So, I ditched the RX100...
Discussion
Speed addicted said:
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...
I just bought the 24-70 f/2.8 II - it has some weight about it but results so far are wonderful5d 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...
I did a lot of research into the best 24-70 and did a comparison with the Canon 24-70 f2.8 MKII and the outside bet the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 IS.
I ended up with the Tamron. In terms of sharpness the difference (if at all) is minuscule, but you get the big bonus of IS which in low light makes a significant benefit.
Oh yes, the Canon is £1400, the Tamron is £600...
That said, my preference is an even better option - the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM prime at £110.
In terms of sharpness and light transmission it is pretty much identical to both of the other lenses, but it's a 15mm thick and 100g instead of 6 inches and the best part of a kilo.
The benefit is I don't need a bag to carry, and the 6D and 40mm goes over my shoulder on the Peak Designs strap, and it is genuinely there all day without noticing the weight. The DSLR now comes out for every outing instead of 20%.
Heres the DXOmark test comparison of the three:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side...
I ended up with the Tamron. In terms of sharpness the difference (if at all) is minuscule, but you get the big bonus of IS which in low light makes a significant benefit.
Oh yes, the Canon is £1400, the Tamron is £600...
That said, my preference is an even better option - the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM prime at £110.
In terms of sharpness and light transmission it is pretty much identical to both of the other lenses, but it's a 15mm thick and 100g instead of 6 inches and the best part of a kilo.
The benefit is I don't need a bag to carry, and the 6D and 40mm goes over my shoulder on the Peak Designs strap, and it is genuinely there all day without noticing the weight. The DSLR now comes out for every outing instead of 20%.
Heres the DXOmark test comparison of the three:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side...
I already have 35mm and 50mm primes that I used for studio photography on my 7d (they were much sharper than the sigma 17-70) but I know I'll get frustrated by a prime lens while wandering about foreign cities!
Hence being willing to sacrifice portability to carry a 2 kilo camera about with ne all the time. It may be perfect for others to take a much smaller and lighter lens or camera but I miss having the full slr with zoom lens.
In the last 10 days I only left it in the digs if we were going out at night and didn't expect to see anything.
One night we saw some breakdance type fellas (street dance? Body popping?) in the ancient Dubrovnik old town, I had the camera and tripod with me for night shots but cold have used a faster lens than f4 as I needed to keep the shutter speeds up, I ended up with some reasonable shots while using iso 20 000. So my new everyday lens will be a 24-70, ill have a look at the tameron too.
Hence being willing to sacrifice portability to carry a 2 kilo camera about with ne all the time. It may be perfect for others to take a much smaller and lighter lens or camera but I miss having the full slr with zoom lens.
In the last 10 days I only left it in the digs if we were going out at night and didn't expect to see anything.
One night we saw some breakdance type fellas (street dance? Body popping?) in the ancient Dubrovnik old town, I had the camera and tripod with me for night shots but cold have used a faster lens than f4 as I needed to keep the shutter speeds up, I ended up with some reasonable shots while using iso 20 000. So my new everyday lens will be a 24-70, ill have a look at the tameron too.
Edited by Speed addicted on Friday 9th October 09:21
Edited by Speed addicted on Friday 9th October 09:25
JustinP1 said:
For that the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 would have been perfect.
As the specs show it lets in the same light as the 40mm prime, but has IS to you could probably leave the tripod at home. It's been a great all round lens for me. The only downside is the weight.
Better but not perfect, it's only a stop faster and the IS won't help freeze the dancers. I'd take a 50mm 1.4 for that personally - ISO 20000 at f4 means 10000 at 2.8 or only 2500 at 1.4As the specs show it lets in the same light as the 40mm prime, but has IS to you could probably leave the tripod at home. It's been a great all round lens for me. The only downside is the weight.
Mr Will said:
JustinP1 said:
For that the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 would have been perfect.
As the specs show it lets in the same light as the 40mm prime, but has IS to you could probably leave the tripod at home. It's been a great all round lens for me. The only downside is the weight.
