Auto ISO on Canon xD's - do you use it?

[M-J-B]

I normally shoot deliberately on the lowest ISO I can, altering it sometimes from shot to shot and rarely if ever have I used the auto ISO feature.

Having just had the 5D MKII delivered today, this has good high ISO results and I thought I may have a play in auto mode.

What setting in general do the Canon owners do here on PH?

[Thunderace]

I always set ISO manually and keep it as low as possible (even on a 5D2). Don't have any reservations at using up to 3200 so far (haven't needed to go beyond that yet). Haven't found a reason to use auto-ISO.

[pernod]

I keep thinking it's a great idea, but I never actually get around to using it...

[stigmundfreud]

pernod said:

I keep thinking it's a great idea, but I never actually get around to using it...

in static light you want to keep it off, no need, but in quickly variable lighting situations I find it very useful. With 6400 offering great results in really low light events its a no brainer.

[dibbly dobbler]

Slightly off topic - sorry - but why bother with the lowest ISO settings given how good modern DSLRs are at higher ISO ? (Not having a go - genuinely interested )

[M-J-B]

stigmundfreud said:

pernod said:

I keep thinking it's a great idea, but I never actually get around to using it...

in static light you want to keep it off, no need, but in quickly variable lighting situations I find it very useful. With 6400 offering great results in really low light events its a no brainer.

Been playing around and 6400 is, quite frankly astonishing!

Taking a photo across the kitchen using my 24-70 and the detail is staggering, and that's not using a flash. I think I'm going to have some fun, and already I think I can see why FF is so applauded when used with good glass.

[LongQ]

dibbly dobbler said:

Slightly off topic - sorry - but why bother with the lowest ISO settings given how good modern DSLRs are at higher ISO ? (Not having a go - genuinely interested )

'Tis a good question.

I think the answer is that you do lose a little in a lot of areas so if you seek absolute fidelity then the lower ISOs usually offer that extra quality that drains away with the higher ISOs.

However, if you go for a 'hard' or 'urban' look (or similar in terms of processing technique) where the original IQ will be largely replaced, then it matters not a jot. You will lose subtlety by going to ISO6400 .... but then the processing may lose even more. For the average 6x4 print or on-screen display 99.99% of the viewers just will not notice.

IMHO. YMMV.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 10th September 00:51

Edited by LongQ on Friday 10th September 00:54

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks for the response LQ

The kind of stuff I've been doing of late has typically meant stopping down to try and get the maximum possible dof so a little extra ISO helps, seemingly without much cost so I just wondered if I was missing something (again!). Having said that I'm only talking about going to 400 or maybe 800 if I'm feeling especially brave so nothing too ground breaking

[Kermit power]

dibbly dobbler said:

Slightly off topic - sorry - but why bother with the lowest ISO settings given how good modern DSLRs are at higher ISO ? (Not having a go - genuinely interested )

Because it's one of the points of the triangle which can be varied to give you the sort of shot you want.

If you want to be able to freeze the motion in a shot with a very shallow depth of field, then you'll have to use a low ISO in moderate to bright light, because a higher ISO would over-expose the shot in manual mode, or force a possibly unwanted compromise in depth of field or shutter speed in one of the semi-auto modes.

[LongQ]

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks for the response LQ

The kind of stuff I've been doing of late has typically meant stopping down to try and get the maximum possible dof so a little extra ISO helps, seemingly without much cost so I just wondered if I was missing something (again!). Having said that I'm only talking about going to 400 or maybe 800 if I'm feeling especially brave so nothing too ground breaking

400 and 800 ISO are quite tame - the really impressive recent changes have been for 3200 and above.

Kermit power makes a good point and I suppose the fourth point of the triangle (if you see what I mean !) would be ND filters.

Other than resolution isses related to ISO - just as they were with film grain but perhaps less so in the digital age as it is now - the other concern for fine art photographers would be loss of dynamic range. Both absolute DR and in the subtlety of colour reproduction tend, as I understand things, to be compromised to some extent at higher ISO settings - though with continuous development 'higher' becomes a moving target.

Film had the same issues and was perhaps less well able to real with long exposures than digital, in its current state of development, now allows.

