Excellent and very informative as usual Ron. Just love your videos - and following your praise I changed from EF100-400ii to the RF100-500 and love it. Keep ‘ em coming. Thanks
Extremely helpful Ron. I live in a very cloudy overcast environment and I often struggle with available light. Rather than sacrifice shutter speed or over use ISO, I am all over saving the image in post. Thanks so much
Wow. This will take some “unlearning” on my part. Like you, I had ingrained in my practices that, to avoid high ISO noise, the thing to do was to overexpose, and then compensate in post. Bringing up an underexposed image in post had always meant inviting unacceptable noise in the shadows. I’ll have to try this. Very useful information, especially for those of us who have the new slower lenses, such as the rf100-500. Thanks!
Wonderfully explained Ron, even a novice like me could understand pretty much. Thanks a lot, I feel more confident in underexposing my shots in low light situations now than ever before. Great video!!!👏👍👌
Interesting concept! A lot of pro wild photographers on you tube advocate to expose “to the right”. Their reasoning being that bringing up exposure in post production can increase ISO.
Do you know of a way we can research other R series bodies for their ISO invariance? Specifically I’d be interested in learning more about the RP that I own.
You can do a Google search, but the Canon R5 has a new sensor tech in it, so I believe it is probably the first Canon camera to really show any ISO invariance. But, I could be wrong. I often am.
Google photonstophotos and check the Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime that is a horizontal flat line that is the ISO invariant range. If the graph is climbing that is not invariant and you are better off shooting the correct ISO in camera for your intended brightness.
One question, there is a difference in the ISO invariance performance if you use the electronic shutter (12 bit raw) instead of mechanical shutter (14 bit raw)
interesting Ron, I've never heard of ISO invariance. thank you for the information. is this different then dynamic range? I love the snail kite picture.
Yes, it is different. ISO is about how the electrical signal coming off the image sensor is amplified. The higher the ISO setting the higher the amplification. Thus, ISO invariance is when this amplification can be achieved without, lets say, degrading that signal and thus causing additional noise or color aberrations. DR is the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture and the lowest brightness it can capture (which is typically when noise becomes more important than the signal - that is, a signal-to-noise ratio below 0 dB. So DR is about the sensors ability to capture light and ISO is about amplifying the signal coming off the sensor that the light produces.
Very interesting point. Based upon your demo though, I would keep it within 3 stops for underexposure. Actually 2 stops on the safe side. Thanks for the video.
Thank you for this video explaining the ISO invariance in the R5. I read in DP Review that it was invariant between ISO 400 and 6400 but haven’t experimented with it intentionally but have found that my underexposed shots were still fine. It seems that with my RF 100-500 and an extender or my 809mm f/11, I can use a fast shutter speed, under expose a few stops and still get a good shot that wouldn’t have been possible with my old Mark IV. I think this was part of the thinking with the R5 and the new slower glass that makes it all work.
Yep, I agree. I think the invariance still holds up pretty well even at ISO 12,800, but for me as a bird photographer don't have any experience going that high on ISO.
Great information! Could you clarify why you say this is invariant down to ISO 200? Could it just be that it's four stops anywhere within the exposure range instead of a particular ISO setting?
Empirically, the R5 is ISO invariant between 400 and 6400, the range of ISO I use. If you look at data regarding this on some of the websites that test cameras/sensors the R5 seems to show a dual gain type behavior; lower and up to 400 and then 400 on up to 6400. So, the invariance really is not 4 stops anywhere within the range in which you expose an image. It depends on where in the ISO range you are working how much you bring up the exposure. I am sure I did a poor job of expounding on this idea, but I gave it a go. Cheers. Ron
another interesting video Ron, this proves the point that it’s always best to under expose and play around in post production lifting shadows, I find that on dull days when I photograph Red Kites from mine that to get the under wing feather details the ISO really needed bumping up, which of course blows the sky out, but with my R6 it’s possible to do exactly as you’ve done and keep the ISO lower but use PP to get back the detail needed, this photography game with new technology really is a learning game continuously! cheers Terry 👍📷🦅
Thanks so much for watching, Terry. And for taking the time to comment. Yep, technology is awesome, but advances also require rethinking how we do things at times. I like the creative process involved.
