/p/ — it’s so peak the best mode for street

>>4512846 (OP)
For me, it's P.

>>4512846 (OP)
I just stick with M, don't even bother with A anymore, would never use S in any situation

for me, it's Fv

>>4512846 (OP)
For me it's Auto
A when need close object in focus

I try sometimes for the sake of convenience, but I always go back to fully manual.

>>4512865
>tfw manual with auto ISO

>>4512846 (OP)
ight. next time I'm taking pictures of a street I'll try street mode.

>>4512865
manual with auto iso is usually the best. my camera doesnt have auto iso so I shoot A usually or M if im using TTL flash.

>shooting in M
>still using auto ISO
I would much rather switch back to a priority mode than let ISO control for exposure

>>4512860
Same.
Mostly because I just want to make sure S doesn't fuck around with my aperture settings. I'm find with it fucking around with ISO more.

>>4512879
Well if you're shooting in manual how else do you control exposure? You should primarily be shooting in Av (with auto ISO of course), if you also want to control the shutter speed to a greater extent then you switch to M. So if you're picking both the aperture and shutter speed that you need then the only thing left is ISO.

>>4512860
>>4512893
With newer bodies A is fine because it's focal length aware, so if you're using say a 135mm it won't do something stupid like go down to 1/50 but it will if you're using a 28mm, and if you're using a zoom it will adjust accordingly. And you can also adjust how far above or below the focal length the limit is, say if you're hands are particularly shaky or you're shooting stuff that moves. It makes shutter priority mode completely redundant and makes it so you shouldn't need to go into manual unless you want a shutter speed beyond the range that the auto ISO in A will choose or need it to be something exact and stay there.

>>4512879
Why not just cap auto ISO to acceptable level?

>>4512903
>With newer bodies A is fine because it's focal length aware
>you shouldn't need to go into manual unless you want a shutter speed beyond the range
Neither is really relevant for my reasoning to use M over A

>>4512902
You use aperture and shutter speed to control for exposure, just like they did in the film days. A + Auto ISO is fine for quick snapshots, but M is easy enough to use and can only lead to potentially better IQ.

>>4512906
I don't like using ISO to account for exposure, and a big point of M for me is not having automated exposure settings. Shooting with auto ISO made me lazy about getting the best possible exposure, and it's not worth taking an IQ hit for trivial convenience.

>>4512909
>Neither is really relevant for my reasoning to use M over A
Well unless you need a specific shutter speed or one above what the body would choose you can just use A and save yourself the hassle of having to remember and adjust when you change lenses.

Say you're using a 24-105mm and shooting static stuff so you can use as low a shutter speed as you want. If you're in M you're probably going to stick it at something like 1/125 and leave it there. If you use A, when you're zoomed right out the camera can drop that to 1/30 and you've then just gained 2 stops of ISO.

>You use aperture and shutter speed to control for exposure
Yes, but if you're shooting in M it's because you want to control both of those. If you have those both set to what you require how do you then ensure your exposure is correct? You adjust the ISO. If you're leaving your ISO at a single value because you want to emulate the film experience for some reason then you're going to be choosing your aperture first, chasing the meter and adjusting your shutter speed and essentially shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode.

Just because you're shooting in M and adjusting values until the meter reads correct instead of just letting the camera do it for you doesn't make you some sort of professional.

>>4512920
Use whatever mode gets you the shots you want, if A works for you, great!
>instead of just letting the camera do it for you
That's why I use M, to more easily override the camera because the camera isn't always perfect. Examples:
>series of family portraits at a wedding
You want things to look cohesive across a set of images, but priority modes might result in subtle differences in exposure thanks to differences in attire, irrelevant background stuff, hair & skin tone, etc. You then have to manually correct for each shift. Sticking with M ensures the same exposure for each shot, and should I need to make changes in post, it's much easier to do so to all at once.
>series of detail shots highlighting the atmosphere of a small shop or room
My goal is to make the room have a consistent feel, and I want to highlight the lighting. If the lighting isn't changing, neither are my settings. Priority modes will end up trying to expose for each shot separately, likely having differences in exposure, and losing that cohesion. It can be very noticeable when something like a door in the background has very different exposures, all because I pointed the camera at a different angle, same "subject", but different exposures. Same thinking can be applied to concert photography, you can expose for constantly changing light or keep exposure consistent and highlight all those lighting changes.
>snowy mountain on a sunny day
Apply the same logic of the room, to a snowy mountain. I can let priority modes attempt to expose me "properly", but I run the risk of snow clipping when it would otherwise not. With M, I can just ETTR based on the snow (or clouds) clipping, and leave it there until lighting changes, which could realistically be hours.

All of these can be controlled for by stuff like AE-locking, EC comp, metering type, etc, but I find M just easier than worrying about all that stuff.
Conceptually, I think of exposing for the "scene" instead of exposing for the "subject".

>>4512920
>If you have those both set to what you require how do you then ensure your exposure is correct?
This only really applies in one direction, because I can't expose lower than base ISO, but I never need to because that's fine for my fastest lenses in daylight without flash, but I can also use HSS, or ND filters to help there too. So assuming you mean what do I do when SS is at the absolute lowest usable and aperture can't change, but I need more? I raise to my 2nd stage ISO and leave it there, or raise to whatever 3rd ISO setting I've decided on a per camera bases (3200/6400/12500/etc). I would always rather shoot at ISO 100 and push 1 stop in post, than shoot auto ISO up to 200. With 200, you could run the risk of clipping thanks to the reduced dynamic range, where as sticking at 100 prevents that.

