I used to be concerned about keeping my iso as low as possible, and consequently ran into the problem of having a low shutter speed and the associated blur. (I was using full manual) Since switching to aperture priority, together with min/max shutter speed and auto iso, plus the exposure compensation dial the results are much more pleasing. Today's programs do a lot better job at noise removal than previously. I would much prefer to have a well exposed image, zero camera shake with some visible 'noise' than the alternative. I do not produce any work that has a critical need for 'clean' images so for me this is the best option.
Definitely a good system you've got worked out for your needs. Not only has software become so much better, sensors have evolved incredibly as well. Just go back and look at some of the ISO 1600 files from early full-frame cameras. It's amazing how far we've come.
I like your Basics series. Here - your discussion of DR is very welcome, especially the "Putting into practice" considerations. ISO invariance and dual channel processing may be interesting, but rather topics for advanced treatment.
Appreciate your style of approaching tech topic from photographic point of view. Just a small correction regarding the ISO - the camera system does not “multiply” the amount of light reaching the sensor. The amount of light that goes through the lens is the amount of light hitting the sensor, nothing can be done adding more light. But what the camera system actually does in terms of the ISO is employing electronic gain to the signal coming out of the sensor. It can be applied electronically and/or by a firmware in the processor. As laws of physics follow, applying gain - amplified the signal, makes it stronger to in order to achieve a desirable levels of the signal lesser light can be allowed into the processing (I.e. smaller aperture or faster shutter speeds used). But of course, all in our life are trade-offs we have to make, so for higher gain we pay by allowing higher system noise (introduced as an electronic noise and/or processing “noise”). This is the reason of higher ISO allowing bearable handheld shooting but than higher noise shall be tolerated in the image
This is true, but completely irrelevant within the scope of the video. This is a video for photographers who need to roughly understand what will happen to their images in order to create photographs, not a video for camera engineers who need to understand how the circuitry works. Thanks for watching!
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Exactly 😁 I happen to be hardware engineer by education and trade, including hardware design of sensor circuits. This is why it tripped me 😁 Anyway, appreciate your response
What are your thoughts about selecting the aperture, selecting the shutter, and then using auto iso with an X-T4? The reason I ask this is, that we predominantly select the aperture for our depth of field, and then the idea with the shutter would be to select something that would not cause motion blur (and I’m not talking about waterfalls, etc. where you would be selecting the shutter speed) such that you would then be able to then get maximum dynamic range, by virtue of the ISO automatically going as low as it could given those conditions. Anyway, thank you for making this video! 😊
I heard a theory from someone who said: use 4 times of base ios on Fujifilm cameras to achieve the best result. This guy also said: DON'T use iso160/200. For example: for XT3 onwards, the smallest ios he suggests is 640 (800 for XT2 and other cameras with base ios of 200). As at 640, user can apply HDR400, which can be benefitial in post process. Personally I haven't tested this theory myself, but it is different from what I learned before: the lower ios, the better IQ.
I've heard about this as well. It's likely to do with Fujifilm's dual gain processing. The gains will vary depending on the type of work you do, the scene, and how you expose. Not really the amount of depth we're going for in a simple video like this. Let's leave that sort of thing to people like Gerald Undone who love to crunch the numbers.
A side issue: I've seen you use very small F/16 apertures on the GFX. Notice that diffraction robs you of sharpness and detail at such small apertures? It's just that in Fujinom GF lenses, diffraction, which is present at all apertures of any lens, starts to be noticed right at F/8. Visibly speaking, do you notice image degradation at f/16? And so if you could, would you choose to use a wider aperture?
Not really a concern for me in most cases as I'm not poking around at 100% zoom. There's a small change from f/11-f/16, for sure, but it doesn't really bother me in everyday work. That being said, f/22 is about as far as I'll go on the GFX. Beyond that, diffraction gets a little to much for me.
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Hi Dylan, thank you so much for responding and sharing how you go about diffraction with GF lenses. Do you adopt the same criteria regarding non-GF lenses, but made for the GF-mount like certain Laowa, etc? The same question if you adapt Full Frame lenses. Or in these cases are you more conservative in the smaller apertures, to avoid diffraction? How much? Thank you very much for your attention. (sorry if this is not about ISO ,-)
I don't really adapt lenses, so that's a hard question for me. I've use a few different adapted lenses in the past, but more for experimentation than anything else. As for something like the Laowa, I'd apply the same logic as I would above. You may have noticed from my videos that while I try to apply the basics and ensure I get a quality image, the absolute image quality is not a priority for me most of the time. I'm more concerned with the content of the image than how much the details will hold up if I zoom in to 200%.
