to Manual with auto-ISO and all that will happen is the ISO will increase, you'll still get a usable image.

Thanks, I couldn't have made my living as a photographer for 10 years without you.

Mr Will said:

My take on it is that the camera should be left to control the least important variable in any given situation. You seem to agree that most of the time that is the ISO. Why are you so adamant that you need to control it if it's so unimportant? Why are you prepared to let the camera mess about with the shutter speed just so you can fix the ISO in one place?

Because as long as it's over 1/60th, for what I do and the way I do it, it's not important.

May I have your permission to do things my way? Thank you.

[GetCarter]

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

May I have your permission to do things my way? Thank you.

You don't need my permission. If you don't want to learn, I can't make you.

[JustinP1]

GetCarter said:

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

Believe it or not, when I wrote the first sentence of my OP, I had your photos in mind.

The camera is a tool to take the photos you want to take, and for me and for what I want to do there are better options.

[DibblyDobbler]

JustinP1 said:

GetCarter said:

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

Believe it or not, when I wrote the first sentence of my OP, I had your photos in mind.

The camera is a tool to take the photos you want to take, and for me and for what I want to do there are better options.

Would've looked *way* better with auto iso though

[JustinP1]

DibblyDobbler said:

JustinP1 said:

GetCarter said:

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

Believe it or not, when I wrote the first sentence of my OP, I had your photos in mind.

The camera is a tool to take the photos you want to take, and for me and for what I want to do there are better options.

Would've looked *way* better with auto iso though

Seriously though, it would be good to see that photo with the new iPhone camera, and a full-frame DSLR to do a real world comparison of portability (and thus there when that moment arrives) and performance.

[GetCarter]

JustinP1 said:

DibblyDobbler said:

JustinP1 said:

GetCarter said:

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

Believe it or not, when I wrote the first sentence of my OP, I had your photos in mind.

The camera is a tool to take the photos you want to take, and for me and for what I want to do there are better options.

Would've looked *way* better with auto iso though

Seriously though, it would be good to see that photo with the new iPhone camera, and a full-frame DSLR to do a real world comparison of portability (and thus there when that moment arrives) and performance.

Fair comment. DSLR wasn't with me (why would it be, I was walking the dog). iPhone... well I wouldn't have had the manual controls over the exposure, nor the size of sensor, so why would I use that?

ETA.. fine by me whatever you decide to use, but at this particular moment in time, RX100 works as a pocket camera for me... though the next one will no doubt be better!

Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 17th September 14:42

[JustinP1]

Don't get me wrong - I've got some great landscape photos with the RX100 too.

It's been with me different places on holiday, in my jeans pocket hiking here and there.

For kids running round or something more challenging in terms of movement or light, I've more often than not been disappointed and wished my DSLR was more portable and wished I'd taken the photo with that.

Hence my experiment!

Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 17th September 14:58

[StuH]

GetCarter said:

This morning. RX100. You keep ditching 'em, I'll keep selling 'em

Brilliant again Steve.

I read this thread with increasing dismay ;( - The notion that a phone camera is in anyway a replacement for the RX100 is to me an utter nonsense. I have an iPhone 6 PLus, great camera but it's not a camera if you want anything other than snaps. My various RX100's over the last few years have captured the most amazing shots. Like most cameras you need to learn its strengths and weaknesses but there is nothing it really can't do. I recently got my A7R Mk2 but still take my RX100 m3 everywhere. Love it!

[JustinP1]

You're right Stu.

My point is that although there's nothing the RX100 can't do, it doesn't do anything that a DSLR doesn't do better.

Apart from portability, of course, and that's where the trade off is.

[johnfm]

I just bought a Leica Type 109. I find one of these fits the bill just fine - good enough IQ for me, f1.8 is a fast enough lens. It is small enough for my needs. No doubt each for their own.

[chrismarr]

Blissful bail by Chris Marr, on Flickr

I would be lost without my little pocket rocket RX100

[JustinP1]

johnfm said:

I just bought a Leica Type 109. I find one of these fits the bill just fine - good enough IQ for me, f1.8 is a fast enough lens. It is small enough for my needs. No doubt each for their own.

Yes, I looked at the 109, and also the Ricoh GR (28mm fixed lens APS-C sized sensor) for something pocketable that fits both bills for me.

The other option on the horizon is the DXO (of DXOMark) 'One' which comes out in a month or so. That's an f1.8 lens and sensor as a 'sidecar' to an iPhone through the Thunderbolt port. So, you use the iPhone as the control, touchscreen and data storage.

[Phunk]

The best camera is the one you have on you.

However, I like many others can't be bothered lugging around a huge dslr and loads of lenses around with me all the time.

So 99% of the time I use my iPhone or a old Canon 3000 (I think) film camera with a 40mm pancake lens.

I can't honestly remember the last time I used my DSLR.

[Speed addicted]

I've just spent a happy 10 days in Croatia and Bosnia (both lovely with stunning landscapes) dragging around my usual holiday kit.
5d mk3 with the 24-105 on the front of it and a couple of filters. I've decided to upgrade to the 24-70 f2.8 as soon as funds allow for better low light shots.

I've tried just using primes with reasonable success, and smaller cameras with lots of frustration. For me nothing beats the slr so I'm happy to lug it about just using a wrist strap or a small camera bag.

I may take the 35mm f2 next time for evening shots but that's about it.

You do notice the weight over the course of the day though...