ISO 200 vs Auto ISO

[dicky109]

Just thought I'd pass this along for anyone else having a similar issue.
In the 1.5 years I've been using the OM-5, I've waffled between using ISO 200 vs Auto ISO. I'm not really worried about using higher ISO's when necessary, especially as modern AI programs do such a good job of lessening noise and I am not a pixel peeper. What I do find is that limiting myself to ISO 200, in many situations causes shutter speed to be too slow for my no longer rock solid hands and ruining shots.
I came across THIS VIDEO today by Jimmy West, who I'm not generally a big fan of, but he seems to have erased my qualms regarding Auto ISO, mostly including possible low S/S. I generally shoot in Aperture Priority but did not realize that you could set a minimum shutter speed for Auto ISO (gear>E1>ISO Auto Set>Lowest S/S Setting). If you set it to AUTO, as you close down the aperture when using Auto ISO, the S/S stays low and the ISO increases to compensate. If you set it the minimum to something like 1/125, or higher, you can get whatever S/S you need to minimize camera shake or movement in the image. Of course, in low light, since auto ISO limits to 6400, you may have to dial in a faster ISO, but it appears that the AUTO setting may work for the majority of shots better than ISO 200 for me.

 

[Holoholo55]

I use Auto ISO often. In Aperture priority mode, I keep an eye on my shutter speed and adjust as necessary. I've generally found that it uses an acceptable shutter speed. I find that it even works in Manual mode, so I can set my shutter speed and aperture to a desired setting, and the ISO will vary to comply with the exposure meter. I used to worry about ISOs going into the noisy range, but with modern processing software, noise is much less of a problem. It's overcome my earlier fear of high ISOs. However, I will set ISO lower to maintain image quality when circumstances require it.

I don't care if people think I'm not a "real" photographer because I don't shoot M all the time. I use AF too. I use the tools available to make photography easier on myself and to enjoy taking photos.

 

[Bushboy]

I got two bodies, one has a long zoom on it just about always. Auto iso up to 1600 on that one. Av mode set to wide open.
Often with a flash on it, and it goes automatically to 200 iso.
I would love a high iso body one day.

 

[Holoholo55]

I got two bodies, one has a long zoom on it just about always. Auto iso up to 1600 on that one. Av mode set to wide open.
Often with a flash on it, and it goes automatically to 200 iso.
I would love a high iso body one day.

I found that the OM-1 (and presumably the OM-1 II) handles higher ISOs quite nicely. I presume the OM-3 probably would too. I've used it to take photos under what seemed to be adequate lighting inside a university stadium for a graduation and was surprised to find it going up to ISO 12800, which is what I'd set for the max. With denoising and other enhancements from post processing, I was able to get good quality images that my niece and family were very happy with.

Multiple world surfing champion and Olympic gold medalist Carissa Moore was the keynote speaker.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Taken handheld from a long distance away. Processed with Topaz Photo AI v4.

This gives you a good idea of how far away we were, although I had a good angle from here of my niece going to the podium to get her certificate.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jimmywest]

Glad you found the video somewhat useful. Sorry to know you don't like me.

 

[Mikel]

Topaz and similar programs is not for me, I prefer photos with no noise and sharp but if it not the case it doesn't bother me, important is what the photo tell you... You can make a beautiful photo of a clock but at the end it will still be a photo of a clock, you need to be a very gifted photographer for stirring people internally with a clock's photo ( Personally

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I have never try ). eg. Photos of Ed van der elsken Dutch photographer here...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[PakkyT]

I came across THIS VIDEO today by Jimmy West, who I'm not generally a big fan of,

Glad you found the video somewhat useful. Sorry to know you don't like me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[dicky109]

Glad you found the video somewhat useful. Sorry to know you don't like me.

Jimmy, my comments were not meant to be about you personally as you seem like a friendly enough guy; more that I have little interest in most of the topics you post about. Sorry if my comment, which in retrospect, I should not have made, upset you.

 

[jimmywest]

Jimmy, my comments were not meant to be about you personally as you seem like a friendly enough guy; more that I have little interest in most of the topics you post about. Sorry if my comment, which in retrospect, I should not have made, upset you.

No worries at all. I wasn’t offended really — just poking a bit of fun. But now I’m genuinely curious: what kind of content are you usually looking for? Maybe there are topics I haven’t thought to cover yet.

