ISO does it make a difference? (Page 4): I just joined in and after 3 pages there's been plenty of input. Here's what I do. With digital you can change ISO "mid roll" so to speak. I...

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

paulrph1 wrote:

Does it make a difference if I get a lens that is f2.8 or larger as compared to an f4 since now with digital the graininess is not as prevalent as it was with during the film days. Or can I get the cheaper f4 lens and adjust the ISO to compensate? It is only one stop. During film that made a big difference but with digital it seems to not be so dramatic.

I just joined in and after 3 pages there's been plenty of input. Here's what I do. With digital you can change ISO "mid roll" so to speak. I wish we could have done that with film years ago. We'll we could but made processing and printing more difficult. What I do is shoot at the lowest ISO I need to meet the conditions and what I need. I never hesitate to adjust ISO for different lighting, shooting from a different angle. It's simple to do with most cameras.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

paulrph1 wrote:

Does it make a difference if I get a lens that is f2.8 or larger as compared to an f4 since now with digital the graininess is not as prevalent as it was with during the film days. Or can I get the cheaper f4 lens and adjust the ISO to compensate? It is only one stop. During film that made a big difference but with digital it seems to not be so dramatic.

A fast lens is about DoF as well as low light performance. If you want the type of shallow depth of field you can only get with an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens f/4 won't cut it no matter how high you can push the ISO.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

mwsilvers wrote:

A fast lens is about DoF as well as low light performance. If you want the type of shallow depth of field you can only get with an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens f/4 won't cut it no matter how high you can push the ISO.

Actually there's not much need to raise the ISO if you need maximum aperture. Just the opposite. Shooting wide open under a certain lighting condition will require compensating with a higher shutter speed. So lower ISO will make it possible to shoot at max aperture for minimum DOF without exceeding the shutter speed the camera is capable of. It'll vary of course depending on lighting and the desired effect but most likely a lower ISO will work better.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

pounder35 wrote:

Actually there's not much need to raise the ISO if you need maximum aperture. Just the opposite. Shooting wide open under a certain lighting condition will require compensating with a higher shutter speed. So lower ISO will make it possible to shoot at max aperture for minimum DOF without exceeding the shutter speed the camera is capable of. It'll vary of course depending on lighting and the desired effect but most likely a lower ISO will work better.

Yep, I know. I was referring to pushing the ISO on a slower f/4 lens. Of course in extremely low light conditions you may have to use a very high ISO setting even with a fast lens wide open to get the shot.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

mwsilvers wrote:

Yep, I know. I was referring to pushing the ISO on a slower f/4 lens. Of course in extremely low light conditions you may have to use a very high ISO setting even with a fast lens wide open to get the shot.

There are so many variables it's hard to discuss. Anyone with the basics of the relationship of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF can compute it in their head, depending on the situation and desired results. Just basic photography but I love discussing it. That's what makes it fun. The same when I taught darkroom. I'm glad to see the popularity of DSLR's and certain bridge cameras where settings are adjustable. As you well know it opens up a whole new world. Beats the hell out of smartphones. :thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol: Should we mention hyperfocal distance and the zone system or leave that alone. It's all fun. :lol: :lol:

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

paulrph1 wrote:

Does it make a difference if I get a lens that is f2.8 or larger as compared to an f4 since now with digital the graininess is not as prevalent as it was with during the film days. Or can I get the cheaper f4 lens and adjust the ISO to compensate? It is only one stop. During film that made a big difference but with digital it seems to not be so dramatic.

You would be hard pressed to find any pro . Or a serious hobbits of the camera , thinking along those lines . If it didn't maka that much of a difference . Who would waste there bucks on a faster lens if all you had to do is bump your iso . All the faults add up to mistakes .and that is adding a fault
If you had a fast lens and high pixel full frame camera . and you started to change those three things . When there all changed what will you have . You will have f4 lens on a Dx with 16 MP or less . Now would that compare to what you had . Of course it would

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

pounder35 wrote:

There are so many variables it's hard to discuss. ... (show quote)

