Even or Odd ISO value?

[wideangle]

When you need a higher ISO value, do you ever use increments other than 100,200,400,800 etc or do you also use 125,160,320,640 etc?

[Kym]

Personally just the majors... 100 200 400 800 etc

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Detailed_explanation_of_ISO

[kiwi]

i use both

[old dog]

there is a thread here somewhere (I think it was on AP anyway) that talked about positive (I think this is the terminology/word) ISO`s etc. Like.....if you selected ISO 200, the camera ran as normal....but if you went ISO 160 for example, the camera leaned a bit heavier on sharpening at the expense of dynamic range and if you went ISO 240 instead, the camera selected a slightly wider dynamic range at the expense of losing a little sharpening. It is the same for ISO 400, 800 and so on etc. I think I have this right. have a look on Google as it may have been there that I read about it. Maybe someone else can explain it more than me.

[Kym]

errr ... check the link in my post above :Doh:

[wideangle]

Thanks for the link Kym, it's interesting though as I find that there are wide ranging debates on this issue, some saying that whole ISOs are better, whilst other say that others are more effective.

[JM Tran]

Kym's link doesnt really shed a more in-depth look into the ISO number debate, its just a basic guide into ISO really.

I know for videographers with DSLRs, they are proponents of the use of ISO 160, 320 and so on instead of the normal base or whole numbers. I havent looked into why yet though.

[MarkChap]

For me, I use the full stop increment for ISO, the "in-between" numbers are only 1 third of a stop, which I can then acount for by way of the other exposure options available to me

[swifty]

Kym's link doesnt really shed a more in-depth look into the ISO number debate, its just a basic guide into ISO really.

I know for videographers with DSLRs, they are proponents of the use of ISO 160, 320 and so on instead of the normal base or whole numbers. I havent looked into why yet though.

Could be something to do with the GH2 or is it the same with other commonly used cameras for videography eg. 5D2??.
When I was playing with the GH2 for a couple of weeks and doing some research, if memory serves me right 160, 320, 640 etc. were the preferred increments. Can't quite remember what the reasoning was though. I think the base ISO on a GH2 was ISO 160 hence 'nice' multiple increments produced less artifacts possibly.
On my Fuji and Nikons I tend to also go with nice multiples of the base ie. 100, 200, 400 etc.

[Kym]

Could be something to do with the GH2 or is it the same with other commonly used cameras for videography eg. 5D2??.
When I was playing with the GH2 for a couple of weeks and doing some research, if memory serves me right 160, 320, 640 etc. were the preferred increments. Can't quite remember what the reasoning was though. I think the base ISO on a GH2 was ISO 160 hence 'nice' multiple increments produced less artifacts possibly.
On my Fuji and Nikons I tend to also go with nice multiples of the base ie. 100, 200, 400 etc.

That is my understanding, i.e. use power of 2 multiples of the base ISO.
And a Mark said, you can easily get 1.3 stops from either aperture or shutter speed.

[JM Tran]

Could be something to do with the GH2 or is it the same with other commonly used cameras for videography eg. 5D2??.
When I was playing with the GH2 for a couple of weeks and doing some research, if memory serves me right 160, 320, 640 etc. were the preferred increments. Can't quite remember what the reasoning was though. I think the base ISO on a GH2 was ISO 160 hence 'nice' multiple increments produced less artifacts possibly.
On my Fuji and Nikons I tend to also go with nice multiples of the base ie. 100, 200, 400 etc.


Same for the 5D2 according to video forums Dave, I need to find out why if I plan to shoot a lot of videos soon!

[darrenmars]

Just recently I discovered that I can change the stepping in both my bodies... I promptly changed the ISO value to whole stops as the third-stop thing drove me nuts. I already have the ability to do that with the shutter speed and aperture. I try to stick to the native ISO as much as I possibly can anyway.

[I @ M]

Just recently I discovered that I can change the stepping in both my bodies... I promptly changed the ISO value to whole stops as the third-stop thing drove me nuts. I already have the ability to do that with the shutter speed and aperture. I try to stick to the native ISO as much as I possibly can anyway.

Darren, one very handy benefit of using 1/3 stops in ISO is to set a desired shutter speed and aperture and then set ISO to auto ( within a specified range ) to allow the camera to meter as closely as possible when photographing subjects like birds who are prone to move quickly between open sunny spaces and shaded branches etc.

[darrenmars]

I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future, but generally I don't need to do that. Great tip tho!

[fillum]

If setting manually I generally use either 200 (base) or 800. Occasionally I might use 1600 but generally when it that range I'll use auto-ISO like Andrew mentioned to try to keep the ISO at the minimum needed to maintain a set s/s.

Incidentally my D300 (and I assume other Nikons ?) will use the 1/3 and 1/2 stop ISO settings when in auto-ISO mode regardless of what the ISO increment step is set at.


Cheers.

[Wobbles]

There is a great article here that explains the misconceptions about native (i.e. 100's) and pushed/pulled iso's.

http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/

Cheers
John