Mr. Northrup : As a strictly amateur picture-taker (I would not presume to label myself a photographer), I find all your videos to be immensely helpful and will be ordering one or more of your books. I would like your guidance as to which books would be most applicable to what I do with my cameras. I have a Sony a6000 and an a6300, some native SONY eMount APSC lenses (mostly zoom and pancake), tripod and an external flash. My most frequent activities are photographing fast-moving dancer friends (latin, bellydance, folk etc) during their performances at festivals, weddings, and other community events, very often indoors under lighting conditions which are unpredictable and subject to random change by over-zealous DJ-s and lighting technicians. Just for fun and to provide pictures for my dancer friends. At these events I am most often not an "official" photographer - just a member of the audience so I have little or no advance control over lighting or knowledge of where (distance and angle) I will be able to shoot from i.e. I have to adjust rapidly on the fly with no possibility for test shots. Sometimes I am lucky, other times it's really hit and miss with many pictures coming out grainy, badly exposed or "deer-in-the-headlights" in the case of flash. In an attempt to get proper "freeze motion" I usually use shutter priority and, as I shoot, try to find a combination of aperture and ISO setting which works at that moment (auto ISO seems to pick really high ISO settings in this situation). I don't charge my dancer friends for being their "photographer/chauffeur and helper-outer" and they seem happy with the pictures I give them but I would like to increase the quality of my pictures and my "success rate". There doesn't seem to be many videos on RU-vid covering this type of photography. My other photographs are general outdoors (buildings, cityscapes etc in daylight during travel) and low light indoor shots of stationary objects (inside museums, castles, churches etc) with no flash. Much easier. Which of your books would you recommend that may help me out for these dance performance situations ? (sorry for being so long-winded).
You guys literally have the best photography channel. You never make me feel stupid. Either by talking down, or not explaining things. Everything is explained perfectly. Thank you so much!
Can't believe I just watched 20+ minute video on ISO. There's a funny feeling that comes on when the content starts to go super geeky, and sometimes it's uncomfortable, but I love it! Thanks again!
The quality of Tony's technical videos keeps getting better. Loving the quantitative approach and the many references to existing videos to make it a compendium of knowledge.
I just purchased your sdp book! It is really great, so far I ´ve been reading the ebook and the book should come soon. Really love all the videos as well!
Man, I enjoy your videos. While another youtube channels are very short and they just go to the point in less than 15mins, yours are very comprehensive. So this is what I do: I use first short videos in another channels to understand knowledge about a field where I'm completely ignorant, as a first step. Then, now that my brain absorbed the basic concepts and my understanding has improved, I come to your channel to get a wider coverage about the concepts. I think your channel is rather to master concepts, for those who really care about the foundations of photography and want to learn beyond the basic 10-step tutorial Thanks for helping us learning more !
Almost 22 minutes of amazing content without a bunny trail or even a stray "um..." It there is a more professional channel on RU-vid, um....I'm not aware of it. Keep up the great work!
I just discovered your channel. Yours are among the best technical analysis I've seen. Excellent compromise between clarity and details. Congratulations. I am an amateur photographer and my job is close to image processing, I love your channel
Tony, both you and Chelsea have a really superb way of explaining your subjects in such a way that makes it really interesting. You have the best tutorials! I have bought your book and find it incredibly informative. Extremely good value for money!!!
That logarithmic scale you referred to where ISO 100 = 21, ISO 200 = 24, and so on, in case anyone wants to look it up, is Deutsches Institut für Normung, or DIN for short. I remember DIN being quite popular in the film days.
The ASA rating for film was a measure of how sensitive the films was to light. A higher number meant higher sensitivity. The number was used to calculate exposure. Higher light sensitivity was attained with either large granules of chemical or different chemistry. For a given film chemistry finer detail was attained with smaller grain size which meant a lower ASA rating. Generally you selected the slowest film that would fit the lighting of what you were shooting. Aperature and shutter speed allowed you to shift the dynamic range of the scene to match that of the film and braketing was used to adjust for errors in exposure calculations. Its also why black and white photos had more detail, you had at least 3 times the grains for a given speed of film. Nowadays the camera sensor determines the ultimate detail that can be attained. A 20MP camera gives a maximu of 20M dots of color. The base sensitivy of the sensor isn't going to change, just the processing, electronic or digital that occurs after the base reading. The exposure is controlled by the apperature and shutter speed. The larger the pixel the more light it can absorb and therefore the more sensitive to light it can be. For a given sensor size the more sensitive the pixels, the fewer of them there are. It would be interesting to find out what the ISO setting actually changes. I have a hunch its one or more of the following: 1. Amplify the analogue signal before it is turned into a digital value. 2. After the analogue signal is changed to a digital value mathematically process that value to get a wider range of numbers. Note that for a given camera the underlying sensitivity of the pixel doesn't change.