Better but not perfect, it's only a stop faster and the IS won't help freeze the dancers. I'd take a 50mm 1.4 for that personally - ISO 20000 at f4 means 10000 at 2.8 or only 2500 at 1.4As the specs show it lets in the same light as the 40mm prime, but has IS to you could probably leave the tripod at home. It's been a great all round lens for me. The only downside is the weight.
However, Speed addicted's addiction to speed falls short of compromising on needing a zoom lens.
My personal taste is for lightness, hence my love for the 40mm f2.8 prime. Personally, although I like the Tamron zoom, I mostly won't bring it due to the weight. If I were to bring another lens of that size or weight, I'd bring the Sigma 85mm f1.4 which is a big step above the Tamron in speed and IQ. That's an option worth considering if you don't mind the weight - 85mm on the camera, and the 40mm pancake in the pocket - and use your feet or cropping later for everything in between.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 9th October 15:45
Just seen thatCanon have just announced a new cash back deal.
So, the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens that I've mentioned in this thread goes from being £113.50 from Amazon, to having £20 cash back from Canon.
Also, the 100D body has £30 cash back too.
I'm not eligible for the lens cash back so no good for me, but might be good for someone else - especially if you are considering the 100D and 40mm portable combo.
ETA or the 28mm f2.8 prime - £20 cash back on that too.
So, the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens that I've mentioned in this thread goes from being £113.50 from Amazon, to having £20 cash back from Canon.
Also, the 100D body has £30 cash back too.
I'm not eligible for the lens cash back so no good for me, but might be good for someone else - especially if you are considering the 100D and 40mm portable combo.
ETA or the 28mm f2.8 prime - £20 cash back on that too.
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 17th October 18:25
The only issue I have with compacts and micro 4/3rds is shutter lag. f
king shoot, I'm ready, the scene's ready, why arent you ready camera???
Admittedly it's with an old Panasonic GF1, but it's there and noticeable. I found it on the early RX100s, I havent played around with later ones.
As to the ISO auto thing, I'd rather have more of a handle on the ISO than letting the camera decide it for me. Like Simpo, I dont want to be fighting with it when it decides that I should have 400 after I've dialled in F8 and 1/125 and could really have done with ISO800. I always turn it off, I'll be honest I'd rather have a noisy photo in focus than a blurred one with no noise if thems the choices.
king shoot, I'm ready, the scene's ready, why arent you ready camera??? Admittedly it's with an old Panasonic GF1, but it's there and noticeable. I found it on the early RX100s, I havent played around with later ones.
As to the ISO auto thing, I'd rather have more of a handle on the ISO than letting the camera decide it for me. Like Simpo, I dont want to be fighting with it when it decides that I should have 400 after I've dialled in F8 and 1/125 and could really have done with ISO800. I always turn it off, I'll be honest I'd rather have a noisy photo in focus than a blurred one with no noise if thems the choices.
andy-xr said:
As to the ISO auto thing, I'd rather have more of a handle on the ISO than letting the camera decide it for me. Like Simpo, I dont want to be fighting with it when it decides that I should have 400 after I've dialled in F8 and 1/125 and could really have done with ISO800. I always turn it off, I'll be honest I'd rather have a noisy photo in focus than a blurred one with no noise if thems the choices.
You'd rather have a noisy photo than a blurry one, yet you'd rather let the camera control the shutter speed than the ISO? Whatever works for you! 
Mr Will said:
andy-xr said:
As to the ISO auto thing, I'd rather have more of a handle on the ISO than letting the camera decide it for me. Like Simpo, I dont want to be fighting with it when it decides that I should have 400 after I've dialled in F8 and 1/125 and could really have done with ISO800. I always turn it off, I'll be honest I'd rather have a noisy photo in focus than a blurred one with no noise if thems the choices.