Unless you are planning large gallery prints using highly optimised files I doubt this will trouble you. When you progress to something like a Phase One camera it will be a subject for which you may feel the need to become expert. Speaking personally, as someone who never expects to own or need to work with a Phase One or similar, though it might be fun, I see the concerns about ISO and it affect on quality becoming a non-issue for practical purposes and a great tool as part of the triangle as Kermit power suggests.

[dibbly dobbler]

KP - thanks, yes I guess I was aware of that but it's a fair point. I haven't done much shallow dof stuff so I guess for me I might as well have the ISO cranked up a bit as a default, whereas a couple of posters were saying earlier they have it as low as possible as a default...

LQ - thanks again, none of my stuff is ever likely to be printed at all, never mind in large size so no worries there

[pernod]

dibbly dobbler said:

Slightly off topic - sorry - but why bother with the lowest ISO settings given how good modern DSLRs are at higher ISO ? (Not having a go - genuinely interested )

Three of the other reasons many (including myself) shoot as low an ISO as possible

• it gives added bandwidth if you find you do want to do some editing on the shot.
• Some of the stock agency's are pedantic about noise (although I won't name names **cough.alamy.Cough**)
• Long exposure shots, the noise gets outrageous at higher levels for long exposure work.

But in general, for your average daily shot the higher ISO's are perfect. I normally work on the basis that a blurry shot isn't usable where as a noisy one is so it's safer to play on the higher side of ISO if needed.

[paul911]

Not an xD user but I do have auto ISO on the 50D.

Landscape pics mostly taken at ISO 100.

Bird (feathery ones) and wildlife pics always auto ISO, to maximise image quality with fast shutter speeds. And works a treat too.

[M-J-B]

paul911 said:

Not an xD user but I do have auto ISO on the 50D.

Landscape pics mostly taken at ISO 100.

Bird (feathery ones) and wildlife pics always auto ISO, to maximise image quality with fast shutter speeds. And works a treat too.

Paul, you are....by xD, I meant, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D etc etc

[dibbly dobbler]

pernod said:

dibbly dobbler said:

Slightly off topic - sorry - but why bother with the lowest ISO settings given how good modern DSLRs are at higher ISO ? (Not having a go - genuinely interested )

Three of the other reasons many (including myself) shoot as low an ISO as possible

• it gives added bandwidth if you find you do want to do some editing on the shot.
• Some of the stock agency's are pedantic about noise (although I won't name names **cough.alamy.Cough**)
• Long exposure shots, the noise gets outrageous at higher levels for long exposure work.

But in general, for your average daily shot the higher ISO's are perfect. I normally work on the basis that a blurry shot isn't usable where as a noisy one is so it's safer to play on the higher side of ISO if needed.

Excellent info pernod - thanks

@Paul911 - LOL

[Kermit power]

M-J-B said:

paul911 said:

Not an xD user but I do have auto ISO on the 50D.

Landscape pics mostly taken at ISO 100.

Bird (feathery ones) and wildlife pics always auto ISO, to maximise image quality with fast shutter speeds. And works a treat too.

Paul, you are....by xD, I meant, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D etc etc

To be fair to Paul, a real pedant might think xD = 1D, 5D, 7D, xxD = 40D, 50D, xxxD = 400D, 450D etc...

[M-J-B]

Kermit power said:

M-J-B said:

paul911 said:

Not an xD user but I do have auto ISO on the 50D.

Landscape pics mostly taken at ISO 100.

Bird (feathery ones) and wildlife pics always auto ISO, to maximise image quality with fast shutter speeds. And works a treat too.

Paul, you are....by xD, I meant, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D etc etc

To be fair to Paul, a real pedant might think xD = 1D, 5D, 7D, xxD = 40D, 50D, xxxD = 400D, 450D etc...

Thanks for clarification KP

[paul911]

Kermit power said:

M-J-B said:

paul911 said:

Not an xD user but I do have auto ISO on the 50D.

Landscape pics mostly taken at ISO 100.

Bird (feathery ones) and wildlife pics always auto ISO, to maximise image quality with fast shutter speeds. And works a treat too.

Paul, you are....by xD, I meant, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D etc etc

To be fair to Paul, a real pedant might think xD = 1D, 5D, 7D, xxD = 40D, 50D, xxxD = 400D, 450D etc...

That’s exactly what I though, as the OP has just bought a 5D