Grahame Loc: Fiji

But perhaps there's a reason why a 2 second exposure was required and a faster speed is not going to give the result you wanted?

It could be that 'smoothed water' was an objective, there's no sure way of knowing how best to deal with a situation unless the complete story is known.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

The OP said he was using aperture priority mode with a 2 second exposure. You can't select a minimum shutter speed without raising the ISO in aperture priority mode. I can't imagine why a shutter speed be set to a minimum on a tripod unless you need to freeze action. If action needs to be frozen, I'd use shutter priority or Manual with Auto ISO.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

I set the aperture I need and the Shutter Speed I need and leave ISO at Auto. That way camera gives me the lowest iso for my setting for the shot I need. If you set auto ISO correctly the camera will choose the lowest ISO value.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-auto-iso

Elmerviking

The OP said he used AV with auto ISO. If you set auto ISO there is one more setting, auto minimum shutterspeed. (Canon and Nikon both have this setting). That is depending on which focal length you use...longer focal length=shorter time and vice versa. I don’t know if the OP had this set on or off.
I suspect on is a default setting, but as I said I’m not sure about that without checking.
I set my Nikon D7100 to A with a fixed ISO 100 and with the front lens cap on, that is totally dark.
The exposure showed 15 s and f 3.5! To get a 2s Shutter-Speed I needed to set ISO 1000!
If you use auto ISO you can go all way up to 30 s with ANY ISO!, it only gets you there sooner or later.
I wonder how the guy determined that 2s was the correct speed ?
One more clarification:
If you reach the RECOMMENDED minimum shutterspeed you’ll get a “error message” to use flash.
A will chose a shutterspeed up to something like 30 s.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

In the latter case you assume all people want to protect our borders. About half the country does not because it streams in more voters for their party.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

If your exposure is 2 sec, the camera is on a tripod or a stable surface. Or maybe you're into blurred pictures. If it's on a tripod anyway, why wouldn't you use the camera's base ISO, which will give you the best image quality?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

You are welcome to disagree if you don’t mind being wrong. Specifically about Canon and more generally with recent cameras.

I recommend some research. e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr/2

rbmitch123

I think this discussion has run its course. Yes I’m into blurred pictures. Thanks for your input.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Yes and yes. The whole problem with the shots in that thread is that they were taken in harsh mid-day light. They are a mixture of brightly lit areas and deeply shadowed areas. Overall they are correctly exposed, but the shadowed areas have got you thinking that the shots are underexposed. If you increased the exposure to make the shadowed areas look OK, the brighter parts would be too bright - possibly even blown. You can darken highlights in post processing, but if they were blown it would not be correctable in PP because there is no recoverable data in blown highlights. In any of the partly automatic modes (including A mode and Manual + Auto ISO) the only way to increase the exposure is to use exposure compensation, but the answer, as suggested, is to shoot in better light at a better time of day.

However, the shots as shown can be worked on in PP. The adjustment they need most is brightening the shadows. If you also reduce the highlights and add contrast to compensate for the loss of contrast that the first two adjustments cause, you would be closer to having acceptable shots. Another possibility is to use an HDR preset. But the best answer is to avoid the harsh light in the first place.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have researched this topic in much more depth than the single article you referenced. Regardless of what you’ve read about the 80D, as the present and past owner of at least half a dozen Canon digital bodies including the 7D, 7D2, ID2, 5D2 and currently a 5D3, I can promise you that none of them are ISO invariant (which is not only common knowledge, but which you can observe for yourself by simply looking at their DR curves). Do you shoot Canon and have you tried underexposing and bringing up in post and comparing to the “correct” exposure? If so, you should know the answer first hand.

As for the whole idea of ISO invariance and whether you should always shoot at base ISO and bring up in post, YOU should do more extensive research than simply believing the hype propagated by a few magazine articles (who have discovered this “magic” new way of shooting) and ask yourself why camera manufacturers have an ISO adjustment if that’s the case. Rather than replay all the previous discussions on the subject, I’d suggest that you use the search function and search for “ISO invariance”. Then after you’ve read all the past discussions in detail and truly understand the entire sensor to digitizer to image process and why underutilizing the DR of the A/D is not a good thing, and if you’re still a doubter, try this experiment for yourself. Intentionally underexpose the same image by 2,4 and 6 stops as well as the correct exposure in raw. Using the same settings, except for increasing brightness to bring them all to the same brightness in post, examine the shadow areas and the histograms, and then come back and tell me if you believe that intentionally underexposing and bringing up in post is a good technique to endorse.

