Is ISO invariance actually useful, or is it just meme capability?

>>2835044
It's great. I use it all the time.

>>2835056
Why?

>>2835058
Because it's fantastic for increasing the overall range of the image, which helps it to look more filmish and natural to what you see in the real world. It also helps when I want to keep highlights in check, or hell, even when I accidentally bump from auto ISO into ISO 200 and shoot a bunch four stops under exposed.

File: 1461430965437.jpg (243KB, 812x810px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 812x810px

>>2835063
>filmish

>>2835063
why the fuck do you manually set ISO

>>2835066
>reading is hard

File: 1461444133498.jpg (42KB, 337x337px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 337x337px

>>2835080
ioh my god you'rre saying you spaz out and change settings unintentionally

are you michael j fox or do you just use the worst, most unfriendly camera that humanity has ever created

>>2835066
why wouldnt you?

>>2835083
honeypot, just like manual mode

It's not that it's useful or not, it's that everybody but Canon has it.

>>2835085
No, really.
Why wouldn't you set your ISO manually?

>>2835103
Why not shoot manual instead of aperture priority?

For the type of stuff I shoot on my Fuji it's very useful for the stuff I shoot on my Canon I could not give a single fuck.

>>2835066

EV comp doesn't work on Fuji if you don't.

>>2835111
Haha what?? That is absolutely untrue.

File: 1462132900579.jpg (16KB, 319x320px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 319x320px

>>2835111
>fuji

File: 20160509_060435-1024x768.jpg (221KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x768px

>>2835111
Actual Fuji user, this guy is full of shit you can use it with auto or manual ISO

>>2835122
>>2835131

It doesn't work on my X100s in aperture priority.

>>2835151
I find that incredibly hard to believe.

>>2835151
Works on mine. Also, my X-T1, and my XPro2.
Fixed ISO, and auto.

read this:
http://improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/

it's literally a useless meme for autistic photographers

>>2835176
Not sure that that's how that link reads.

>>2835177
the real world applications are too specific, and not very practical.
>shoot
>can't see shit
>hope you nailed it
or
>shoot with high iso
>check if it's alright
>shoot again in meme mode

plus, most cameras are not "iso-less" so what's the point of making things harder for yourself?

also, who the fuck sits behind his pc to edit the exposure on certain regions on a photo (like brushing it in)?

ain't nobody got time for that shit, other than jobless autists.

>>2835178
>ain't nobody got time for that shit, other than jobless autists.

weewwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>2835178
>also, who the fuck sits behind his pc to edit the exposure on certain regions on a photo (like brushing it in)?
Is that a fucking joke? Is this the shittiest troll in history?

>>2835186
for every single photo if you fall for this meme method

>>2835044
Had to look this up.

So, this is literally just underexposing and then pulling in post? Something that's been done since even the film days?

>>2835194

*pushing

And it works better than film or old digital ever did. The idea is that the image quality will be the same at ISO 200 underexposed 5 stops and brought up in post as it would be at ISO 6400. Conversely, you can also pull highlights way down and get a lot of latitude that way (although it doesn't work half as well coming down as it does coming up). Once you see it in practice, it's pretty mindblowing.

>>2835151
That's weird you should contact Fuji about it I'm able to do it on my X100S and my XT1

>>2835151
Just checked, it works on my OG X100 with updated firmware.

I don't use it, though. I use auto-ISO on my DSLR when shooting sports in rapidly changing lighting, but other than that I use manual. ISO doesn't need to be constantly adjusted like aperture/SS, and I prefer to keep the camera's decisions down to one variable rather than two.

>>2835196
but whats the application?

File: zizek.interview.jpg (153KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 768x1024px

why can't canon sensors do this anyway

not even their 5ds? or 1dx ii

>>2835426
Shooting under-exposed to preserve highlights. Shooting normally with the ability to bring up shadows dramatically in post if you need to (for very high contrast scenes, like brightly lit streets in India where the sun is about 400% brighter than anywhere else on the planet)

>>2835428
Only Sony sensors do this (to my knowledge) and Canon uses different technology. Canon has had plenty of time to re-create it, but hasn't, so the prevailing thought is licensing and patent issues.

Also, with a different workflow and care taken during the exposure, it doesn't matter much. It only really becomes game-changing when you accidentally mess up an exposure. Day to day, it ranges between very slightly useful for adding fill to shadows and no different at all.


For shooting concerts in SUPER high contrast light, I find it invaluable. I can expose for my singer's face which is lit by a very hot stage light, which leaves the rest of the stage nearly black, and then bring up everything else five stops and have a more or less nicely exposed image. Coming from a 5Dmk3 where I could certainly NOT do that, it's awesome for me.

>>2835065
higher dynamic range

you know what he meant