DaveSee
shallow depth of field
From those who've used the Epson R-D1(s) and M8, there have been a couple comments on "ergonomics" and setting ISO/EV valence. And one about the M8 "User Profile" and included ISO setting.
Using film, ISO is adjusted either buy switching film stock, or using that second body you've got in pocket or around your neck.
Now we have access, shot by shot, to alter the system's ISO sensitivity, aperture and shutter speed using these DRFs.
So far, all that's been said about ISO concerns "noise" in the image data... so, is this setting's immediate access truely required for most shots, in most conditions... or merely for folks who want more buttons(or shoot from trains running in and out of tunnels)? Considering the "noise", is ISO an in-built digital effect?
I don't shoot digital, yet... and find aperture and shutter speed fun enough!
Is Leica's "User Profile" method a throwback to film sensibility? Or, as I suspect, have their engineers considered all three determinants, and chosen to optimize two while keeping one (relatively) constant?
If you shoot digital, do you adjust all three? If so, why?
rgds,
Dave
Using film, ISO is adjusted either buy switching film stock, or using that second body you've got in pocket or around your neck.
Now we have access, shot by shot, to alter the system's ISO sensitivity, aperture and shutter speed using these DRFs.
So far, all that's been said about ISO concerns "noise" in the image data... so, is this setting's immediate access truely required for most shots, in most conditions... or merely for folks who want more buttons(or shoot from trains running in and out of tunnels)? Considering the "noise", is ISO an in-built digital effect?
I don't shoot digital, yet... and find aperture and shutter speed fun enough!
Is Leica's "User Profile" method a throwback to film sensibility? Or, as I suspect, have their engineers considered all three determinants, and chosen to optimize two while keeping one (relatively) constant?
If you shoot digital, do you adjust all three? If so, why?
rgds,
Dave
ywenz
Veteran
DaveSee said:
You've presented the perfect reason why adjustable ISO is useful in digital cameras. I change ISO setting on my DSLR all the time, and I appreciate the ease of doing so on my 20D. The M8 is slightly more inconvenient in this regard because you can only change the ISO in its LCD screen, but it's not that big of a deal.
lifevicarious
Established
Yes, it's not that big of a deal on the M8. It's more work then either Nikon or Canon, but it's certainly less work then it is on a film M. I think the only people that are really complaining are those coming from a DSLR, not from an M or a film RF.
If you miss a shot because you need more ISO, that is your fault for not setting it correctly initially. Don't blame the camera because it takes 5 seconds to change something that could only previously be changed by either a different body or swapping film.
If you miss a shot because you need more ISO, that is your fault for not setting it correctly initially. Don't blame the camera because it takes 5 seconds to change something that could only previously be changed by either a different body or swapping film.
Steve L
Established
It is about having to take the camera away from your eye to change it....on my Canon 1D stuff, I rode ISO all the time - why wouldn't you generally want the lowest noise setting you could have while still getting the depth of field you want and the speed that will stop (or show) motion?
Especially at the limit of wide open and slow hand-held, ISO is the way to go....
Even though the Leica doesn't have the DSLR in-viewfinder display of everything, on film Leicas it was pretty easy to bump the aperture or speed up or down without having to take the camera away from your eye....why not want the same for ISO?
Especially at the limit of wide open and slow hand-held, ISO is the way to go....
Even though the Leica doesn't have the DSLR in-viewfinder display of everything, on film Leicas it was pretty easy to bump the aperture or speed up or down without having to take the camera away from your eye....why not want the same for ISO?
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Ah, these are interesting points, and new to me and my solo-body-solo-ISO kit. I still wonder just how much tweaking of the three I /could/ do with the camera to my eye, and the other eye scouting for shots. Adjusting aperture and shutter speed while taking in the scene is task enough... oh, and I usually meter light "incidentally" before heading into the shot(s). Because of this, a get a few pop-shots which are only useful as studies in composition and advancing the (always) steep learning curve of image makingSteve L said:
.rgds+thanks for the perspective,
Dave