What kind of lighting is this?

>>3142623
because 6400 is a pretty high iso. i just tried those same settings with my d5100 and 18-55 kit lens wide open in a room with 2 energy saving bulbs and some natural light and the picture wasn't even really that underexposed. it's probably a lens that goes to 1.8 or 1.4 and any kind of decently bright light.

i think the real question though, is why use 1/3000 when you're shooting a static object

>>3142623
ISO 6400 is high ISO. Maybe you're confused because your camera's auto ISO only picks that high when it's really dark out? I'm guessing he's shooting in daylight.

>>3142636
Up in the corner of the Op image, it says "Full Review: Leica M10". So probably shooting at that shutter speed specifically to show how the pictures look at ISO 6400.

File: kevin-carter-vulture.jpg (301KB, 700x1773px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 700x1773px

>>3142623
>I know that when im shooting at iso 6400 I have to use slow shutterspeed (1/30 - 1/80)
What are you talking about?

-ISO determines the sensor's sensitivity. A higher number means more sensitivity.
-Shutter speed controls the duration of exposure, which affects exposure. (Longer exposure means more light, shorter exposure means less light.)
-Aperture controls the size of the opening in the lens that lets light through. (Smaller number means bigger hole, more light comes through. Bigger number means smaller hole meaning less light comes through.)

Go to your library and read a book about photography basics. Sounds like you've been misinformed by an idiot friend or an idiot blogger.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Why anyone would want to shoot a still subject at these settings really does your noggin a joggin.

Seems like a test shot in adequate lighting to show ISO performance as someone else said

>>3142714
Yeah I know what the iso does. Im not a fag.
What I meant by saying that I use 1/30 - 1/80 is that even if im shooting at f/2.0 I can't have the shutterspeed at 1/3000, otherwise the picture will be all underexposed and therefore I must be around 1/30 - 1/80 to both freeze the subject and still have good enough light in the picture.

>>3142675
No I'm using M-mode but the only time I use iso 6400 is when its really dark outside and I dont have a tripod.

>>3142879
>Yeah I know what the iso does. Im not a fag.

Okay, well, your posts indicate that you do not.

> even if im shooting at f/2.0 I can't have the shutterspeed at 1/3000, otherwise the picture will be all underexposed and therefore I must be around 1/30 - 1/80 to both freeze the subject and still have good enough light in the picture.

He's shooting in daylight. That's the sort of shutter speed you'd expect when shooting at high ISO with a lot of available light.

>>3142879
>Yeah I know what the iso does. Im not a fag.
Ypu can't say ypu kbow anytgong for sure, espacially when all you can reference is what you know yourseld.

>>3142714
>ISO determines sensitivity
I know what you mean but it's not film. Digital ISO is just a brightness setting, though there's a correlation with film ISOs. Sorry to be such a pedant.

>>3143029
>I know what you mean but it's not film. Digital ISO is just a brightness setting

Depends on the sensor. For most sensors, no it's not; the setting legitimately changes the minimum amount of photons required to register a signal, it doesn't just change the brightness of the photo after it's been taken.

>>3143038
I think that's how base ISO is determined. Everything else is analogue gain (or digital once past the native range).

>>3143088
"Analogue gain" is not the same as "just a brightness setting".

This is really just a semantic argument, but saying it's "just a brightness setting" implies (at least to me) that you can shoot ISO 100 and brighten the photo four stops in Photoshop later and get the exact same image as if you'd shot ISO 1600, which isn't the case for most sensors.

>>3143229
As I understand it digital sensor have an analog amp before adc. ISO setting adjust amplification in some ISO range. If you set ISO out of amp range, camera adjusts data after adc digitally.

Because raw file can store only so much bits per pixel, the resulting file may or may not contain all data from adc even if you only shoot at whatever max ISO which does not do digital amplification.

>>3142623
Is this picture from Vancouver, i know exactly where that mural is

>>3143229
Actually... Most recent sensors are at least somewhat iso-invariant (except canon), which means precisely that you can shoot at low iso and bump up the exposure in post, sometimes as much as 5 stops without losing much information to noise. This of course depends highly on the sensor and the settings. Some sensors introduce analog gain after a certain iso setting, most have some sort of combination of analog gain and software tricks. I remember being stunned how much I could raise the shadows when I got the D600 some years ago. The xt1 isn't as good but still pretty awesome in this regard.

>>3144362
>Actually... Most recent sensors are at least somewhat iso-invariant (except canon), which means precisely that you can shoot at low iso and bump up the exposure in post, sometimes as much as 5 stops without losing much information to noise.

If you do that you lose 5 stops of dynamic range in the process

>>3142623
Hey why do my colors always look so bad at high iso?