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Thank you for your opinion; It's fair. The technique only serves the purpose of the work; the theme. Not the other way around. However, it is good to know how to get the best technical advantage of the equipment. Good videos!
I have a whole video on just that process linked in the description here. That should give you a good introduction on how I approach Auto ISO. Thanks for watching!
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Thanks for the timely reply Dylan, I will check this (Auto ISO) video out. I came across your video channel yesterday for the first time and I watched a few videos and I liked what I saw and heard. Your communication skills are great and your approached to talking about the photographs you took, why, how, etc. I certainly enjoy, I have subscribed to your channel and will look at more of your videos - I moved from a long tine Nikon shooter, starting with a Nikormat El to D750 then switched to Fuji. I currently own a Fuji X100 Limited Edition, X-T1, X-Pro2, X-T3, X-T4 and my newest the X100V. I see you have lots of videos on most of these camera.
@@donjjcarroll2263 That's pretty much been my journey over the past 8 years or so, so I hope the videos are useful to you! Hoping to be able to get out into the world and make some new work again soon!
Good thing you didn't mention the so-called "exposure triangle", because in reality it doesn't exist .-) IMHO. There are two real components of exposure; aperture and speed. The ISO is just Gain like that on a sound amplifier. It's artificial. The noise in the image is already there at the base ISO. Gain only amplifies it and as with sound, it can go so far as to distort it. However, this "trick" can come in handy in certain situations as you illustrated. Bye.
I used to be concerned about keeping my iso as low as possible, and consequently ran into the problem of having a low shutter speed and the associated blur. (I was using full manual) Since switching to aperture priority, together with min/max shutter speed and auto iso, plus the exposure compensation dial the results are much more pleasing. Today's programs do a lot better job at noise removal than previously. I would much prefer to have a well exposed image, zero camera shake with some visible 'noise' than the alternative. I do not produce any work that has a critical need for 'clean' images so for me this is the best option.
Definitely a good system you've got worked out for your needs. Not only has software become so much better, sensors have evolved incredibly as well. Just go back and look at some of the ISO 1600 files from early full-frame cameras. It's amazing how far we've come.
APPRECIATE YOUR INFO ABOUT ISO...You're taking back to basics...
Concise, easy to follow, and informative. Keep up the great work.
Much appreciated! Glad you enjoyed the video!
I like your Basics series. Here - your discussion of DR is very welcome, especially the "Putting into practice" considerations. ISO invariance and dual channel processing may be interesting, but rather topics for advanced treatment.
Appreciate your style of approaching tech topic from photographic point of view.
Just a small correction regarding the ISO - the camera system does not “multiply” the amount of light reaching the sensor. The amount of light that goes through the lens is the amount of light hitting the sensor, nothing can be done adding more light.
But what the camera system actually does in terms of the ISO is employing electronic gain to the signal coming out of the sensor. It can be applied electronically and/or by a firmware in the processor.
As laws of physics follow, applying gain - amplified the signal, makes it stronger to in order to achieve a desirable levels of the signal lesser light can be allowed into the processing (I.e. smaller aperture or faster shutter speeds used). But of course, all in our life are trade-offs we have to make, so for higher gain we pay by allowing higher system noise (introduced as an electronic noise and/or processing “noise”).
This is the reason of higher ISO allowing bearable handheld shooting but than higher noise shall be tolerated in the image
This is true, but completely irrelevant within the scope of the video. This is a video for photographers who need to roughly understand what will happen to their images in order to create photographs, not a video for camera engineers who need to understand how the circuitry works. Thanks for watching!
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer
Exactly 😁
I happen to be hardware engineer by education and trade, including hardware design of sensor circuits. This is why it tripped me 😁
Anyway, appreciate your response
@@pret5097No doubt! As a photographer, it's completely irrelevant! But, for the engineers behind, sure it is something you consider.
What are your thoughts about selecting the aperture, selecting the shutter, and then using auto iso with an X-T4?