I have not tested the R6, but I believe it has the same sensor as the 1DxIII and so it probably is not. The Canon R5 has a new sensor and it may be the first to have ISO invariance.
Yes it is also invariant ISO 400 and up. Google photonstophotos and check the Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime that is a flat line that is the ISO invariant range for a camera. The 1DXII is also invariant from 1250 and up.
I don't shoot much more than a stop or at the most 2 under most of the time, so I don't run into many issues. But, yes, if the image is too dark it can cause AF issues including my ability to see what the heck is going on focus-wise.
Most interesting. Definitely something I will experiment with. Particularly in situations where I am struggling to achieve a minimum shutter speed. I believe you use Topaz De Noise AI, have you noticed any difference in the end product when taking this underexposed lower ISO approach? Sincere thanks and keep up the great work. Jean-Louis
Nope, I don't think so. The R5 has a newer sensor. The R6 has the same sensor as the 1DxIII if I am not mistaken. So, I don't think the R6 has the same ISO invariance. But, I may be wrong as I often am.
Yes the R6 is also invariant. Google photonstophotos and look for their Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime the line is flat that is the invariant ISO range. The R6 is the same ISO 400 and up.
I did my own test with my R6 at ISO's 6400, 3200, 1600, 800, and 400. After importing the underexposed 400 ISO image into Lightroom and boosting the exposure slider 4 stops, I could discern no difference at all in noise level from the correctly exposed ISO 6400 image. Highlights were slightly strong in the underexposed image, but easily correctable with the sliders. Keep in mind that this test compared the most extreme limits-400 ISO vs. 6400 ISO-with only very slight difference in IQ. Seems to me that the R6 is ISO invariant.
So am I getting this correct? Let's say I'm in AV mode. Things are getting tricky, I don't have great light and running at about 300th of a second F6.5 and iso 1600. These little birds I'm trying to shoot are jumping all over Gods creation and I need some more speed. I can choose to shift the exposure compensation down a stop and a half, now I have around 700th of a second at iso 1600. The image is underexposed by 1.5 stops but I needed to get the shutter speed up to get these little speedsters sharp. The payoff is that I will get the same noise as increasing the iso in-camera to gain some speed but I now have the added bonus of saving the 1600 dynamic range value? If this is correct using auto iso could be a thing of the past and I would simply go back to AV and use the exposure compensation like I used to years ago?
Nope. If you set a certain ISO and you underexpose by changing the shutter speed to a faster setting under exposing the image, you will have more noise in the image when you bring it up by however many stops you need to in post processing to to get to the exposure you want. With ISO invariance you need to be making adjustments in the ISO to underexpose. Basically, with the R5, if the exposure you want is achievable in camera by using an ISO between 400 and 6400 (the ISO range for which this camera is ISO invariant) at a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, say 1/500s, then shooting at any ISO between 400 and 6400 will give you the same IQ with the shutter speed of 1/500s and the same aperture. So, pick the ISO you use based on the scene [e.g., high dynamic range (lower ISO) or low (higher ISO)] . If the ISO you pick results in an under exposed image you bring it up in post to get to the exposure you would have shot it at in camera. By doing this, you don't get penalized in the IQ department, and you gained some DR and protection of any bright areas in the image. If you don't need these DR and Highlight advantages then just shoot at the ISO needed to get the exposure acceptable in camera. Auto ISO will always try to get the exposure correct for you in camera based on the shutter speed and aperture you set, so the way to work auto ISO, given ISO invariance, to your advantage is to set the auto ISO range from 400 to 6400 and then dial in exposure compensation to underexpose the image to take advantage of the gain in DR and highlight protection. The camera will then set a lower ISO then it would have for a "correct" exposure gaining you the advantages we have been discussing. I hope this makes some sense as I am not always good at explaining these types of things.
