Which one will be sharper?

I would like to get some input on this. Here is the scenario:

In Manual, I have the ISO @ 400, f 5.6, SS @ 1/250. I shoot and the scene is just a bit overexposed [edited]. Which would give me more sharpness - decreasing the ISO to lets say 200 or increasing shutter speed to 500? Or in general, lower ISO or faster shutter speed?

Depends on the focal length and noise reduction used

You aren't being clear: is there a problem with exposure, sharpness or both?

And, what focal length are you shooting in?

Getting the exposure brighter will require either a slower shutter speed, a wider aperture, or a higher ISO. Which of these you use depends on the scene you are trying to capture and on your technique as well as the focal length you are using. If you are shooting handheld with a 400mm lens, then you typically don't want to slow down your shutter speed. With the settings you describe, you would most likely brighten the scene by raising your ISO. But sharpness is something different -- your images can be soft because camera movement can show up with a slow shutter speed or you could have focus issues.

It all just takes practice over a learning curve.

atlrus wrote in post #12266203
I would like to get some input on this. Here is the scenario:

In Manual, I have the ISO @ 400, f 5.6, SS @ 1/250. I shoot and the scene is just a bit underexposed. Which would give me more sharpness - decreasing the ISO to lets say 200 or increasing shutter speed to 500? Or in general, lower ISO or faster shutter speed?

Neither. Lowering the ISO or increasing the shutterspeed will make the scene more underexposed.

Depends on the scenario and what you mean by "sharpness".

If by sharpness you mean less "grain" (less noise), then lower ISO will give less grain. However, noise increases at a faster rate with underexposure than it does with increased ISO.

If by sharpness you mean stopping action or camera shake, such as sports action, then higher shutter speed is less blurred.

If by sharpness you mean more depth of field, then a higher aperture number (equals smaller aperture) will give you more depth of field, but you will have to raise ISO or lower shutterspeed to compensate.

Sorry, I meant the scene was overexpossed

Basically I am trying to deside if all equal, when I shoot in manual and make adjustments for exposure, would it be better to lower the ISO or increase the shutter speed (and vice versa), mainly for static objects, like widelife.

atlrus wrote in post #12266300
Sorry, I meant the scene was overexpossed

Basically I am trying to deside if all equal, when I shoot in manual and make adjustments for exposure, would it be better to lower the ISO or increase the shutter speed (and vice versa), mainly for static objects, like widelife.

Wildlife, leaves, grass, none are stationary. So it would depend. 1/250th a second is usually enough to stop most slow/minor motion. So I would normally default to lowering ISO. However, I have been surprised before that you can get perceivable leaf/grass movement at relatively high shutter speeds.

Well, I was comparing it (in my head) to sports or BIF

Increasing shutter speed will reduce camera shake and motion blur. Decreasing your aperture will inclrease you depth of field.

It really depends on the image and where the unsatisfactory unsharpness is coming from.

Do you mean wildlife? Static wildlife? That's wild-death.
Are you shooting road-kill?

given your two choices, personally I would lower the ISO setting first. If you're shooting at a comfortable shutter speed and the subject isn't moving and your camera isn't shaking, lowering ISO makes the most sense to me.

dave

tzalman wrote in post #12266363
Do you mean wildlife? Static wildlife? That's wild-death.
Are you shooting road-kill?

LOL, funny...although a great idea for a coffee table book, no?

Static was the wrong choice of word, maybe stationary, immobile?