You'd rather have a noisy photo than a blurry one, yet you'd rather let the camera control the shutter speed than the ISO? Whatever works for you! andy-xr said:
Mr Will said:
andy-xr said:
As to the ISO auto thing, I'd rather have more of a handle on the ISO than letting the camera decide it for me. Like Simpo, I dont want to be fighting with it when it decides that I should have 400 after I've dialled in F8 and 1/125 and could really have done with ISO800. I always turn it off, I'll be honest I'd rather have a noisy photo in focus than a blurred one with no noise if thems the choices.
You'd rather have a noisy photo than a blurry one, yet you'd rather let the camera control the shutter speed than the ISO? Whatever works for you! If you can actually explain what is so different between manual with auto-ISO and aperture or shutter priority with a fixed ISO then please, be my guest...
Most of the time I shoot in AV or Manual and I hate Auto ISO as well.
I think it's quite simple to explain though:
I will set my ISO for the ambient lighting conditions and then I don't need to think about it any more. I concentrate on my aperture and know exactly what effect I will get if I juggle it or my shutter speed. With Auto ISO, there are too many moving variables for me to feel like I know exactly what will happen if I move aperture a stop or two. I don't feel in full control and if I want something to be technically 'wrong' for a given purpose, Auto ISO might mess with that.
Of course, then you run into the situation of not being able to take the photo you had planned, because the triangle simply can't be balanced. In that instance, I sort of mentally disengage, adjust the ISO manually and then 'reset' myself back to my aperture and shutter. I like that sometimes a shot is unachievable. Limits help to define creativity for me - with too many options I become lost. That's the reason I prefer to shoot film. I'm limited and sometimes you just have to put the camera back in the bag. It makes me think more about shooting and light.
In simple terms I would say that Auto ISO shouldn't be different to Av, in the sense that the camera is controlling one third of the adjustable factors, but it is to me. I like my ISO to feel like a solid foundation that won't shift on me.
I don't think this is a right/wrong thing as much as a preference.
I think it's quite simple to explain though:
I will set my ISO for the ambient lighting conditions and then I don't need to think about it any more. I concentrate on my aperture and know exactly what effect I will get if I juggle it or my shutter speed. With Auto ISO, there are too many moving variables for me to feel like I know exactly what will happen if I move aperture a stop or two. I don't feel in full control and if I want something to be technically 'wrong' for a given purpose, Auto ISO might mess with that.
Of course, then you run into the situation of not being able to take the photo you had planned, because the triangle simply can't be balanced. In that instance, I sort of mentally disengage, adjust the ISO manually and then 'reset' myself back to my aperture and shutter. I like that sometimes a shot is unachievable. Limits help to define creativity for me - with too many options I become lost. That's the reason I prefer to shoot film. I'm limited and sometimes you just have to put the camera back in the bag. It makes me think more about shooting and light.
In simple terms I would say that Auto ISO shouldn't be different to Av, in the sense that the camera is controlling one third of the adjustable factors, but it is to me. I like my ISO to feel like a solid foundation that won't shift on me.
I don't think this is a right/wrong thing as much as a preference.
Mr Will said:
Partially a smart-arse, but mostly just puzzled as to why so many people are so against using Manual with auto-ISO. It lets you set a precise aperture AND shutter speed, while still letting the camera control the exposure by adjusting the least important variable (the ISO).
If you can actually explain what is so different between manual with auto-ISO and aperture or shutter priority with a fixed ISO then please, be my guest...
The issue wasnt Manual and Auto ISO vs AP or SP and Auto ISO, it was just Auto ISO. If you can actually explain what is so different between manual with auto-ISO and aperture or shutter priority with a fixed ISO then please, be my guest...
There are many many times where you dont want auto ISO kicking in. Maybe I was out yesterday with my AutoISO on and today I'm doing dusky portraits with my trusty ring flash. So studio work or off camera flash for example, I'll set the shutter to let's say 1/125th and I want F11, I'm doing a headshot at 150mm and I want to make sure that the far side of the face is still in focus, I wont get that with F8 and F16's a bit much to ask of the lighting rig and I get a bit of lens crapout.