The reason I ask this is, that we predominantly select the aperture for our depth of field, and then the idea with the shutter would be to select something that would not cause motion blur (and I’m not talking about waterfalls, etc. where you would be selecting the shutter speed) such that you would then be able to then get maximum dynamic range, by virtue of the ISO automatically going as low as it could given those conditions.
Anyway, thank you for making this video! 😊
I heard a theory from someone who said: use 4 times of base ios on Fujifilm cameras to achieve the best result. This guy also said: DON'T use iso160/200. For example: for XT3 onwards, the smallest ios he suggests is 640 (800 for XT2 and other cameras with base ios of 200). As at 640, user can apply HDR400, which can be benefitial in post process.
Personally I haven't tested this theory myself, but it is different from what I learned before: the lower ios, the better IQ.
I've heard about this as well. It's likely to do with Fujifilm's dual gain processing. The gains will vary depending on the type of work you do, the scene, and how you expose. Not really the amount of depth we're going for in a simple video like this. Let's leave that sort of thing to people like Gerald Undone who love to crunch the numbers.
Thanks for the vid Dylan; much appreciated
You're welcome! Hope it was helpful.
Thanks so much! Did you cover setting the min/max iso in camera, espec. Fuji, or did I miss it? You’re good!
Thanks again!
You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to watch.
Excellent video, as usual. Would you recommend NR -4 with an ISO value of 400 and above? Thanks
A side issue: I've seen you use very small F/16 apertures on the GFX. Notice that diffraction robs you of sharpness and detail at such small apertures? It's just that in Fujinom GF lenses, diffraction, which is present at all apertures of any lens, starts to be noticed right at F/8. Visibly speaking, do you notice image degradation at f/16? And so if you could, would you choose to use a wider aperture?
Not really a concern for me in most cases as I'm not poking around at 100% zoom. There's a small change from f/11-f/16, for sure, but it doesn't really bother me in everyday work. That being said, f/22 is about as far as I'll go on the GFX. Beyond that, diffraction gets a little to much for me.
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Hi Dylan, thank you so much for responding and sharing how you go about diffraction with GF lenses.
Do you adopt the same criteria regarding non-GF lenses, but made for the GF-mount like certain Laowa, etc? The same question if you adapt Full Frame lenses.
Or in these cases are you more conservative in the smaller apertures, to avoid diffraction? How much?
Thank you very much for your attention.
(sorry if this is not about ISO ,-)
I don't really adapt lenses, so that's a hard question for me. I've use a few different adapted lenses in the past, but more for experimentation than anything else.
As for something like the Laowa, I'd apply the same logic as I would above.
You may have noticed from my videos that while I try to apply the basics and ensure I get a quality image, the absolute image quality is not a priority for me most of the time. I'm more concerned with the content of the image than how much the details will hold up if I zoom in to 200%.
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Thank you for your opinion; It's fair. The technique only serves the purpose of the work; the theme. Not the other way around. However, it is good to know how to get the best technical advantage of the equipment. Good videos!
Hi Dylan. Do you ever shoot with your Fuji camera set on Auto ISO?
What's your thought on Fuji's "Auto ISO"? Do you use it sometimes?
I have a whole video on just that process linked in the description here. That should give you a good introduction on how I approach Auto ISO. Thanks for watching!
@@DylanGoldbyPhotographer Thanks for the timely reply Dylan, I will check this (Auto ISO) video out. I came across your video channel yesterday for the first time and I watched a few videos and I liked what I saw and heard. Your communication skills are great and your approached to talking about the photographs you took, why, how, etc. I certainly enjoy, I have subscribed to your channel and will look at more of your videos - I moved from a long tine Nikon shooter, starting with a Nikormat El to D750 then switched to Fuji. I currently own a Fuji X100 Limited Edition, X-T1, X-Pro2, X-T3, X-T4 and my newest the X100V. I see you have lots of videos on most of these camera.
@@donjjcarroll2263 That's pretty much been my journey over the past 8 years or so, so I hope the videos are useful to you! Hoping to be able to get out into the world and make some new work again soon!
Good thing you didn't mention the so-called "exposure triangle", because in reality it doesn't exist .-) IMHO.
There are two real components of exposure; aperture and speed. The ISO is just Gain like that on a sound amplifier. It's artificial. The noise in the image is already there at the base ISO. Gain only amplifies it and as with sound, it can go so far as to distort it. However, this "trick" can come in handy in certain situations as you illustrated. Bye.