So ISO is pronounced “eye so”. And here I’ve been calling RAW “are aye double-you”. Seriously, thank you for clearing this up. This detail has been bedeviling me for years.
great video (as usual). somehow you manage to make what is essentially a very boring subject interesting and made me laugh. plus now I get how older cameras are still used and loved by professionals and why amateurs (myself included) think to rush out and upgrade to get cleaner images when the pros just stick with the same gear until a big upgrade is needed. cheers Tony!
Wow. Your work is truely incredible! I don't think I have ever seen such detailed explainations on photography-tech topics than from your videos. This one in particualar is vastly superior to any other "ISO-explained" video out there, especially in within the market of free ones. Great work! Plus: WIth all the 'geek'-videos you mentioned (and which I will definitly check out), I'll be trivia-king in our photogrpahy group once and for all :D
I haven't seen anyone else point it out yet, but you can use noise from a high ISO to give black and white photos a good grainy look without using software.
+scherlingTube Except he doesn't have point. The Whiny Photographer is nitpicking and splitting hairs in an effort to make Tony sound like he's wrong on everything, when that's not the case. When discussing noise per image, not pixel density, the bucket of water analogy is perfectly fine. I understood what he was saying and what he was getting at. I'm not saying that Tony is right 100% of the time. He has made mistakes, and when he does he will correct them. I respect Tony for that. No one is perfect. I've watched the Whiny Photographer's videos and his mistakes far, far, FAR, outweigh the mistakes Tony has made. I don't see the Whiny Photographer making videos addressing his own mistakes (he usually just deletes the videos and pretends they didn't happen because he's a coward).
I know that improved ISO performance cycle. I recently went from a Nikon D40 to the D5500, and was shocked to see how much better ISO had gotten. On the D40 using the highest native ISO setting (1600, you could get to 3200 but it was horrible) produced some terrible noisy pictures. On the D5500 6400 looks way better. So I believe that 8 years cycle. Nice video!
Great video, Tony! I have a new D850 and this was very informative. Thanks for putting this together - I imagine a ton of work went into it! I'll buy one of your books as compensation ;)
A nice real example of high ISO works with video is during the recent Trump speech in Atlanta. A protester switched off the lights. Immediately the image from the camera darkened. Soon the cameraman increased the ISO and the Image became brighter again but noises. However the light temperature of safety light was different than that of the main lights. So the image appeared blue. The cameraman's second step was to adjust the white balance. The end result was a by far noisy with low dynamic range image. When the light came back the image was overexposed and yellow. A real nightmare for cameraman. Trump demanded the lights to be switched off. Again the some underexposure and white balance problem. I think the video of Trump in Atlanta should be taught to future cameramen.
Very nice video except many of us don't believe in post processing due to various reasons including artistic. Retouching is a no-no for me thus I have no softwares and will never use softwares to manipulate pictures. You either know how to take it straight up or don't.
I don't mind noise, if you print you don't really see it. Computers blow up everything. That's the problem with photography today everyone zooms in 100% and complains. If the image looks good the way it was taken, then it's good...
+oasisbeyond Agreed... I know lots of photographers who stress about noise levels, and then when you get to know them and see how they use their pictures, the noise doesn't really impact it.
Besides that pixel-peeping is quite absurd because a good photo does not degrade when grainy, I have discovered another thing when printing: a small crop from an analog photo had to be printed and was thus full of grain. I removed the most of it and the print showed a very annoying posterizing! Then I added 2% noise and the print was excellent. (PS for the ones that don't know ;-): editing software is able to zoom in that much because of editing purposes. It is not there to examine the pictures for - microscopic - noise)
:-) Actually, because it is derived from the Greek "isos", the "I" would be pronounced as a short "ee". Hey, thanx for the clear explanation of the ISO principal!