Very interesting Ron...not certain but I'm sure I've seen this by accident whereby I've suddenly seen a bird against a darker background and not had time to adjust ISO. Then in LR adjusting the exposure to suit and thinking that it doesn't look too bad afterall...
I'm just not buying it. I have found because of the great noise handling, shooting as far right as I'm comfortable with produces great images. I will try underexposing , just for grins. but feel like, as you said, it would be good for protecting detail in the highlights. Thanks for your insight, always glad to have another tool in the tool box!
Check out photons to photos graphs on the R5. The dynamic range graph on the R5 has a classic hitch at ISO 400 indicating that it is a dual gain sensor with one set of electronics optimized for ISO 100 and a second set of electronics/AD converters optimized for ISO 400. Thus, you will see the effect you are discussing in ranges, from ISO 100-320 and then ISO 400 and above, but there will be a distinct change at ISO 400. The linear portions of their graph indicate ISO invariant-like performance. Gone is the old school Canon flatten at low ISOs caused by high read noise (it is now lower than Sony) and also the waves caused by Canon actually only truly adding ISO in 1 stop increments (but then pull/pushing for ISO 1/3 stop increments in a second, likely post ADC, step). This was mostly true starting with the 5DIV, but the R5 is a big step in this type of performance.
Thanks for this video. I have been asking about this subject for years, but haven’t gotten a definitive answer until now. As we know, most of the digital information is contained in the last two segments of the histogram. Does artificially Increasing the exposure in post somehow retrieve that lost digital data? Absolutely love your videos. Thanks, Lew
Thing is you are not really artificially increasing the the exposure in post any more than you are by changing your ISO on your camera given changing the ISO is just changing the amplification of the signal coming off the sensor. Changing the exposure in post is also a post sensor manipulation of the signal/data. The two methods just use different algorithms to make the adjustment given one is Canon and one is say Adobe if you use LR or PS. How all this works is obviously fairly technical and beyond the scope of dealing with here. However, it is safe to say that Canon has changes their sensors to the point where read noise is now very low and thus much more can be done with the signal both pre- and post- ADC conversion.
great video Ron. In other words, back to the beginning of shooting pictures: shoot now, result later. That is in my opinion the biggest reason not to drastically underexpose. Maybe -1, maybe -2 Stops for security reasons and therefor have the screen on the cam a bit brighter then 'normal'. I need the immediate visual and control very often. Besides i trust the algorhythm of the R5 more then Lightroom (adobe in general) - LR is hardly able to proper render CR3 files (takes profiles from other companies). Ron it is s a very interesting video you made. But not a 'new' way to work for me and to change my workflow.. unless the R5 will have some internal way to show results as if..
I do agree. This ISO invariance stuff is really about shooting in low light situations when something much brighter might suddenly happen within a scene that you could not possible adjust for. It is nice to know you can underexpose some by dropping your ISO and not pay a huge pension in IQ in post. It does gain you a bit of security as you put it.
@@airb1976 we are getting of topic. For clarity: The problem i have working with ISO Invariance 'on purpose heavy underexposed' pictures in a ISO range between ISO 400 and . Most of my commercial outdoor shooting I need to se results on my Camera Screen immed.. (In studio even on my mac).. eyes open? composition ok? expression ok? .. body fine? Things like that. If I stay below -2 Stops i can not see what i have before back in office. Missed a bird=bad.. missed something important shooting a group of 5 or 50 persons, real, real bad.
