Downside of using below native ISO ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
66
Location
California
OK, I get what you are saying. And you're right, he never says to increase the ISO so you're left wondering how the hell you can do anything. :)

As @John King says, this is much too slow to use with normal shooting, IMHO. It wouldn't fit at all with the way I usually shoot (again, similar to @John King it seems) - using Aperture priority and presetting the ISO to what I think is necessary for the current conditions, and then shooting away. However, I DO think it is good to know, and if you are shooting say table-top products or non-moving macro stuff, then it would be a good thing to employ.

While I was reading the article I started to think, "Is this guy a relative of Tony Northrup!?!" It is a bit mantra-like! ;)
It seems we have the same opinion of the Northrups :).

When not shooting fully manual, I often use Misomatic mode: manual mode with Auto-ISO. I preset the aperture, the lowest acceptable shutter speed (based on subject, camera shake), and let the camera pick the ISO. The EVF/histogram/blinkies show me if I am in danger of clipping the highlights because of too much light. I wish there was a mode that would raise the shutter speed in such a situation automatically.
Using Auto-ISO in aperture priority mode works often very well, though I lose easy control of shutter speed.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
66
Location
California
Ya that page is just yet another shooting for ETTR type article and as always while the concept of ETTR is useful in certain situations, for most of us, most of time, for most of what we shoot, the gains from employing this method are minimal at best and not worth the time and effort (both in setting up the shot and in post processing work).

Heck, I don't even preset my ISO. I use Auto-ISO usually and just set the limits on it for what I am comfortable with. In my experience Olympus has already programmed the cameras to use the lowest ISO setting for as long as it can and only raising the ISO as a last resort. So if my camera can use ISO 200, then it will as the first choice. So the camera in a sense already does ETTR when using Auto-ISO since it tries to use the lowest ISO.
<snip>
ETTR is not about using the lowest ISO. It is about allowing the maximum amount of light onto the sensor. Yes, native ISO is the key but also using the lowest acceptable shutter speed (assuming aperture is fixed).
I find that Olympus uses a too-high shutter speed in Auto-ISO mode, with Lowest S/S Setting set to Auto. Therefore I prefer Misomatic mode instead.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,724
Location
Massachusetts, USA
ETTR is not about using the lowest ISO
Oh no, we aren't going to start this again are we? Is that you Bushman with an alternate account?

Yes as I already talked about in this thread, it is assumed you maximize the light gathering of shutter and aperture and only when you have reached those maximums (either physical or artistical maximums) do you need or choose to use an ISO above the base value. If you haven't maximized the light gathering of S&A you will find you could decrease ISO and compensate with further shutter or aperture adjustments. Which means you were not using ETTR as it was defined a decade+ ago when camera manufacturers used the old way of determining ISO values in their digital cameras and mostly still applies to m43 models today.

That article is just another rehashing of this well documented ETTR technique.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
66
Location
California
Oh no, we aren't going to start this again are we? Is that you Bushman with an alternate account?

Yes as I already talked about in this thread, it is assumed you maximize the light gathering of shutter and aperture and only when you have reached those maximums (either physical or artistical maximums) do you need or choose to use an ISO above the base value. If you haven't maximized the light gathering of S&A you will find you could decrease ISO and compensate with further shutter or aperture adjustments. Which means you were not using ETTR as it was defined a decade+ ago when camera manufacturers used the old way of determining ISO values in their digital cameras and mostly still applies to m43 models today.

That article is just another rehashing of this well documented ETTR technique.
I obviously missed some "interesting" discussions with the aforementioned Bushman :). I need to look it up to understand what you mean by your comments.
The point of my addendum to your post was only there to make it a bit clearer. BTW, I posted the article (post #49) to point out why ISO is JPG/TIFF centric (adding to your post #47). I have discussed ETTR ad nauseam in another brand forum, did not intend to do it here :).
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
537
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
It's an interesting read going through the discussion, some great replies, and others giving questionable facts. It's so important to use updated and good information. I also noticed some are staring at the four walls of a small box when thinking about ETTR, completely missing the point why informed photographers will think out the box and purposely apply ETTR... I am surprised to see such narrow thinking of a great solution...