Yeah, also. And in Dutch. And in German, and probably in all non-English languages, haha! You English-talkers just rebuild everything, like kilómeters, instead of kílometers :-) But we still understand you, and that's most important!
I would like to challenge the statement that big sensors gather more light. If you put the sensor in a lens system and project an image on to it a large sensor will collect the same number of photons as a smaller sensor observing the same scene. The number of photons per unit area received by a small sensor is higher than the those observed by a larger sensor observing the same scene but provided the system does not saturate all will be equal when the the result appears on the back of the observer's retina.
+Neo Racer Unfortunately, even upgrading to the T6i (5 years newer) would only give you 17% less noise. Check out the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (sdp.io/s35), though--that will let you use much lower ISOs... that, or jump to full-frame.
Tony Northrup Thats kinda depressing lol Yea I was considering full frame just the price was still a bit beyond my reach. That Sigma sounds amazing I'll definitely check it out thx!
I followed this all the way but got very confused at 7:50 when Tony states that the ISO 100 picture has more noise than the ISO 6400 picture. I thought the lower the ISO (number), the less noise? Tony explicitly states this earlier on. What have I misunderstood at 7:50?
Ministry of Chocolate . Those pictures were taken in low lighting condition. And the image taken in ISO100 was underexposed. As the image was taken in raw format he increased the exposure of the image in post-production so it has more noise..
Mr.Northrup, Tony! What do you think of the new Sigma 50-100 f1.8? I have the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS for cropped Nikon already! Should I sell the 50-150 f2.8 OS in favor of the f1.8? Do you think I would miss the image stabilization and that extra focal reach? 50-150 f2.8 is just one megapixel less sharp on DxO mark than the well regarded sigma 18-35 f1.8. So I figure the my current f2.8 lens will not be much less sharp than the new 50-100 f1.8.
if I was able to find this lens I wouldn't have moved to ff. but the lack of support made my investment that much easier. I love having both formats. from what I hear, that lens is astonishingly good. I bought the f1.8 primes instead of the 24-70 2.8 and I think that was a better route. but a 1.8 zoom is a difficult choice.
Pretty easy to understand for a beginner. I love it that you cover all these different topics in 1 video but not making it too short or too long to understand it.
If you want to get Tony all riled up, ask him what ISO stands for. (Great video, though, Tony. Nothing but love for you, man. You've made my photographs 1000% better.)
So according to 10:16, most cameras have similar ISO performance that improves twofold every 8 years. But I have seen how Sony's A7s series outperforms other cameras (including other Sony cameras) in low light situation, but this video doesn't offer an explanation for that. Could someone explain this?
BTW, and I apologize if this is dumb question, given all that you have covered; but why does lower megapixel density result in higher S/N (lower noise levels) all else being equal? For example, the A7SII verses the A7RII.
If you look at old pictures in National Geographic back in the film days, there is an amazing amount of noise in a lot of them. But during that time I never (well almost never) heard anyone complaining about the graininess of the film at 1600 and 3200. I am not sure I ever saw film at higher ISO than that. And the grain apparent in those 1600 film pics are much, much more than what we see in digital pics today at even much higher ISOs. I think most photogs worry too much about this noise imposed by a higher ISO.
Dale Ferrier Grain was often used for effect, those were the days. Gritty subjects shot on grainy film. And if you got a touch of reticulation when you developed a film... unique results.
You may be a geek Tony but you really know your stuff. I have your book and watch a lot of your videos. I am super impressed. I think you and Chelsea are a really lovely couple who are making a positive difference to the world of photography.
Great video. I ran the invariance test on my camera (Pentax K-3) and found that it performed similar to your findings with the Canon. I love learning about my gear. Thanks!
As much as I like and appreciate the clear and concise information imparted about your particular subject matter per video, I chuckle every time Tony geeks out. Yes, I review the geek videos - although most of the science is a little beyond me - I still enjoy them. Thanks for what you do!
