tohara wrote in post #11691269
It is not ignorant at all, don't be so defensive. Gee whiz.
Everything has its place, i'm sure. But to break it down into simple terms for you so you can see where i am coming from; you're letting the camera do the thinking, why not buy a much cheaper body that has the same thought process?
Why would someone who shoots in full auto not be able to enjoy a better sensor than a P&S sensor, or even an APS-C? Or 12mm lenses? Regardless, auto-ISO, especially when done right, is not a loss of control at all; it's just a different angle to approach control from, with better safeguards against failure to control. For example, if you get ISO feedback in the viewfinder in 'M' mode, then you get to see whether you want your user-chosen Av and Tv in light of the ISO chosen by the camera.
In fact why not just put it on auto and let the camera do it all.
So, in your world, there is no such thing as levels of control, just total control, or no control?
If you're buying a 1d IV (which is aimed at sports shooters) and set it to auto-ISO than the camera is taking precious time and effort away from buffering/firing the shutter.
"Precious time?". Do you have any idea how little time it takes to make these decisions? My little Casio super-zoom can shoot at 40fps in auto-ISO mode, the same speed as fixed ISO. You're imagining some computationally-intensive complexity which does not exist.
Also you might be taking a sequence and each shot will have a different exposure, what is the point in taking 10 FPS if they all have different exposures?
Ideally, each would have the minimal noise possible, by using the highest ISO that doesn't blow the highlights. You can get the graypoint of all images the same in post, if you want.
Unless you lot up north are living in an ice age, where the weather changes so frequently that you need the camera to think for you every time you fire the shutter, I cannot foresee why you would need to use auto iso, especially at a wedding. I take photos in the surf, im usually out there before the sun comes up, i will shoot from 1/200 to 1/2000 over a one hour period. I keep my iso on 250 and adjust the shutter/aperture to get the exposure i want. It doesn't make me some type of demigod because i know how to expose correctly, it gives me the skills to adapt to tricky lighting situations more easily.
When you use 1/2000 is it really needed, or are you just getting the relative exposure "right"? Why not 1/800 and ISO 100?
I find it highly unlikely that 250 is ideal for all those shots, but even if it was, you still can choose manual ISO. The discussion of auto ISO is not about eliminating manual ISO; the real issues are about how auto ISO is implemented, and how useful it is where it is fitting, as implemented (and implementation has a great room for improvement with Canons). Auto-ISO is for situations where it is useful, not for situations in which it is not.
You do realize that ISO 250 is a somewhat defective ISO on all Canons, don't you? If you made a chart of camera-added noise vs ISO, 250 would be a spike in the chart (125, 250, 500 etc are the worst for most recent Canons; for older 1D cameras, at least, the 160/320/640 group were worst; I don't know if the 1D4 follows the newer system or the old one). If you can fix the ISO and vary the shutterspeed tenfold, I can't imagine that you couldn't do the same at 200.