Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696031
My opinion is the same regarding ETTR.

I know many people swear that it is great and all that but, just like you said, most of the time in a high ISO situation we are already shooting at the slowest "acceptable" shutter speed.

Exactly, and for landscape shooters (I'd consider myself more in that camp than wildlife) the question is often "oh, so there are other ISOs than 100?"

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696031
If let's say a low-light indoor event calls for a minimum of 1/60 shutter speed (e.g. people socializing, chatting, so there is some movement), and you're already at f/2.8 with a 24-70 2.8 lens, obviously you'll get whatever ISO that gives you proper exposure, let's say ISO 1600. Now, how much better off would I be by ETTR and either shooting 1/30s (can't do that), or bumping the ISO to 3200, then pulling it back in post?

I am aware that there are some complex signal-to-noise numbers involved here, but according to my tests, the end result is pretty much the same with my cameras. Shooting at 3200 with +1 EV ETTR then pulled back by a stop results a very similar image to shooting at 1600 at 0 EV. Again, I cannot always sacrifice shutter speed.
Of course major underexposure is a problem and should be avoided but I'm talking about proper exposure vs ETTR.

But if people believe that they get better results with ETTR, where they cannot sacrifice shutter speed (hence bumping the ISO up), that's great for them, I'm not against anyone using ETTR. I just don't see the benefit when you're already shooting at the lowest limit in terms of your minimum shutter speed, which you cannot afford to sacrifice in a given situation.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696053
Yeah, I agree. I just play it by ear when outside in the field. If my shutter speeds are already suffering alot, I'll just have to deal with a bit darker exposures possibly, or at least, not pushing to the right as much as I'd like. Although, if exposing to the right is not affecting the shutter speed too badly, I'll try it.

The crazy thing is that the camera manufacturers themselves would/should know the best combination of settings for their sensor (in terms of when it's better to use a higher ISO setting). When you consider that some bodies can already do manual with auto ISO it would make sense to have a manual mode where you can choose a range of acceptable shutter speeds and ISO levels (and manually set your aperture) and let the camera choose the other settings in order to get the lowest noise/best ETTR that's within your acceptable shutter speed and ISO range. All you need then is a value in the raw file to indicate the shot has been ETTR overexposed by n stops, and the raw processor automatically shifts it down to compensate. I'm told there's even a flag in the DNG spec that's suitable for this. Canon really need to employ some of the Magic Lantern guys to work on their firmware

More pictures from yesteday

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591763574/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591285475/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591729004/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591320755/

sploo wrote in post #16696157
Exactly, and for landscape shooters (I'd consider myself more in that camp than wildlife) the question is often "oh, so there are other ISOs than 100?"

The crazy thing is that the camera manufacturers themselves would/should know the best combination of settings for their sensor (in terms of when it's better to use a higher ISO setting). When you consider that some bodies can already do manual with auto ISO it would make sense to have a manual mode where you can choose a range of acceptable shutter speeds and ISO levels (and manually set your aperture) and let the camera choose the other settings in order to get the lowest noise/best ETTR that's within your acceptable shutter speed and ISO range. All you need then is a value in the raw file to indicate the shot has been ETTR overexposed by n stops, and the raw processor automatically shifts it down to compensate. I'm told there's even a flag in the DNG spec that's suitable for this. Canon really need to employ some of the Magic Lantern guys to work on their firmware

Yeah. I've been using Magic Lantern lately, it's quite cool. There is a nice option called Trap Focus, that will take a shot when you manually focus the lens and it's in focus. Quite cool.

Besides that, they have a faster way to preview 100% crops on the camera, see RGB views of the histogram, and a nice way to view blown out highlights. There's a ton of options in there that I have yet to use/mess with, but it seems very powerful.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696179
Yeah. I've been using Magic Lantern lately, it's quite cool. There is a nice option called Trap Focus, that will take a shot when you manually focus the lens and it's in focus. Quite cool.