Probably because of one-take syndrome (seek help if you know anyone with it) they had to use their main camera for that 2 second ISO demonstration at the start and use whatever they had lying around the shed for the actual content :P
It's evident this man knows what he's taking about. Many others show you experiments they have done, cool ones, but you don't learn even the half you learn with each of these videos.
17:50 when you started talking about the International Organisational for Standardization, i was like "yeah, that's in my management accounting textbook". was wondering if it was the same people. thanks😅
Really interesting about the lying manufacturers stretching the truth about what the ISO number actually means. You didn't mention the pixel size in regards to image noise though. Obviously you covered the larger sensor size captures more light (big bucket) but you didn't clarify that the MP of the sensor is just as important. So if you have a FF sensor with very high MP that could easily have less light (per pixel) as a apsc or m43 sensor at low MP. (Hence why don't a7s is so great in low light, big sensor. And low MP)
+biscuitsalive One of Tony's videos cover pixel size vs noise. With more megapixels you get more detail. In 1:1 you might see more noise, but you don't post 1:1 on Instagram or Facebook. The end result will be the same in terms of noise comparing 2 different mpixel FF sensors at same ISO, but you get more detail out of the higher mpixel sensor.
+Kaakao I come from the video side of things more. So res beyond 4K is almost irrelevant in most situations. (I'm aware he's talking about photography though. So good point)
Medium Format DSLR with a 53.7X40.3mm Sensor with a 80mm F/2.8 lens Verses a Full Frame DSLR Full Frame DSLR with a 24X36mm Sensor would have a Crop Factor of 1.49 compared to a Medium Format DSLR with a 53.7X40.3mm Sensor The 80mm F/2.8 lens on a Medium Format DSLR Would have a equivalent field of view of a 119mm lens on a full frame DSLR and would actually be an f/4 equivalent For the ISO 1.49 Crop Factor squared =2.225 So an ISO of 44.943 is = to an ISO of 99.998 on a Medium Format DSLR with a 53.7X40.3mm Sensor
Those ISO logarithmic degrees are - from the numbers you used (21, 24,...) - obviously what was previously referred to as DIN as it's German standard for film speed (DIN 4512). Nice video, of course. :-) As always.
I leave my D750 at ISO 100 most of the time now, pumping up exposure in post looks identical to higher initial ISO up to about ISO6400. Plus the near 15 stop dynamic range of the D750 starts to disappear at high ISO once it's baked into the file. Main disadvantage is not being able to chimp, but whatever, that's for losers :p I want to point out that my older D7000 and my phone (LG V10) DO need ISO adjusting during capture for lowest noise results.
We have it good today. I forgot how clean full frame video is because I mostly do photography. I shot a video at 12800, no noise reduction, 24-70 2.8 ii, it's completely clean. I mean I could shoot a whole movie at 12800. It's no A7S. But we definitely have it good these days.
Those of us old enough knew by heart the ASA / DIN equivalence. Kodachrome II was ASA 64 ,Plus X was ASA 125 ; TriX was ASA 400 ; Agfa Isopan Record was DIN 32. Translation: ASA 64 = DIN 19 ; ASA 125 = DIN 22 ; ASA 400 = DIN 27; ASA 1,250 = DIN 32. Look at the back of a Leica M3: www.google.com.ar/search?q=film+scale+in+the+leica+m3&rlz=1C1GCEA_enAR763AR763&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=yVOpuxfOn8jp7M%253A%252C_OndqrwIkl4OFM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzcyDnE0jiI-Rw8e6Dn4KzN2w8vOpw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx_LCMh7vdAhXHIJAKHRqPBFAQ9QEwAHoECAUQBA#imgdii=jp2aQ8s0k85NJM:&imgrc=yVOpuxfOn8jp7M:
Another great video thanks tony! Loads of info for everyone from beginner to pro! (Once again shitty RU-vid compression messes up multiple cameras at diff frame rates... Always makes 24p look stuttery on RU-vid vs shooting 30p or 60p)
Very nice video indeed. The Name issue with ISO speaken as a word instead of as several letters is not that uncommon (even if it were an abbreviation). Think about NATO, NAFTA, FIFA for example.