Cranking up the ISO for a dark scene won't impact AF at all, since the light R5 sensor receives remains the same as ISO changes . AF performance depends on the amount of light lens and sensor receives . ISO impacts two things on mirrorless camera, #1 , how bright the image is on LCD or EVF, if the ISO is too low, you won't be able to see the image on LCD clearly, which potentially can impact MF, since you need the LCD or EVF to be bright enough to evaluate MF. #2, if the ISO is too high, less dynamic range left for highlight, you are risking blowing out the brighter part of the image. To sum it up. the choice of ISO with R5 has nothing to do with noise level or AF, but to strike a good balance between #1 and #2
I’m not following everything you’re saying, but it’s probably just my having less knowledge than you. I shoot a 90 D and I shoot in manual and I shoot raw. I’ll let the iso float but I set a limit at 3200, because the noise above 3200 is not tolerable for me. So that means that in normal shutter speed and aperture I may wind up shooting an image “dark.“ The exposure is not what it should be. Boost the exposure in post. I’m in the habit of checking the light meter to make sure it’s not too dark. I can only bring it up about a half a stop in post without generating more noise. I don’t think I have a program like you have. I guess you’re using Lightroom. I use Canon’s DPP, Affinity, and Luminar 4. I don’t know if they have a setting where I can just boost the iso in post. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding.
Let me try explaining this in text form. If you set a certain ISO and you underexpose by changing the shutter speed to a faster setting underexposing the image, you will have more noise in the image when you bring up the exposure in post processing by however many stops you need to to get the exposure. With ISO invariance you need to be making adjustments in the ISO. Basically, with the R5, if the exposure you want is achievable in camera by using an ISO between 400 and 6400 (the ISO range for which this camera is ISO invariant) at a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, then shooting at any ISO between 400 and 6400 will give you the same IQ (noise and color accuracy), after adjustment in post processing, you would have gotten if you shot the image at the ISO needed to get the image exposed "correctly" in camera (while keeping the shutter speed and aperture the same). For example, if you shoot at an ISO of 800 to underexpose an image and would have selected ISO 3200 to get the image exposed "correctly" in camera, when you bring the exposure of that image up in post processing by the 2 stops needed to equal it being shot at ISO 3200, you will see the same noise and overall IQ you would have seen if the image was shot in camera at ISO 3200. Why would you choose to underexpose an image using a lower ISO; you do this because by shooting at a lower ISO and bringing the exposure up in post you gain some Dynamic Range and also some protection of any bright areas in the image from being blown out. If you don't need these DR and Highlight advantages then just shoot at the ISO needed to get the exposure "correct" in camera. Note: I use the Exposure slider in Lightroom Classic to adjust exposure and I am sure other software have a similar ability. On the subject of Auto ISO. Auto ISO will always try to get the exposure correct for you in camera based on the shutter speed and aperture you set, so the way to work auto ISO, given ISO invariance, to your advantage is to set the auto ISO range from 400 to 6400 and then dial in exposure compensation to underexpose the image to take advantage of the gain in DR and highlight protection. The camera will then set a lower ISO then it would have for a "correct" exposure gaining you the advantages in DR and highlight protection I have mentioned. I hope this makes some sense as I am not always good at explaining these types of things.
Excellent and very informative as usual Ron. Just love your videos - and following your praise I changed from EF100-400ii to the RF100-500 and love it. Keep ‘ em coming. Thanks
Hey, thanks so much David. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment.
Very informative!! Game changer actually. Thank you for bringing this up, Ron
Extremely helpful Ron. I live in a very cloudy overcast environment and I often struggle with available light. Rather than sacrifice shutter speed or over use ISO, I am all over saving the image in post. Thanks so much
This is the first time I get the clear explanation
Awesome, glad you got something valuable out of the video. thanks for taking the time to comment.
Wow. This will take some “unlearning” on my part. Like you, I had ingrained in my practices that, to avoid high ISO noise, the thing to do was to overexpose, and then compensate in post. Bringing up an underexposed image in post had always meant inviting unacceptable noise in the shadows. I’ll have to try this. Very useful information, especially for those of us who have the new slower lenses, such as the rf100-500. Thanks!