Thanks. You are my kind of guy. I really did this to start the thinking process for many who know but have let the cobwebs set it. I would never settle for the f4 lens when there are much better lenses out there. There is so much to learn and discuss so why do we not do it. I read the comments with much anticipation of an increase of knowledge. I already have my mind made up. They do make the larger aperture lenses for a purpose/reason. Yes a guy can save a few buck but why would one want to compromise. I do not believe in compromise on anything. If you compromise that is what you get, a compromise. If you cheat the system that is what you get a cheat. If you take the easy button that is what you get an easy way out. With all three somehow you have lost.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

pounder35 wrote:

I just joined in and after 3 pages there's been plenty of input. Here's what I do. With digital you can change ISO "mid roll" so to speak. I wish we could have done that with film years ago. We'll we could but made processing and printing more difficult. What I do is shoot at the lowest ISO I need to meet the conditions and what I need. I never hesitate to adjust ISO for different lighting, shooting from a different angle. It's simple to do with most cameras.

I am with you. Before when we had film the only way (mostly) to change iSO was to have several bodies filled with different types of film. The expense and the confusion just added to the mix. I simply love the whole digital thing now that it has evolved. I waited many years for it to develop, just because before I invested. Thanks to those who spent the dollars so the process could continue. It is you guys that make our cameras what they are today.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

pounder35 wrote:

I just joined in and after 3 pages there's been plenty of input. Here's what I do. With digital you can change ISO "mid roll" so to speak. I wish we could have done that with film years ago. We'll we could but made processing and printing more difficult. What I do is shoot at the lowest ISO I need to meet the conditions and what I need. I never hesitate to adjust ISO for different lighting, shooting from a different angle. It's simple to do with most cameras.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Exactly.... and yes, ISO makes a huge difference. That's why it is part of the exposure triangle.

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

This month was a busy one for a grandmother who does the family photography. I went to a talented drama performance, a violin concert, a chorus concert, a ring ceremony, an achademic award ceremony, an athletic awards ceremony & a dance recital. I was very greatful for my Canon 70-200 2.8 is. I don't think I could have done as well with a slower lens. Bab

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

SharpShooter wrote:

It's not always about the speed of a lens. br Some... (show quote)

Right on the money!
There are too many variables to choose for you. You must weigh them up for yourself.
Given that living in SoCal I mostly have light to spare I would much rather choose on the basis of lighter, cheaper and smaller than for speed and DOF.
Now you have a discussion of the factors considered by your peers it's your task to rank your own preferences and choose accordingly.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

rob s wrote:

Right on the money!
There are too many variables to choose for you. You must weigh them up for yourself.
Given that living in SoCal I mostly have light to spare I would much rather choose on the basis of lighter, cheaper and smaller than for speed and DOF.
Now you have a discussion of the factors considered by your peers it's your task to rank your own preferences and choose accordingly.

I never realized that in SoCal, you had so much more lighting inside your buildings, or outside, late at night. Good to know as I would love to move to San Diego! :mrgreen:

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

cjc2 wrote:

I never realized that in SoCal, you had so much more lighting inside your buildings, or outside, late at night. Good to know as I would love to move to San Diego! :mrgreen:

See another good reason to come and pay humongous taxes to a dysfunctional people's republic controlled by the unions and their glove puppet. Just jesting. Really!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

cjc2 wrote:

I never realized that in SoCal, you had so much more lighting inside your buildings, or outside, late at night. Good to know as I would love to move to San Diego! :mrgreen:

San Diego....., Helltown?
Helltown ....., San Diego?
Let's see...., Pacific Ocean, beaches, HOT girls.......
cj, does it ever snow in PA??????

cj, your anchor must be overwhelmingly HUGE!!!! :lol: :lol:
SS

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SharpShooter wrote:

San Diego....., Helltown?
Helltown ....., San Diego?
Let's see...., Pacific Ocean, beaches, HOT girls.......
cj, does it ever snow in PA??????

cj, your anchor must be overwhelmingly HUGE!!!! :lol: :lol:
SS

It does snow in NJ and in our neighbor PA, but it's not always a bad thing. What we don't get much of in this region is your earthquakes or the tornados of the mid and south west. And we do have plenty of water! Just saying. :) ;-) BTW, how many of those HOT girls are yours? There are positives and negatives to being on both coasts.

BTW, I love California, but I love it here as well.