About Expanded ISO, specifically lower ISO than lowest default (topic at 5:35), using it can actually have a measurable effect of increasing Dynamic Range. The video claims that an ISO 50 is simply an ISO 100 image digitally adjusted a stop down, making you lose a stop of dynamic range also. I'll prove that this isn't always the case. A camera that allows a lower ISO than default in its expanded options is the Pentax K-5/II. The lowest default ISO is 100 and you can go even lower when expanded to ISO 80. Tests by dxomark has shown that RAW files at ISO 80 do contain more dynamic range compared to ISO 100 (almost half a stop more). See yourselves from the 'Dynamic Range' tab at www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K5---Measurements The tl;dr here is that for Pentax users, use RAW ISO 80 when shooting bright scenes if you want to maximize DR.
Hi Tony, What is your feeling on the new sigma 50-100 on a a6000/a6300. It doesn't have OSS but it covers 75-150 at 1.8 where my primes don't go. I do use the 16/70f4 and 70/200f4 would this be a better lens for at night so basic question i guess does the f4 vs f1.8 cover the loss of OSS ?
+Daniel Ockeloen From my perspective, I would choose fast aperture lens. Because you can lower your ISO when the light go down, but more important is shutter speed, you can rely on stabilizing system to lower your shutter speed but it can't freeze the motion. If you photograph landscape, that not a problem. But people, street, you will need shutter speed high enough to not having unintentional motion blur. And fast aperture will help you blow more background. Manufacture usually claim that their technology can stabilize upto 3-4 or even 5 stops, but who shoot portrait with available light below 1/50s? I only found stabilize help when shooting video, it make video have smooth movement when you shoot it handheld.
Hi! No doubt this channel is the best for any photography lover. I watch all your videos and totally love them. I've Canon T6i and 55-250mm lens. I'm facing difficulty in FOCUS POINTS and MANUAL MODE settings. I'm shooting fashion clothes on mannequin in my room with tubelights and no studio light. Problem 1- I want full clothes in focus but only a point or two is coming in focus. Problem 2- I want fast shutter speed as I don't have a tripod and less ISO because I don't want grains. On setting my manual mode black pictures or grainy pictures are being clicked every time. Please, let me know the correct camera setting in my case and help me get the perfect picture. :)
Just discovered your channel, love it ! Got lost on Full frame vs APS-C however, if ISO is light intensity, and light intensity in the “cropped area” is the same between FF and APS-C, why would FF be cleaner at same ISO? Keep the Geek coming!
Hi Tony. I am using the Rokinon 14mm F2.8 lens (non CPU) on my Nikon D7200. I had been shooting raw for quite some time with the 18-140 kit lens as well as the Nikkor 35mm F1.8G. I started experimenting with manual last week when the Rokinon arrived. One inconvenience to keeping the ISO down to 100, is that the live [post] view on the camera back is totally dark and I only see the result after viewing it (and lightening it up) in my raw viewer on the pc. I set up the Rokinon as a non CPU lens and learned to make the custom setting for using the external aperture ring. The absence of noise, compared to my earlier shots makes the new pictures stellar by comparison. I am going to try ISO 200 and 400 and probably get another flash unit as well. I am a hobbyist who just wants to take Stunning Digital Photography.
I agree with Tony in the future as sensors evolve exposure value (EV) as it would be more logical to call light sensitivity will become irrelevant. But for now in my opinion as camera manufactures insist on including unusably high ISOs it would be more logical to use the DIN EV nomenclature; for example ISO 100 equates to DIN 21 and more importantly ISO 12800 equates to DIN 43 etc. We tend to forget how much dynamic range even modest cameras have compared to film; I have been digitising some old slides (Agfa CT18) and the exposure latitude is non existent compared to modern digital cameras.
Give it a break Tony, no one says Eyesoh. You're the only weirdo on RU-vid saying it that way. The rest of the normal people say Eye-SSS-OH, and we are not going to switch. LOL
For Canon cameras, specifically for video, multiples of 160 are best. In order of noise from least to high choose: 160, 320, 640, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1250, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 1600, 2500, 2000, 3200, 4000, 5000, 6400 see: petapixel.com/2011/05/02/use-iso-numbers-that-are-multiples-of-160-when-shooting-dslr-video/ I have no idea whether this applies to stills though