Wonderfully explained Ron, even a novice like me could understand pretty much. Thanks a lot, I feel more confident in underexposing my shots in low light situations now than ever before. Great video!!!👏👍👌
Interesting concept! A lot of pro wild photographers on you tube advocate to expose “to the right”. Their reasoning being that bringing up exposure in post production can increase ISO.
Very interesting. Could come in handy in rain forests.
Great info just bought a used R5 but also have the Nikon Z9, How do you enable ISO invariance or is it on by default?
It's a characteristic of the sensor on the camera so there is now way to actually control it.
Do you know of a way we can research other R series bodies for their ISO invariance? Specifically I’d be interested in learning more about the RP that I own.
You can do a Google search, but the Canon R5 has a new sensor tech in it, so I believe it is probably the first Canon camera to really show any ISO invariance. But, I could be wrong. I often am.
Google photonstophotos and check the Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime that is a horizontal flat line that is the ISO invariant range. If the graph is climbing that is not invariant and you are better off shooting the correct ISO in camera for your intended brightness.
This is helpful. Thank you!
Great info. Thank you...
Great video Ron. Really interesting again and something I didn't realise about the R5.
Thanks 👍
One question, there is a difference in the ISO invariance performance if you use the electronic shutter (12 bit raw) instead of mechanical shutter (14 bit raw)
Informative and thought provoking Ron, can't wait to experiment for birds in flight. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Very welcome
Indeed interesting. Did you use C-raw, or switched back to Raw.
interesting Ron, I've never heard of ISO invariance. thank you for the information. is this different then dynamic range? I love the snail kite picture.
Yes, it is different. ISO is about how the electrical signal coming off the image sensor is amplified. The higher the ISO setting the higher the amplification. Thus, ISO invariance is when this amplification can be achieved without, lets say, degrading that signal and thus causing additional noise or color aberrations. DR is the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture and the lowest brightness it can capture (which is typically when noise becomes more important than the signal - that is, a signal-to-noise ratio below 0 dB. So DR is about the sensors ability to capture light and ISO is about amplifying the signal coming off the sensor that the light produces.
Very interesting point. Based upon your demo though, I would keep it within 3 stops for underexposure. Actually 2 stops on the safe side. Thanks for the video.
How is the even possible? Great info Ron.
Thank you for this video explaining the ISO invariance in the R5. I read in DP Review that it was invariant between ISO 400 and 6400 but haven’t experimented with it intentionally but have found that my underexposed shots were still fine. It seems that with my RF 100-500 and an extender or my 809mm f/11, I can use a fast shutter speed, under expose a few stops and still get a good shot that wouldn’t have been possible with my old Mark IV.
I think this was part of the thinking with the R5 and the new slower glass that makes it all work.
Yep, I agree. I think the invariance still holds up pretty well even at ISO 12,800, but for me as a bird photographer don't have any experience going that high on ISO.
@@whistlingwingsphotography
Now there is no need, use the shutter speed you need and do the rest in post.
Great information! Could you clarify why you say this is invariant down to ISO 200? Could it just be that it's four stops anywhere within the exposure range instead of a particular ISO setting?
Empirically, the R5 is ISO invariant between 400 and 6400, the range of ISO I use. If you look at data regarding this on some of the websites that test cameras/sensors the R5 seems to show a dual gain type behavior; lower and up to 400 and then 400 on up to 6400. So, the invariance really is not 4 stops anywhere within the range in which you expose an image. It depends on where in the ISO range you are working how much you bring up the exposure. I am sure I did a poor job of expounding on this idea, but I gave it a go. Cheers. Ron
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for clearing this up. Admittedly it's not something that I have heard much about. Great info!
another interesting video Ron, this proves the point that it’s always best to under expose and play around in post production lifting shadows, I find that on dull days when I photograph Red Kites from mine that to get the under wing feather details the ISO really needed bumping up, which of course blows the sky out, but with my R6 it’s possible to do exactly as you’ve done and keep the ISO lower but use PP to get back the detail needed, this photography game with new technology really is a learning game continuously! cheers Terry 👍📷🦅
Thanks so much for watching, Terry. And for taking the time to comment. Yep, technology is awesome, but advances also require rethinking how we do things at times. I like the creative process involved.