Besides that, they have a faster way to preview 100% crops on the camera, see RGB views of the histogram, and a nice way to view blown out highlights. There's a ton of options in there that I have yet to use/mess with, but it seems very powerful.

I keep telling myself to go and try it out. For most of the time I owned a 7D it wasn't able to work on that body, then I upgraded to the v2 firmware (which it didn't support), then I moved to a 5D3, and the support was beta only for ages.

clarnibass wrote in post #16695864
I saw the ETTR recommendation many times and honestly haven't found it helped me... but this is interesting. It looks like you exposed brighter by slowing shutter speed.

In your example you could also lower shutter speed and lower ISO to 1000 instead of keeping it at 2000 and lowering the exposure in software. I am not sure if that would be better or not, but noise would probably be similar (or maybe better?)?

That's exactly what it is. People get hung up on the ISO setting, and then when they actually obtain a lower ISO without changing the setting, they attribute some kind of magic to it. The only magic is that your highlights can disappear. Shooting ISO 1000 instead of 2000 +1 EC gives you a stop more highlight protection, the same noise, and a smaller RAW file. ETTR at high ISOs is counterproductive, if you're shooting RAW.

I don't pay any attention to exposure at all when I am shooting high ISOs, with M mode and auto-ISO. I use HTP to protect the highlights, and the M settings and the subject illumination determine the SNR. If I see a sunlit egret against a shaded background, then I change approach, but for most situations, relative exposure just isn't important.

mike325 wrote in post #16695834
Really thinkin of getting this lens. I have a 70-200 f4 with 1.4xii with a t1i that I use for wildlife. My question is do you think this lens will work well with this body? I know most reviews and people who have this lens use nicer, more recen bodies.

What do you think? Thanks. The images in this thread are making it very hard to resist.

Hey, i have not personal experience of that combo, yet i've got big fun using the 450D/XSi with the 100-400. Of course the Canon is slightly brighter, and sharper, yet the Tamron is 15 years newer design lens, 2013 vs 1998, stabilization system should be good. And ur camera has better sensor, 15 mega instead 12 on the XSi, faster AF and better high ISO handling. So i guess u'll have great shots. Only issue is the learning curve of a super-tele-zoom lens, i was pretty shocked with the 400, you too could need time coming from the 280mm till this huge 600

John Sheehy wrote in post #16696199
That's exactly what it is. People get hung up on the ISO setting, and then when they actually obtain a lower ISO without changing the setting, they attribute some kind of magic to it. The only magic is that your highlights can disappear. Shooting ISO 1000 instead of 2000 +1 EC gives you a stop more highlight protection, the same noise, and a smaller RAW file. ETTR at high ISOs is counterproductive, if you're shooting RAW.

Excellent point, I forgot to mention that.

It's interesting to see when occasionally people post high ISO shots and claim how clean they are, but often they fail to mention that they over exposed to get the clean(er) shot (by at least +1 EV). That gives a false impression of how a camera performs at high ISOs. Many people see an +1 EV ETTR ISO 6400 shot for example and believe that that camera is a stop better at high ISOs than a comparable one (at a 0 EV ISO 6400).

From another thread,

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8553332
I would say it the other way around. Thinking that ISO is a part of exposure is "old school". It got started back in the days of film, when the only convenient way to increase brightness was to increase exposure. (Sure, there were some inconvenient ways, such as changing the film, "pushing" chemically during processing, etc., but most people just used more exposure instead.)

This lead to many film shooters to think that exposure was the same as brightness. It wasn't really, of course, but with film the difference wasn't important. If the only method you have is exposure, then the word "exposure" might as well mean the same thing "brightness".

But digital is different. Now it is very easy to "push" (in camera or in post). Unfortunately, some people are still saddled with film-era vocabulary.

The amount of light and the amount of brightness are two separate things. I think it's better to leave the film baggage behind.

No. If you keep f-number+shutter the same, and increase ISO, it will improve the SNR. Here is an example using the 5D2. These are very raw. Not even white balance or demosaic.

