someone point me the way to selecting ISO

When the TF's around everything tends to start backfiring.

Heh! How's your TF radar working these days?

Terrible, even a ninja can't tell when the TF will strike.

did someone say backfire!

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=82hvPp7JiRQ

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8409163
When the TF's around everything tends to start backfiring.

Hey, in your defense, the TF mad a grammatical error. I don't think "Master of Pointless Polls" gets a period.

The fallibility of the TF is confirmed!

matts, I'm going to keep away from you for a bit if you don't mind. You've just painted a big target on yourself

mattograph wrote in post #8410137
Hey, in your defense, the TF mad a grammatical error. I don't think "Master of Pointless Polls" gets a period.

The fallibility of the TF is confirmed!

and you made a spelling error. Your fallibility was never in question.

What does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread? Could we get back to that, please.

Belmondo wrote in post #8410904
and you made a spelling error. Your fallibility was never in question.

From your lips to my wife's ears.....

[/hijack]

mattograph wrote in post #8410137
Hey, in your defense, the TF mad a grammatical error. I don't think "Master of Pointless Polls" gets a period.

The fallibility of the TF is confirmed!

No it should have one of these:

!

ISO?

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8406935
Michael is a great photographer, and his article correctly states that ETTR is good. However, I think it should be mentioned that the explanation he gives for the superiority of ETTR is incorrect. It has nothing to do with the number of levels or bit depth, since photon noise dithers the effective precision to a level far lower than 12 bits (2048 levels) anyway. The reason ETTR is a superior technique is because it captures more light, and more light means less noise.


I love it! Goes great with other, similar techniques:

Move All Dials Halfway To The Right: MAD-HTTR.

When In Fixed Exposure - Be Extremely Exposed To The Right: WIFE-BEETTR

Daniel,

I may have missed it somewhere in this long thread (my head still hurts from some of it), but I was wondering about two factors, which are related. First is pixel density, and the second is pixel size. When comparing sensor size, the number of MP's can only be compared when using the pixels per square area, but that begs the question of size of each pixel relative to the "space" between pixels. Your thoughts?

If it takes a good shot, prints a good print, makes onlookers pause for a moment to look, well the rest is sorta-- This soup sure is good, how many beans did you use and what size were they. Oh yeah and did you used dried seasoning or fresh and while we are at it, did you simmer over low heat or pour on the flames to really get it going.

When the how it does it, becomes more than how it does.

There will come a point when the camera will take in more info than can be put to print.
Oh wait we be at that point already.
Oh well.

Click it, print it, Enjoy it, give it away, sell it, do something with it. Now go click another.

golfecho wrote in post #8708101
...that begs the question of size of each pixel relative to the "space" between pixels. Your thoughts?

Good question, but I don't think it's really related to this thread. However, I think there is another thread where this question is more on topic:

Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance

I will copy your question and answer it there.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8363118
...This is all thanks to the fact that the 50D sensor technology has an advanced feature where the actual read noise is reduced at high ISO. Some other cameras, such as MFDB, don't perform that way....

Daniel, is this true of the 7D (and bodies released after the 50D) or just the 50D?

Nevermind! I saw a later post where you said this feature has shown up on bodies since the 10D.