Is the Canon R6 also iso invariant?
I have not tested the R6, but I believe it has the same sensor as the 1DxIII and so it probably is not. The Canon R5 has a new sensor and it may be the first to have ISO invariance.
Yes it is also invariant ISO 400 and up. Google photonstophotos and check the Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime that is a flat line that is the ISO invariant range for a camera. The 1DXII is also invariant from 1250 and up.
very informative!!!! thank you...
You're welcome!
Do you have any problem with focus with the darker screen??
I don't shoot much more than a stop or at the most 2 under most of the time, so I don't run into many issues. But, yes, if the image is too dark it can cause AF issues including my ability to see what the heck is going on focus-wise.
Most interesting. Definitely something I will experiment with. Particularly in situations where I am struggling to achieve a minimum shutter speed. I believe you use Topaz De Noise AI, have you noticed any difference in the end product when taking this underexposed lower ISO approach? Sincere thanks and keep up the great work. Jean-Louis
Can we assume the same ISO invariance applies to the R6?
Nope, I don't think so. The R5 has a newer sensor. The R6 has the same sensor as the 1DxIII if I am not mistaken. So, I don't think the R6 has the same ISO invariance. But, I may be wrong as I often am.
@@whistlingwingsphotography The sensor keeps surprising me with what it can do in the R6…. I’ll have to try and let you know!
Yes the R6 is also invariant. Google photonstophotos and look for their Shadow Improvement graph. Anytime the line is flat that is the invariant ISO range. The R6 is the same ISO 400 and up.
@@whistlingwingsphotography The R6 is invariant also. ISO 400 and up. See the Shadow Improvement graph at photonstophots
I did my own test with my R6 at ISO's 6400, 3200, 1600, 800, and 400. After importing the underexposed 400 ISO image into Lightroom and boosting the exposure slider 4 stops, I could discern no difference at all in noise level from the correctly exposed ISO 6400 image. Highlights were slightly strong in the underexposed image, but easily correctable with the sliders. Keep in mind that this test compared the most extreme limits-400 ISO vs. 6400 ISO-with only very slight difference in IQ. Seems to me that the R6 is ISO invariant.
So am I getting this correct?
Let's say I'm in AV mode.
Things are getting tricky, I don't have great light and running at about 300th of a second F6.5 and iso 1600.
These little birds I'm trying to shoot are jumping all over Gods creation and I need some more speed.
I can choose to shift the exposure compensation down a stop and a half, now I have around 700th of a second at iso 1600.
The image is underexposed by 1.5 stops but I needed to get the shutter speed up to get these little speedsters sharp.
The payoff is that I will get the same noise as increasing the iso in-camera to gain some speed but I now have the added bonus of saving the 1600 dynamic range value?
If this is correct using auto iso could be a thing of the past and I would simply go back to AV and use the exposure compensation like I used to years ago?
Nope. If you set a certain ISO and you underexpose by changing the shutter speed to a faster setting under exposing the image, you will have more noise in the image when you bring it up by however many stops you need to in post processing to to get to the exposure you want. With ISO invariance you need to be making adjustments in the ISO to underexpose. Basically, with the R5, if the exposure you want is achievable in camera by using an ISO between 400 and 6400 (the ISO range for which this camera is ISO invariant) at a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, say 1/500s, then shooting at any ISO between 400 and 6400 will give you the same IQ with the shutter speed of 1/500s and the same aperture. So, pick the ISO you use based on the scene [e.g., high dynamic range (lower ISO) or low (higher ISO)] . If the ISO you pick results in an under exposed image you bring it up in post to get to the exposure you would have shot it at in camera. By doing this, you don't get penalized in the IQ department, and you gained some DR and protection of any bright areas in the image. If you don't need these DR and Highlight advantages then just shoot at the ISO needed to get the exposure acceptable in camera. Auto ISO will always try to get the exposure correct for you in camera based on the shutter speed and aperture you set, so the way to work auto ISO, given ISO invariance, to your advantage is to set the auto ISO range from 400 to 6400 and then dial in exposure compensation to underexpose the image to take advantage of the gain in DR and highlight protection. The camera will then set a lower ISO then it would have for a "correct" exposure gaining you the advantages we have been discussing. I hope this makes some sense as I am not always good at explaining these types of things.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Good I understand.