• ISO 100 f/4 1/500
  
• vs ISO 1600 f/4 1/500

One of my older shots with the Tamron. Processed it in DxO this time, to reduce some bad noise. I also got some better dynamic range than I had before in my other edit from Lightroom.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Snydremark wrote in post #16696084
You're over-thinking it, Mike Don't worry so much about which body others are using; the lens goes on any of them. It will take more work to get used to working with and to do it well than the kit you're currently using, but would still be a great upgrade if you want to bird.

Thanks. Thats what I was thinking too. I'm gonna pre order it from B&H later today

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696392
From another thread,

That's all interesting science, thanks for sharing, I think I've seen it before. And it makes sense as an extreme example (which I'd never duplicate in real life)

Now, the following is more like me thinking aloud:

My problem with that is that why and where would I shoot underexposed by 4 stops at the wrong ISO, right? I get the point, they used ISO 100 pushed 4 stops to make a point. But they needed 4 stops to actually achieve a visible difference to demonstrate the point. In ETTR we are only talking about +2/3 or +1, not much more (in order to preserve the highlights). That small difference in my experience will not make a difference IF we keep SS and aperture the same and just bumping ISO higher in order to achieve ETTR.

Yes, these screenshots clearly show what happens if you push an ISO 100 image by 4 stops; it will of course be worse than a properly exposed ISO 1600 image due to signal-to-noise and limited DR; that's why we have to avoid major underexposure. But this has nothing to do with how I shoot in the real life and not much with the ETTR guys either, even though the science behind it is of course relevant.
ETTR guys say don't shoot at 0 EV, but expose as much to the right as possible. So when we talk about ETTR we're not comparing a 4 stop underexposed ISO 100 shot to an ETTR ISO 1600 shot, but a 0 EV ISO 1600 shot to the ETTR ISO 1600 shot, while we have to pay some kind of penalty due the ETTR, since there is no free lunch (either shutter speed, or going to a higher ISO, or perhaps going to a wider aperture if possible.)

So again, most of the time I shoot I'm already dancing on the edge of the slowest acceptable shutter speed, while using my desired aperture (that could be already at wide open). I can't go slower, so if I wanted to ETTR, the only option would be to bump the ISO and pull back in post, which would result in no improvement, except my DR would be less a tiny bit due to shooting at a higher ISO.

I wish I had a better command of the English language; it'd be easier for me to actually share what I think

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696503
So again, most of the time I shoot I'm already dancing on the edge of the slowest acceptable shutter speed, while using my desired aperture (that could be already at wide open). I can't go slower, so if I wanted to ETTR, the only option would be to bump the ISO and pull back in post, which would result in no improvement, except my DR would be less a tiny bit due to shooting at a higher ISO.

I think that (assuming you don't blow the highlights) there is potentially some advantage to increasing the ISO (due to the analogue signal-to-noise gains), but only within a certain range.

There was a very good post on this some years ago that described how an increase in ISO (up to a point) was better than an exposure shift in post - ah here it is: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1081982

As it's beneficial from a digital point of view (finer gradations in detail) to have your important areas in the higher bits (brighter pixels), I'm wondering if the above means it would better to increase the ISO (maybe up to 1600) but keep your shutter speed the same (in order to overexpose) and then pull the shot back in post. Obviously that's assuming you haven't clipped important highlight detail.

Unless you were fully manual (no auto ISO) I guess that wouldn't be possible though - apart from maybe the 1DX, which I believe can do manual + auto ISO and exposure compensation.

Yeah, I wish that the manual + auto ISO exposure compensation trickled down to the 6D (and other bodies too).

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696639
Yeah, I wish that the manual + auto ISO exposure compensation trickled down to the 6D (and other bodies too).

Me three.

- DAA

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696419
One of my older shots with the Tamron. Processed it in DxO this time, to reduce some bad noise. I also got some better dynamic range than I had before in my other edit from Lightroom.

This is really interesting. Why did you go to f10 on this shot instead of a lower ISO setting? A lot of shots I see are at very high ISO settings, is the Tamron forcing you into so high ISO at 600mm?