Thrawn John Loc: Scotland

No! If you have ISO (or anything else set to Auto) you're not really in manual. But I don't say that as a purist.
If you want to know what effect changing each setting has, having anything on Auto will stop you from seeing the change in brightness. The camera will change the setting that *it* controls to aim for what it thinks is a good exposure. You won't see the effect on light when you change your aperture or shutter because the camera will change the ISO in the opposite direction to keep the final image at the same brightness.
I grew up with film, so the sensitivity (ASA but same difference as ISO) was fixed when you loaded the camera. The upside of this is that you only needed to learn two settings - aperture and shutter - since you didn't control the other one.
If you're starting out with manual, I'd suggest: set ISO to something fixed, say 200 (a classic film speed for a not very bright day) and then experiment with the other two settings to see what they do. (See below for more.)

Thrawn John Loc: Scotland

Don't know who said that about aperture but I wouldn't listen to them - all three parts of the "exposure triangle" affect the brightness / "exposure" of the image that results. Boosting any one of them will increase light, but at a cost to the image.
Shutter - how long the sensor catches light for. Slower shutter lets in more light but allows the camera and subject to move more, so more blur.
Aperture - size of the hole letting in light. Bigger aperture / hole (small fnumber, annoyingly) lets in more light but with less depth of field and so fewer things in focus.
ISO - amplifies the signal from the sensor to make it brighter. (Unlike other two, doesn't affect actual light getting to the sensor, it just acts like "gain" in an audio amp. Makes the image brighter (as if you'd let in more light) but because it amplifies what is sent from the sensor, any "noise" is also amplified.
(All of these can be used creatively, of course, slower shutter give impression of movement where a fast one "freezes" action so doesn't get the feel of moving, shallow depth of field allows you to choose what it is in the image that is sharp and it stands out from the rest / "pops". ISO - more for shooting when otherwise there just isn't enough light. Not aware of anyone who likes the noise - it's not exactly like film grain - but there are things you can do in post that make it look like old film.)

IDguy Loc: Idaho

You evidently don’t read carefully. First, there is no disagreement on older sensors. The articles clarify that it is only for the latest sensors, and last for Canon but they are there now too.

Second, they do not recommend using the lowest ISO. They recommend using the ISO above which the cameras switch from analog amplification to digital. Usually around ISO 800.

Play with different cameras on the link I provided. You can do the experiment there. The one here shows my Z6 is pretty good. The Canon wouldn’t go to ISO 6400...no clue why.

Maybe you will learn something. Or not.

(Download)

ecurb1105

Lock your ISO to a fixed number.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Apparently you didn’t read carefully. Nowhere does the article state that the 80D is completely ISO invariant, but simply that it is better in that respect than the 7D2 comparison. Do you intrepet that to mean that the 80D is in some way superior to the 7D2 or that you can generalize that particular comparison to all camearas?

I have no interest in”playing” with an 80D - I’ve long ago made the decision to move to FF, and I’ve done extensive testing with my 5D3, and based on that testing, I NEVER intentionally underexpose. Rather, because I understand digitizing principals and implementation in depth, I expose ETTR in general because I know that utilizing the entire DR of the A/D produces the maximum REAL (not interpolated) resolution and DR with max S/N. I will certainly agree that beyond about ISO 1000-1200, additional ISO is obtained by multiplying the output of the A/D by a constant (which is obvious by looking at the DR vs ISO curve), and in theory at least, one should be able to accomplish a similar result by multiplying the digital value in post, but that is a very specific case and not good general advice on exposure.

I remind you of your original post which I disagreed with: “ISO isn’t as important as it once was. Many of today’s cameras are considered ISO invarient. That means you get the same result by increasing the exposure in post processing as you would by increasing ISO in camera”.

The first statement may be accurate (impossible to verify without surveying all new popular cameras - the one example of an 80D cannot be generalized to “many” cameras), but you made no qualification about your second, such as “above ISO 1000”. You extrapolated that one article to the general advice that “you get the same result...”, and that is the advice I unapologetically disagree with.