I will give that a crack.
Very interesting Ron...not certain but I'm sure I've seen this by accident whereby I've suddenly seen a bird against a darker background and not had time to adjust ISO. Then in LR adjusting the exposure to suit and thinking that it doesn't look too bad afterall...
Yep, the Canon R5 sensor produces very forgiving files in this respect.
I'm just not buying it. I have found because of the great noise handling, shooting as far right as I'm comfortable with produces great images. I will try underexposing , just for grins. but feel like, as you said, it would be good for protecting detail in the highlights. Thanks for your insight, always glad to have another tool in the tool box!
Check out photons to photos graphs on the R5. The dynamic range graph on the R5 has a classic hitch at ISO 400 indicating that it is a dual gain sensor with one set of electronics optimized for ISO 100 and a second set of electronics/AD converters optimized for ISO 400. Thus, you will see the effect you are discussing in ranges, from ISO 100-320 and then ISO 400 and above, but there will be a distinct change at ISO 400. The linear portions of their graph indicate ISO invariant-like performance. Gone is the old school Canon flatten at low ISOs caused by high read noise (it is now lower than Sony) and also the waves caused by Canon actually only truly adding ISO in 1 stop increments (but then pull/pushing for ISO 1/3 stop increments in a second, likely post ADC, step). This was mostly true starting with the 5DIV, but the R5 is a big step in this type of performance.
Yep, agree with all this. Just too much info to put in a video, but thanks for adding all this to the conversation here in the Comments. Cheers. Ron
Again: very interesting. Thank you!
My pleasure!
Thanks, Ron good info
Any time!
Thanks for this video. I have been asking about this subject for years, but haven’t gotten a definitive answer until now.
As we know, most of the digital information is contained in the last two segments of the histogram. Does artificially
Increasing the exposure in post somehow retrieve that lost digital data? Absolutely love your videos. Thanks, Lew
Thing is you are not really artificially increasing the the exposure in post any more than you are by changing your ISO on your camera given changing the ISO is just changing the amplification of the signal coming off the sensor. Changing the exposure in post is also a post sensor manipulation of the signal/data. The two methods just use different algorithms to make the adjustment given one is Canon and one is say Adobe if you use LR or PS. How all this works is obviously fairly technical and beyond the scope of dealing with here. However, it is safe to say that Canon has changes their sensors to the point where read noise is now very low and thus much more can be done with the signal both pre- and post- ADC conversion.
great video Ron. In other words, back to the beginning of shooting pictures: shoot now, result later. That is in my opinion the biggest reason not to drastically underexpose. Maybe -1, maybe -2 Stops for security reasons and therefor have the screen on the cam a bit brighter then 'normal'. I need the immediate visual and control very often. Besides i trust the algorhythm of the R5 more then Lightroom (adobe in general) - LR is hardly able to proper render CR3 files (takes profiles from other companies). Ron it is s a very interesting video you made. But not a 'new' way to work for me and to change my workflow.. unless the R5 will have some internal way to show results as if..
I do agree. This ISO invariance stuff is really about shooting in low light situations when something much brighter might suddenly happen within a scene that you could not possible adjust for. It is nice to know you can underexpose some by dropping your ISO and not pay a huge pension in IQ in post. It does gain you a bit of security as you put it.
Use canons Software for importing RAW files
@@airb1976 good luck with your worflow.
@@arthur3038 Just import with canons DPP and save the RAW File Changes, after that you are free to use any other Software.