Nice easy middle of the road stuff. That's going to be about 3 stops out at ISO200 and I'm going to make that up with flash. The camera in an auto ISO set up will ramp it to let's say ISO6400, so when the flash fires, I get a massively overexposed mess.
I'll give you another example, I'm shooting the local memorial hall at dusk, I eyeball or chimp it at ISO1600, F4 and 1/100. Auto ISO used with +EV in aperture priority will slow the shutter speed rather than increase the ISO past it's preset level (usually down to 1/30th) because that's what it's designed to do. That's not what I want. Now I'm fighting the camera with EV and Auto ISO stepping in
Many times the camera's decision isnt what I want because it cant view the resulting photo the same way as I can see it, as in how I want it. So, I never use it, it gets in the way.
I'm sure Simpo would have told you this or something similar had you not
ed him off Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 27th October 09:48
andy-xr said:
The issue wasnt Manual and Auto ISO vs AP or SP and Auto ISO, it was just Auto ISO.
Okay, if that's the case please explain to me what the difference is between these three:Aperture Priority w. Fixed ISO
Shutter Priority w. Fixed ISO
Manual w. Auto-ISO
In each of these three scenarios the photographer controls two variables and lets the camera choose the third. Why is one of these verboten?
andy-xr said:
There are many many times where you dont want auto ISO kicking in. Maybe I was out yesterday with my AutoISO on and today I'm doing dusky portraits with my trusty ring flash. So studio work or off camera flash for example, I'll set the shutter to let's say 1/125th and I want F11, I'm doing a headshot at 150mm and I want to make sure that the far side of the face is still in focus, I wont get that with F8 and F16's a bit much to ask of the lighting rig and I get a bit of lens crapout.
Nice easy middle of the road stuff. That's going to be about 3 stops out at ISO200 and I'm going to make that up with flash. The camera in an auto ISO set up will ramp it to let's say ISO6400, so when the flash fires, I get a massively overexposed mess.
This is nothing to do with Auto-ISO though, attempting to use either Aperture or Shutter priority in this scenario would also result in a massively overexposed mess.Nice easy middle of the road stuff. That's going to be about 3 stops out at ISO200 and I'm going to make that up with flash. The camera in an auto ISO set up will ramp it to let's say ISO6400, so when the flash fires, I get a massively overexposed mess.
andy-xr said:
I'll give you another example, I'm shooting the local memorial hall at dusk, I eyeball or chimp it at ISO1600, F4 and 1/100. Auto ISO used with +EV in aperture priority will slow the shutter speed rather than increase the ISO past it's preset level (usually down to 1/30th) because that's what it's designed to do. That's not what I want. Now I'm fighting the camera with EV and Auto ISO stepping in
No, using aperture priority here is your problem, not auto ISO. You want f4 for depth of field and a minimum of 1/100 to avoid motion blur then dial both of these in using manual mode and leave auto ISO on. Now you'll get the shutter speed you want for every shot, at the aperture you want for every shot, while still letting the camera control the exposure level. You can still use EV+/- to adjust your exposures just the same as if you were in aperture priority but you aren't having to worry about the camera messing with the shutter speed - the variable that you actually care about. andy-xr said:
Many times the camera's decision isnt what I want because it cant view the resulting photo the same way as I can see it, as in how I want it. So, I never use it, it gets in the way.
True, but still nothing specific to auto ISO.andy-xr said:
I'm sure Simpo would have told you this or something similar had you not ed him off
I'll ignore you said that.ed him off It seems that all these arguments stem from a single misunderstanding - auto ISO does not have to be used in a priority mode. Yes, if you do use it in a priority mode then you are giving the camera control of two variables rather than one and this does reduce it's predictability but that's not what I'm recommending.
My recommendation is this - you fix the variables that you care about and let the camera control the ones that don't matter (for that particular situation). For landscapes this might mean fixing the aperture and ISO and letting the shutter-speed fall wherever. For low-light group portraits this often means fixing the aperture and shutter speed and letting the ISO float. Setting only one of the two important variables plus a "safe" ISO to ensure that the other doesn't fall too low is a backwards and outdated method.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff