Tad contraversial M Mode

[ctitanic]

I came back to say that some times nothing cut it but M. And that means that you must know how to shoot in Manual. Only them you can go to any other mode (including using Auto ISO in those modes) and shoot good pictures.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I am a (mostly) dedicated M mode shooter. The only decision I like the camera making for me is metering the light, and providing me a histogram. I can understand the point of Tv and Av modes, fully understand how they work, but I see ZERO point to using them when you can put the camera in M mode with Auto ISO set. I find Tv and Av modes annoying because invariably I'll be in the middle of shooting, want to change either aperture or shutter speed and I can't because that's not the mode I'm in.

I view the aperture and shutter speed selections as not just parts of the exposure triangle, but also creative decisions. I also find the R series cameras really love to push the ISO as high as they can when left unsupervised. I've had my R6.2 put me into ISO 12,800 on a fairly bright day because for whatever reason it thinks I should be at f/11, with a 1/500 shutter speed (I don't recall exactly, but you get the point.) I do use Auto ISO when I'm using a variable aperture lens. I'll find my settings at the smallest aperture, then set the auto ISO restriction to one stop higher than the setting I decided on. I find that works pretty well and I can make any slight adjustment I need with shutter speed. I use this the most with the 24-105 STM 4-7.1. The aperture variation is very large and I find shooting with that lens produces pleasing results, but getting there can be annoying. Supervised Auto ISO helps alleviate some of that annoyance. I can't hate on it too much, it's a great do-everything walking around lens. (I'm definitely getting the F4 version at some point.)

I shoot an R6.2 and it has all the wheels and buttons anyone could hope for. If you're shooting on a camera that doesn't have a wheel for each part of the triangle, well, I can understand why you might live in Tv or Av. I'm currently thinking about adding an APS-C body to my bag and I'm really trying to not spend over a grand on it. I really like what I'm reading about the R50, but even with the control ring on the lens it's one wheel short. Could I live with that? It does have an ISO button right next to the shutter button. Maybe. For $630 is it worth trying out? Maybe, but I can see how camera egos could heavily influence someone's opinion on this topic.

 

[Only RF]

I am a (mostly) dedicated M mode shooter. The only decision I like the camera making for me is metering the light, and providing me a histogram. I can understand the point of Tv and Av modes, fully understand how they work, but I see ZERO point to using them when you can put the camera in M mode with Auto ISO set. I find Tv and Av modes annoying because invariably I'll be in the middle of shooting, want to change either aperture or shutter speed and I can't because that's not the mode I'm in.

I view the aperture and shutter speed selections as not just parts of the exposure triangle, but also creative decisions. I also find the R series cameras really love to push the ISO as high as they can when left unsupervised. I've had my R6.2 put me into ISO 12,800 on a fairly bright day because for whatever reason it thinks I should be at f/11, with a 1/500 shutter speed (I don't recall exactly, but you get the point.) I do use Auto ISO when I'm using a variable aperture lens. I'll find my settings at the smallest aperture, then set the auto ISO restriction to one stop higher than the setting I decided on. I find that works pretty well and I can make any slight adjustment I need with shutter speed. I use this the most with the 24-105 STM 4-7.1. The aperture variation is very large and I find shooting with that lens produces pleasing results, but getting there can be annoying. Supervised Auto ISO helps alleviate some of that annoyance. I can't hate on it too much, it's a great do-everything walking around lens. (I'm definitely getting the F4 version at some point.)

I shoot an R6.2 and it has all the wheels and buttons anyone could hope for. If you're shooting on a camera that doesn't have a wheel for each part of the triangle, well, I can understand why you might live in Tv or Av. I'm currently thinking about adding an APS-C body to my bag and I'm really trying to not spend over a grand on it. I really like what I'm reading about the R50, but even with the control ring on the lens it's one wheel short. Could I live with that? It does have an ISO button right next to the shutter button. Maybe. For $630 is it worth trying out? Maybe, but I can see how camera egos could heavily influence someone's opinion on this topic.

Been a while for this thread so I'm not sure that remember posting. I shoot in M as well. R62 has 3 dials for Aperture, SS and EC. R7 only has two so I mapped the Aperture to the lens ring. I don't like but my least used adjustment so it works out.

 

[AntonLargiader]

Absolutely, but it's not the high ISO per se that causes the noise and loss of detail.

Spot on. ISO is basically amplification, and if you're amplifying noise then you get more noise. It's the situations that put you in high ISO the cause the IQ degradation. One factor that hasn't been mentioned about high-ISO IQ in general is that dim light is generally poor quality light; it's not just a dimmer version of good light. Due to the nature of various light sources, including the sun, dimmer light often is missing components of the spectrum. Then you amplify this with ISO and you wonder why the exposure is right but it still looks wrong. Custom WB is my friend here! If you're shooting in low light, get familiar with shooting a WB sample. Expose a clean white surface down to gray and then select that in-camera as a custom WB. I think you can do it the other way also, selecting it and then shooting. Sure a gray card is better but finding a good white thing is way easier. Just be careful that you're not shooting a white paint that has a slight tint to it, as whites often do. White plastic cooler, white jersey, white wall that looks like it's really white, or even a gray thing. You just want it to be neutral.

As for manual, I used to shoot Av a lot but for sports (nearly all of my shooting) I'm generally locking the aperture and shutter down so it's either Auto-ISO or manual ISO. Auto is great when players are running through shadows, but for an evenly lit scene (hazy day is perfect) I'll go manual so I can batch-correct exposure later if I want. When you'e displaying a bunch of photos at once, you want them looking the same.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Been a while for this thread so I'm not sure that remember posting. I shoot in M as well. R62 has 3 dials for Aperture, SS and EC. R7 only has two so I mapped the Aperture to the lens ring. I don't like but my least used adjustment so it works out.

That’s what I was thinking of doing- map the control ring to control ISO. I’m also thinking of trying the R50 since it’s cheap, has dual pixel AF, and I could map the control ring to ISO. For hockey I’ll be wide open at F/4 all the time so no need to map an aperture wheel.

As for noise, I honestly don’t even think or care about it anymore. I just cleaned up some event photos where I had to shoot at 10,000 ISO because all I had was my 24-105 STM (They told me they didn’t want event photos, just headshots! Lesson learned, BRING EVERYTHING! LOL) and my flash was just looking like garbage in the room I was in, it just looked terrible in camera. I ran them through Lightroom Denosie AI and they look great. Frankly, they didn’t look that bad at all without denoise. I was turning myself inside out to figure out how to afford the extra $1100 for an f2.8 70-200 and after a bunch of playing around in Lightroom with these photos I decided I will do just fine with F4. I think a lot of folks are still stuck in the era of not being able to push ISO and don’t even try it with the newer cameras.

 

[Only RF]

That’s what I was thinking of doing- map the control ring to control ISO. I’m also thinking of trying the R50 since it’s cheap, has dual pixel AF, and I could map the control ring to ISO. For hockey I’ll be wide open at F/4 all the time so no need to map an aperture wheel.

As for noise, I honestly don’t even think or care about it anymore. I just cleaned up some event photos where I had to shoot at 10,000 ISO because all I had was my 24-105 STM (They told me they didn’t want event photos, just headshots! Lesson learned, BRING EVERYTHING! LOL) and my flash was just looking like garbage in the room I was in, it just looked terrible in camera. I ran them through Lightroom Denosie AI and they look great. Frankly, they didn’t look that bad at all without denoise. I was turning myself inside out to figure out how to afford the extra $1100 for an f2.8 70-200 and after a bunch of playing around in Lightroom with these photos I decided I will do just fine with F4. I think a lot of folks are still stuck in the era of not being able to push ISO and don’t even try it with the newer cameras.

Noise has been an odd creature. Pixel peeped to death. Sure you want a nice finished product. Will it matter if product A edges out product B? To what end? Who is your audience and will they even care?

This all depends on your requirements be it business or hobby shooting. Pixel peeping can be healthy to keep the competitors from getting too comfy. It’s good for us that they try to outdo each other. Some noise is actually beneficial to prevent posterization when printing. Some noise even helps with detail. Forums can be driven to produce that silky smooth finish and and if you can’t you that perfectly you failed. Someone looking at your print on the wall won’t notice a little noise.

Yes pushing ISO and getting out of your comfort zone is healthy. I prefer to fix a noisy fire than a OFF file. Only Topaz offers stable anti blur app as far as I know.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Yes pushing ISO and getting out of your comfort zone is healthy. I prefer to fix a noisy fire than a OFF file. Only Topaz offers stable anti blur app as far as I know.

I have found Topaz to be a bit underperforming as of late. Photo AI 2 is better, but I find Topaz to over bake everything in auto mode. I think Topaz Labs has been edged out by Adobe Denoise AI, Luminar Neo, DxO, etc. The other issue I have with Topaz is that it creates a 144mb file everytime I use it. That’s huge and takes up a lot of storage space. Sort of feel like I wasted $200 with their product.

Edit to add: Their sharpening software is still better than others.

 

[Only RF]

I have found Topaz to be a bit underperforming as of late. Photo AI 2 is better, but I find Topaz to over bake everything in auto mode. I think Topaz Labs has been edged out by Adobe Denoise AI, Luminar Neo, DxO, etc. The other issue I have with Topaz is that it creates a 144mb file everytime I use it. That’s huge and takes up a lot of storage space. Sort of feel like I wasted $200 with their product.

Edit to add: Their sharpening software is still better than others.

I got Topaz Photo AI thrown in when I purchased Gigapixel in October of 2022 for $80. I didn't really want Gigipixel. I already had DeNoise and Sharpen AI and they gave another year of support for those two. There isn't any support for those anyway these days.

Topaz released Photo AI a little early but I supported them. Weekly updates and it did improve. I was going to give them until last October and see where they were. Adobe released Denoise AI in April and after about a week I knew there would be no version 2 in my future. I was pretty happy with their progress by April but after Adobe released their version I took if off my OS. I have not seen how the updates improved it during those last 5 to 6 months. I see examples that people post and they look pretty good.

I could download version 1 and get the last update before version 2 was released but I'm not going to use it. I whined to Adobe for years for AI noise reduction and one reason was to simplify my workflow. This is also is saving me a bit of money. I only kept Topaz Sharpen AI and use it as needed. I try to do everything in LrC.

I messed around with this ISO 10000 file using LrC only. Masking is so helpful because I can silk up that background. Not the best example because I was lazy and didn't refine the mask edge between bugs bunny and the background. I'm not putting this on my website or mounting it.

 

[Philnick]

I come from the days of 35mm film SLRs - a Canon FT-QL to be precise, which I got in 1968. The only automation it had was in the nature of a manual spot meter built into the viewfinder and a microprism on the ground-glass for focusing. I set aperture on the lens, shutter speed on the top deck and centered the meter's needle while pointing my camera at a middle tone. (And no, I didn't walk ten miles to school - uphill in both directions - I rode the bus.)

Then I got a Digital Rebel XT in 2006 and rode the DSLR upgrade train over the years, culminating in the 80D. Shot RAW in Aperture Priority and let it do most of the thinking, relying on the ability to recover highlights and shadows in my RAW files.

Along the way I got a Powershot G5X (a point-and-shoot with delusions of grandeur - it thought it was a DSLR, with most of the same controls) and became intrigued by the ability to see the effect of my exposure tweaks in real-time in the electronic viewfinder. I jumped on the R7 since it would give me that ability in a semi-pro body.

I've set the Control Ring on my lenses to act like the aperture ring on my SLR lenses, the main dial on the top deck to set shutter speed, and I use the ring around the joystick to "change film" when ever I need a faster or slower ISO. And the mode dial is indeed set to M.

With a live tri-color histogram in the viewfinder filling in for the exposure meter to tell me if I'm losing shadow or highlight detail and real-time exposure simulation to show what my settings look like, why should I let a computerized assistant that may not understand my taste in images take over? SLRs and DSLRs let you look through the lens - mirrorless lets you look through the film.

It's not like the exposure conditions are changing faster than I can twiddle a dial to make it look good in the viewfinder. And I do still shoot RAW.