@@airb1976 we are getting of topic. For clarity: The problem i have working with ISO Invariance 'on purpose heavy underexposed' pictures in a ISO range between ISO 400 and .
Most of my commercial outdoor shooting I need to se results on my Camera Screen immed.. (In studio even on my mac).. eyes open? composition ok? expression ok? .. body fine? Things like that. If I stay below -2 Stops i can not see what i have before back in office. Missed a bird=bad.. missed something important shooting a group of 5 or 50 persons, real, real bad.
the only problem I see there is that if it's too dark, the autofocus may not be as accurate. It'd definitely work on a static bird though
Cranking up the ISO for a dark scene won't impact AF at all, since the light R5 sensor receives remains the same as ISO changes . AF performance depends on the amount of light lens and sensor receives . ISO impacts two things on mirrorless camera, #1 , how bright the image is on LCD or EVF, if the ISO is too low, you won't be able to see the image on LCD clearly, which potentially can impact MF, since you need the LCD or EVF to be bright enough to evaluate MF. #2, if the ISO is too high, less dynamic range left for highlight, you are risking blowing out the brighter part of the image. To sum it up. the choice of ISO with R5 has nothing to do with noise level or AF, but to strike a good balance between #1 and #2
I’m not following everything you’re saying, but it’s probably just my having less knowledge than you.
I shoot a 90 D and I shoot in manual and I shoot raw. I’ll let the iso float but I set a limit at 3200, because the noise above 3200 is not tolerable for me. So that means that in normal shutter speed and aperture I may wind up shooting an image “dark.“ The exposure is not what it should be. Boost the exposure in post. I’m in the habit of checking the light meter to make sure it’s not too dark. I can only bring it up about a half a stop in post without generating more noise.
I don’t think I have a program like you have. I guess you’re using Lightroom. I use Canon’s DPP, Affinity, and Luminar 4. I don’t know if they have a setting where I can just boost the iso in post. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding.
Let me try explaining this in text form. If you set a certain ISO and you underexpose by changing the shutter speed to a faster setting underexposing the image, you will have more noise in the image when you bring up the exposure in post processing by however many stops you need to to get the exposure. With ISO invariance you need to be making adjustments in the ISO. Basically, with the R5, if the exposure you want is achievable in camera by using an ISO between 400 and 6400 (the ISO range for which this camera is ISO invariant) at a shutter speed and aperture you can work with, then shooting at any ISO between 400 and 6400 will give you the same IQ (noise and color accuracy), after adjustment in post processing, you would have gotten if you shot the image at the ISO needed to get the image exposed "correctly" in camera (while keeping the shutter speed and aperture the same). For example, if you shoot at an ISO of 800 to underexpose an image and would have selected ISO 3200 to get the image exposed "correctly" in camera, when you bring the exposure of that image up in post processing by the 2 stops needed to equal it being shot at ISO 3200, you will see the same noise and overall IQ you would have seen if the image was shot in camera at ISO 3200. Why would you choose to underexpose an image using a lower ISO; you do this because by shooting at a lower ISO and bringing the exposure up in post you gain some Dynamic Range and also some protection of any bright areas in the image from being blown out. If you don't need these DR and Highlight advantages then just shoot at the ISO needed to get the exposure "correct" in camera.
Note: I use the Exposure slider in Lightroom Classic to adjust exposure and I am sure other software have a similar ability.
On the subject of Auto ISO. Auto ISO will always try to get the exposure correct for you in camera based on the shutter speed and aperture you set, so the way to work auto ISO, given ISO invariance, to your advantage is to set the auto ISO range from 400 to 6400 and then dial in exposure compensation to underexpose the image to take advantage of the gain in DR and highlight protection. The camera will then set a lower ISO then it would have for a "correct" exposure gaining you the advantages in DR and highlight protection I have mentioned. I hope this makes some sense as I am not always good at explaining these types of things.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you very much. I hope others will read.