 

[dicky109]

No worries at all. I wasn’t offended really — just poking a bit of fun. But now I’m genuinely curious: what kind of content are you usually looking for? Maybe there are topics I haven’t thought to cover yet.

I am not good at coming up with topics, otherwise, I'd have my own channel. I am more interested in the nuts and bolts topics and did follow you for a bit and found some useful information for use, settings, how to's on the OM-5. Then, it seems you took more of a turn to philosophical issues, which I have zero interest in.

What I like to see are in the field videos, dealing with challenging conditions (lighting, locations, weather, etc.) and suggested settings and work-arounds for those situations.
Thanks for your interest.

 

[StephenB]

You can make a beautiful photo of a clock but at the end it will still be a photo of a clock

or a clock in bits

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[StephenB]

@Mikel I agree

, I prefer photos with no noise and sharp but if it not the case it doesn't bother me, important is what the photo tell you...

But you have to be a very gifted photographer to put world class emotion into pictures, it's so much more than expert technique. When I started photography in earnest, I really hoped it would bring out some hidden talent in me, something that everyone, including me had missed, but alas, it wasn't there.

I still enjoy it though. And when the younger family members are raving about their latest phones and what they (or AI) can do, I would love to show them what the Art, Scene and framing functions have been doing for years on my Olympus cameras, they probably look at me with my Pixel 6A phone and think - what does he know, what would anyone with a £11 per month phone contract know

 

[RAH]

@Mikel I agree

But you have to be a very gifted photographer to put world class emotion into pictures, it's so much more than expert technique.

Well, yeah, but that's easier said than done. So for your average person with limited artsy skills (like me), are they just not supposed to take any photographs? What's the point? - is that what you guys are saying??

 

[StephenB]

Well, yeah, but that's easier said than done. So for your average person with limited artsy skills (like me), are they just not supposed to take any photographs? What's the point? - is that what you guys are saying??

Absolutely not! It's just one in a million stand out as insanely talented. No matter what interest, sport, hobby or pastime there's always someone who's top of the tree. I spend a bit of time looking through, what I consider, great photographers work, mostly I can't put my finger on what makes it great to me. As I said, I'm happy taking very ordinary pictures, I'm too old to be dishonest with myself and happy to be in the lower divisions on here.

 

[spdavies]

There are a lot of misconceptions about "great" photography.
One of them is not being aware that the great photographs you see by famous great photographers are almost always several dozen or a couple hundred at most photos from a lifetime of thousands of images taken. They spent their lives photographing constantly and what we see is the cream of the crop. We don't see the multitude of mediocre or commonplace images they took. Think of how you see the same few Ansel Adams images over and over.
Another is the factor of time and place. Much "great" photography is considered so because of when it was taken - the historical documentary aspect - different times, exotic places or important events - or the fact that it was early versions of what are now quite common techniques and subjects.
Another factor is "fame or name" - William Eggleston is an example of this (imho) - he was friends with some of the New York art elite, including the curator of the Museum of Modern Art, and was the first photographer to get a one-man show there. He is now lauded as the "father of color art photography" when there are far better color photographers who had extensive portfolios of beautiful work decades before him. Again IMHO, his work is mostly snapshot crap - not to put too fine a point on it.
A street shooter in this category is Gary Winogrand - he was an early "spray and pray" photographer (who was shooting film!) - didn't take time to compose his shots or look through the viewfinder. When he died he left literally thousands of rolls of film that hadn't even been developed, much less looked at or culled. Because of the way he shot, his photos have strange croppings, are at weird angles, etc. Yet he is considered one of the "greats" of street photography and a pioneer because he threw away composition, balance, lighting, etc. - all the elements of what are considered good photographs. Since he was shooting constantly, day after day, in New York City, he of course got some good images, interesting juxtapositons, funny timing, etc. - but is he all that great or just voluminous and ubiquitous?
And finally, as to why to shoot if you aren't great or well-known or likely to be - check out Vivian Maier - a children's nanny all her life, she shot hundreds of rolls of street photographs, never told anyone, never showed them to anyone, never even developed most of her film - she was shooting just for the fun of it - and she is one of the most talented street photographers ever. Look into the story of how her work was discovered - fascinating.
Do it for yourself - let whatever follows come what may . . .