Its 12 years from Canon launched the "Bigger is Better" sales strategy. At the time they compared the 12MP full-frame (5D) sensor with a 12MP (M43) sensor (both CMOS) It made complete sense to compare these sensors at the time. Why is it impossible today? Reading through the discussion it's clear some are still 12 years and 12MP back in theory...

I am working on a short article to provide more clarity on sensor evolution. For the interim see this short update

Have fun guys
 

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
747
...Which means you were not using ETTR as it was defined a decade+ ago when camera manufacturers used the old way of determining ISO values in their digital cameras and mostly still applies to m43 models today.

That article is just another rehashing of this well documented ETTR technique.
Well ETTR wasn't defined as technique for base ISO for first time when mentioned by luminouslandscape.
If I remember correctly it was defined for ISO with analog amplification.
Another thing of course is that for most cameras its use at anything than base ISO is lets say unwise (with possible exception for night photography from non-isoless cameras).
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,724
Location
Massachusetts, USA
If I remember correctly it was defined for ISO with analog amplification.
Which m43 bodies still do. I know a lot of other companies, like Fujifilm, are doing it differently and even offer different "dynamic ranges" in their ISO settings. But Oly and Panny still basically have stuck to the higher ISOs are analog amplifications of the base ISO. The only real change Oly made was when they made ISO 200 their base ISO, but the higher ISO are still just an 2x, 4x, etc. of that.


Another thing of course is that for most cameras its use at anything than base ISO is lets say unwise (with possible exception for night photography from non-isoless cameras).
Certainly I think this is true for Olympus and Panasonic for the reasons I mentioned above. Once you have to start raising the ISO there is not a lot to be gained pushing it further right that the exposure you want with ISO alone.

However maybe some of the newer cameras & manufacturers there are advantages of using in camera ISO setting because with the tricks they use now for ISO with different tonal curves, dynamic range adjustments, and what not, the in camera treatment of the image data with high ISO setting may give much better results than something like Lightroom or other generic photo editors that might apply +/-EV the same for all photos or not fully understand the nuances of any particular model's imaging system. Or put another way, for example, Fujifilm may apply some tricks or alternate settings at higher ISOs because of a non-linear quirk in their current sensors where as a straight amplification may give poorer results so simply adding +EV on the computer is not the same as doing it with ISO in those particular cameras. I hope that made sense.
 

Dogbert62

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
75
Location
Austin, TX
Real Name
Patrick
Didn’t the DR increase a smidge on the older M10 bodies below native ISO?
Dogbert62
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,313
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
It's an interesting read going through the discussion, some great replies, and others giving questionable facts. It's so important to use updated and good information. I also noticed some are staring at the four walls of a small box when thinking about ETTR, completely missing the point why informed photographers will think out the box and purposely apply ETTR... I am surprised to see such narrow thinking of a great solution...

Its 12 years from Canon launched the "Bigger is Better" sales strategy. At the time they compared the 12MP full-frame (5D) sensor with a 12MP (M43) sensor (both CMOS) It made complete sense to compare these sensors at the time. Why is it impossible today? Reading through the discussion it's clear some are still 12 years and 12MP back in theory...

I am working on a short article to provide more clarity on sensor evolution. For the interim see this short update

Have fun guys
I see from your article that you are referencing back to this thread :

In an effort to help the local fanboys team, at the Mu-43 forum, appreciate the misinformation and confusion they spreading, I created a visual help (see below) they can use when thinking about their wild bucket theories. I honestly hope this will help them realize how counterproductive some of these theories are when used out of context...

I'm planning to "Fact Check" some of the claims they spreading on social media. See this example...
I’m looking forward to the “fact check”. I hope you post it here so that we can be informed of our errors.
 

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
747
I've deleted my post as it wasn't directly about theme of this thread and there was a risk that it would divert this thread sooner or later to the back room.
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
537
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
The contrast between the "bucket" theorists talking and the actual world... oops :cool:

Scientist Live article

Have fun

Bucket-Theory-6.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom