Timeline for Why can't I set a partial ISO stop?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| S Oct 22, 2019 at 22:41 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' or 'side-by-side' to see the difference – image not uploaded to Imgur because the author didn't license them in a CC-BY-SA compatible manner); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 8:19 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 22, 2019 at 22:41 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2011 at 7:15 | vote | accept | Tom Jefferys | ||
| Jul 19, 2011 at 15:09 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @ysap there are usually other ways to get a standard exposure (change Av/Tv) but let's say you can't, having the camera manipulate the raw data offers no advantage to the raw shooter (assuming they tweak exposure in post anyway) and conveys some disadvantages, i.e. noise/greater likelihood of clipped highlights. These disadvantages may not be significant, but having the camera's firmware irreversibly alter the raw data in a way easily replicated in post seems to go against the philosophy of shooting raw. | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 14:44 | comment | added | ysap | @Matt - although your point is understood, note that in order to get a standard exposure,m at the end of the day you will have to adjust the brightness of your image in software (kinda what you did in the example). Thus, I don't see how you can run away from that, and if your camera's firmware is good enough to do that on capture time, then why not just use it. After all, 1/3 of a stop is barely noticeable and your example (making the point, though) is exaggerated. | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 13:25 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Jul 19, 2011 at 12:22 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @Tom It's a trade off, there are some benefits of using auto-ISO that outweigh the noise/headroom issues. When using auto-ISO in M mode you are deciding how much light enters the camera, and thus how much photon noise you get, the auto-ISO function then is just limiting read noise for you. | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 12:21 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @ShutterBug I think it's true of all Canons except the 1D line. As far as I know Nikon implement partial stops in hardware on their cameras. It's not hugely difficult, just as example of Canon being lazy and assuming users wont notice (hint: some do!) | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 12:02 | comment | added | Tom Jefferys | Thanks for the answer! I guess I should be avoiding Auto ISO then? | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 11:48 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 479 characters in body
|
| Jul 19, 2011 at 11:41 | comment | added | fahad.hasan | Is this only for Canon models or for Nikon too? Is it true for all Canon models having partial ISO capability i.e 60D, 7D? | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 11:02 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Jul 19, 2011 at 10:51 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 358 characters in body
|
| Jul 19, 2011 at 8:12 | history | answered | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |