The tyranny of the 5D's incremental ISOs

[v.anisimov]

Not a question, just an observation.

 

Almost every sample I saw from the new 5D comes at odd ISOs such as

160, 250, 1250 etc. I guess the folks feel obliged to use

unconventional increments just because they can!

[William Kahn]

Well, ISO 160 isn't so odd. I shoot Kodak Portra 160 in MF...

[digitmstr]

You are right! Here's a shot @ 640 ISO...

 

I love that! I also love 1/3 f/stops & shutter speeds, and incremental K values!

 

Fractions, that's where it's at!<div></div>

[PuppyDigs]

Not that odd! I too have shot Portra 160VC and Ektachrome 160T for many years.

[digitmstr]

>.I too have shot Portra 160VC and Ektachrome 160T for many years.<<

 

 

Not to mention the KODAK B&W 320 film...and of course the venerable Kodachrome 64...which of course was found along with the 320 & 160 ISO film in the ODD ISO bin at your local photo store ;p

[jcolwell]

Not to mention using a LF lens with EV corrections of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 2/3+ (sorry, wrong forum...)

[digitmstr]

>>LF lens with EV corrections of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 2/3+ (sorry, wrong forum...)<<

 

Not to mention bellows extension compensation...not to mention reciprocal effect compensation...not to mention I am so happy all of that is my past now :)

[tommyinca]

When you're in a gym and have a choice between 1/160 @ ISO800, 1/250 @ ISO1250 or 1/200 @ ISO1000, you won't feel obligated choosing the odd one.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I've occasionally shot 160 film, and sometimes rated other films 1/3 or 2/3 away from the "conventional" speed marked on the box. That said, I don't mind that my 20D doesn't have 1/3-stop ISOs; if I'm shooting something for which I'd have used a 160 film, setting my 20D's ISO to 200 will work just fine, and I doubt the results would look noticeably different if the camera had a 160 option. Besides which, when I've used 160 film in the past, it isn't because 160 was the right speed and 100 or 125 or 200 was the wrong speed; it was because the right film for the picture was a portrait film which just happened to be available only at 160. If (say) Kodak had made 100VC rather than 160VC, then I'd have shot at 100 instead of 160.</p>

 

<p>I can easily think of three ISO-related improvements which would be much more useful than 1/3-stop increments: putting ISO back as an option for the SET button, displaying it in the viewfinder, and improving the safety shift function so that I can tell it to change ISO instead of aperture or shutter speed.</p>

[v.anisimov]

Agree with Steve Dunn. I too shot with 160 portrait film, however the literal bobs failed to see the irony in my original post. Forget about 160. Concentrate on the 250, 1000 and 1250.

[damian_tinsley]

I used to shoot kodachrome 64 at 100 anyway... saturated nicely.

 

all the best,

 

Damian

[robin_sibson1]

What Steve said, although ISO-based safety shift may work more naturally with 1/3-stop increments rather than 1-stop increments.

 

Incidentally, what a pity we now use the arithmetical (ex-ASA) rather then the logarithmic (ex-DIN) sensitivity labels. 50 to 12800 (the latter probably not many years away) is much less neat than 18 to 42, especially if you are trying to fit it onto a display.

[digitmstr]

>>I too shot with 160 portrait film,<<

 

Really? Are you odd then? ;)

 

I mean, you did list ISO 160 in the ODD category...YOU said it, not us.

 

>> however the literal bobs failed to see the irony in my original post.<<

 

Uhhh..."literal bobs"...getting mad, eh? Sorry, was there irony in the post? Maybe the server blocked out...

 

>>Forget about 160.<<

 

forget about 160...forget about 160...forget about 160...forget about 160...forget about 160...forget about 160...look at the pendulum...this is a peaceful war...mission accomplished...Zzzzzz

 

>>Concentrate on the 250, 1000 and 1250.<<

 

Ok! I am thinking of nothing else! I am on it!

 

So, let's see...the ILFORD DELTA 3200 has a ***nominal*** rating of ISO 1250 when dev. in D76 or Ilfosol (1600 in Microphen or HC-110).

 

The Kodak 320 was often exposed a IS0 250 to achieve a Zone I density of around 0.10, for example.

 

Just a bunch of oddities I guess!

 

As for ISO 1000...I could tell you but...it's classified along with the papers from Cheney's meeting with the Enron officials and Arnie.

[digitmstr]

Just a reminder of what was REALLY said in the original post...we are not talking about what film you shoot, not about anything other than a very snooty assumption:

 

>>I guess the folks feel obliged to use unconventional increments just because they can!<<

 

There is nothing unconventional about those values, and I think the "literal bobs" have quite proven that, in this here thread...

[chrisjb]

Hmm, Odd ISO`s?, odd thing to say, these ISO`s have been used for many years, with film varing ISO (ASA) was used to vary contrast on film and was easy to push pull in the wet darkroom. not long ago,(last century) normal slide film was 25 asa, colour neg 80asa & B & W was 125asa,NPH & other 400asa film was used by many at 320 to reduce contrast for portraits and weddings. I can see if you can`t clear advantage with digital, In the studio with strobes it`ll save time from constantly moving lighting for those 1/4 stop adjustments, These days your subjects see results on the screen as you shoot, I`d rather have images right 1st time, stuffing round with PS in front of clients can lose sales. The 5D is lookin better each day. Can`t wait

[jim_larson1]

<i>Almost every sample I saw from the new 5D comes at odd ISOs such as 160, 250, 1250 etc. I guess the folks feel obliged to use unconventional increments just because they can!</I>

<p>

Because they can?! NO BECAUSE THEY NEED TO!

<p>Adjusting ISO in full stops on a dSLR is stupidity! Crippling stupidity!<p>what we really need is a <i>continuous iso spectrum</I>. Set shutter at 90, Fstop at 5.6. . . let camera calculate ISO at, say, 347.4<p>Bring it on.

[jim_larson1]

I might add. . . 1/3 stop ISO is probably more attractive than full frame in choosing my next dSLR.

[digitmstr]

>>1/3 stop ISO is probably more attractive<<

 

DITTO! I was pleased to see that CAnon adopted this system for the new 5D. Though I was/am VERY displeased about the lack of a *programmable* FEL button.

[fivetonsflax]

Steve Dunn wrote:

 

> improving the safety shift function so that I can tell it to change ISO instead of aperture

or shutter speed.

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

 

That would be a killer feature.

[digitmstr]

>>what we really need is a continuous iso spectrum. Set shutter at 90, Fstop at 5.6. . . let camera calculate ISO at, say, 347.4...Bring it on.<<

 

Yeah! I hope future models will get hip to REALLY using technology for stuff we REALLY need.

 

I would like to see also incremental K values and...why on earth does CUSTOM WB go all the way to 2000K BUT, manual K settings stop at 2800? I have done shoots where the colormeter read 2200 and I was forced to do the white card thing with Custom WB otherwise the manual WB would have been off by 600 degrees.

[v.anisimov]

For the literal bobs, the original post implied (a) irony; (b) concealed jealosy of the 5d owners ability to change ISO incrementally COMPARED TO ITS PREDECESSOR 20D.

 

Once more for Giampi - compared to 20D! Not film! The 5D is not film. I felt jealous, in a good way, of their ability to change ISOs incrementally, Giampi.

[v.anisimov]

Giampi wrote: "...incremental K values and...why on earth does CUSTOM WB go all the way to 2000K BUT, manual K settings stop at 2800..."

 

How do you, Giampi, do this with your 160 Portra, may I ask? You never said "DSLR", so I, like you, automatically assume it's gotta be film, yes?

 

You also wrote: "...colormeter read 2200 and I was forced to do the white card thing with Custom WB otherwise the manual WB would have been off by 600 degrees..."

 

Huh? Why would you do that with Portra? I never had to worry abour WB with Portra. IF, and it's a big if, you were in fact talking about a digital camera, which you haven't specified, then why on earth would you want an odd K like 2000? First, you know how to use RAW, right? Secondly, what's wrong with the custom WB feature? I use it a lot when I'm too lazy to do the click-WB thing later on.

[chrisjb]

Giampi will most likely answer, but if you read the many post you would know his main bodies these days are 10D`s, WB is always compensated for in the studio, at 2000k more than likely a low tungsten, with 160 portra film the lighting or lens was filtered, I too get annoyed that the K value is limited and can`t see why it wasn`t featured with DSLR. The colour temp meter is most likely more accurate as the bodies like 20d seems only the partial metering circle is used to measure WB. Jims idea of ISO being adj. by the DSLR body is tops as the technolog should be there now.And yes for those who want the easy way out RAW can help, its nice to do things right though.

[digitmstr]

I undesrtand about irony, it's just that on the net it's not always clear because some key elements are missing...like the tone of voice and facial espression...

 

Though your comment had nothing to do with cameras but, rather with people's choice of using certain ISO values which you labeled ODD. So, it doesn't matter what camera one applies it film or digital...you gotta admit it reads very snooty, especially with the exclamation point at the end.

 

If you had placed a ;p then, it would have been different, ya know what I mean? :)

 

>>You never said "DSLR"<<

 

yes, because CUSTOM WB was never a part of film cameras. However, being that I am SUPER picky when it comes to color when I shot film I had full collection of Kodak Wratten CC filters so that I could lower and raise the temps to any degree.

 

These days I expect to be able to do the same, without limitations, with my DSRLs. I don't see why the MANUAL WB stops at 2800 whereas the CUSTOM WB goes all the way to 2000. I find it a strange oddity indeed!

 

Now that I have a 5D I was expecting/hoping that some of these strange oddities had been taken care of but, alas they haven't...though I am still extremely happy with having a FF DSRL camera :)))

[ray robertson]

Never mind whether it's odd, peculiar, unusual etc. The question is, does it serve any practical purpose having incremental ISO settings at less than 1 full stop? And the answer is, Yes.

 

I'll give you a specific example. I'm using a 50mm lens with a full frame 35mm camera. I'm in low light conditions and I'm struggling to get reasonable DoF and low noise in conjunction with a hand-holdable shutter speed. Using the 1/FL rule I find my choices at f2.8 are 1/30th at ISO 800 or 1/60th at ISO 1600. I'd like to use 1/45 which my camera has, which is closest to 1/FL. I can only do this if the camera offers an ISO of 1250 or so.