With auto ISO, aside from the exposure variance as described in other comment, you also can run into (very marginal) losses of IQ. You are right than A can be better than a lazy M shooter, but I see many people use A with a SS higher than necessary for every shot, which puts your ISO higher than it needs to be.
With dual stage ISO, you also have situations where auto ISO going to 320 might actually be worse than if it were to go to 400 instead.

One real situation where fully M is problematic, is with quick shooting between differently exposed areas, like a bridal party walking in from shade, but the altar is in sun and you want shots of both. Worst case, I could just switch to A and shoot like you. I could rely on tactile feel to shoot, turn dial x clicks, shoot, repeat. I could toggle from M to A and keep at least one of the two scenes consistently exposed. Maybe use memory recall to switch between 2 exposures quickly. In practice, I just have two cameras, and if I'm capturing two different scenes like that, it probably warrants different focal lengths.

I hope you can see M as more than simply "manually" chasing the needle.

>>4512939
To elaborate more on ISO, I just treat it the same way cine people do, tending to stick to certain specific ISO for maximum IQ.

>>4512938
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that going completely manual and locking your settings has no place, you were saying you only ever use M and that A has no place. There are many situations where lighting conditions are changing and exposure needs to be adjusted, if in those situations you're staying in M and just chasing the meter (not at least using auto ISO) then that's dumb. Most people that do this are under the impression that auto anything = bad and makes them not a real photographer. Although funnily many of them still use autofocus because focussing manually is a bit more difficult and they'd lose more shots to that.

>>4512939
You're misunderstanding. My question was, if you're shooting in M but don't control your exposure with ISO then what do you do once you've set your aperture and shutter speed? If you're just leaving it at base ISO and setting your aperture and then adjusting the shutter speed accordingly then you're just shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode, that's retarded.
>I see many people use A with a SS higher than necessary for every shot, which puts your ISO higher than it needs to be.
As I mentioned, this doesn't happen with a decent body with auto ISO that is focal length aware. If I put my camera in Av with my 135mm on then it won't go any faster than say 1/200 unless it hits base ISO. If I'm shooting something that is moving and want a faster speed I can set auto ISO to fast and it will target say 1/400, or I can set it even faster and it'll target 1/800. It will do what it is that you want, use the lowest ISO possible while still achieving a fast enough shutter speed.

It seems like a lot of people that shit on auto ISO don't actually understand how it works and how much control you can still have. It's not the same as putting your camera in green box mode and letting it make all the decisions.

>>4512951
>I'm not arguing that going completely manual and locking your settings has no place
Gad you acknowledge it as a valid reason to shoot M over A.
>There are many situations where lighting conditions are changing and exposure needs to be adjusted
What kind of situations are you shooting where it needs constant adjustment? I get to a new scene, find an exposure (or two) for the scene, and I'm good.
>in those situations you're staying in M and just chasing the meter
Again, a reason why I use M is to avoid chasing the meter. Priority modes are letting the camera chase the meter, that's not what I want.
> under the impression that auto anything = bad and makes them not a real photographer
These are just ways to get the camera to use certain numbers, its like having a math equation with several different routes to solve for it. Use whatever works best for you, for me, shooting M makes me less prone to errors in exposure. People should use whatever focus method gets them the shots they want, just like exposure mode.

>>4512952
>if you're shooting in M but don't control your exposure with ISO
If you're only using ISO to control your exposure, you could just leave it a lower ISO and control that exposure with a slider in post.
> then you're just shooting in a convoluted aperture priority mode
Just directly changing my exposure settings is a lot less convoluted than setting min/max's and having to use AE-lock, EC comp, etc. The difference with a priority mode is that it only changes exposure when I want to, not when the camera thinks I want to.
Take your camera and point it around a room, you will see the exposure change, even though the lighting isn't. Things are lit differently, but the camera wants an equal exposure for everything.
>As I mentioned, this doesn't happen with a decent body
That is a valid point, but you make it seem like focal length and/or IBIS are the only limiting factor for a minimum shutter speed. There are other times where your minimum effective shutter speed might change, regardless of focal length.
> use the lowest ISO possible while still achieving a fast enough shutter speed.
That's great, and I just do the same by setting the shutter speed I want at the lowest ISO. Then all my shots can be more consistent with each other, and I'm less likely to run into something like accidental clipping.

> It's not the same as putting your camera in green box mode and letting it make all the decisions.
No, but it is giving up potential marginal IQ gains in favor of convenience.

>>4512846 (OP)
For me, it's M with auto ISO.

File: AlikGriffin_Nikon_Z8_ISO_400vs500_Shadows.jpg (270 KB, 1200x960)

>>4512964
>>4512960
To elaborate some more with examples, this is the same exposure (shutter speed and aperture) for both. The Z8 is particularly noticable for something like ths. Say you're using auto ISO, but need to push shadows in post. In this case, ISO 500 is much better for pushing than 400 would be.

File: Screenshot_20260607-055403.png (540 KB, 1080x1784)

>>4513019
Here's someone far more technically knowledgeable than I am on the same topic
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100s-exposure-strategy/
and his simpler take on exposure (and ISO)
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/iso-setting-for-raw-files/

>>4513019
Both images are unusably bad

>>4513020
Isnt this the guy who said the z7 doesnt have worse noise than the z6 despite universal consensus being colors take a crap after iso 2800 on the z7? He might be colorblind. His actual photography is impressionist ken rockwell.

AFAIK a lot of older men tend to lose color vision over time

File: z6z7.jpg (1.31 MB, 2740x1187)

>>4513051
>Isnt this the guy who said the z7 doesnt have worse noise than the z6
You encouraged me to read his multiple posts on that topic, compiled what he said for anyone else that wants to see, thank you for the opportunity to further educate myself on the topic

>>4512846 (OP)
>tfw no psam camera
I'm still living in the 80s

>>4513232
>z7 obviously has more chroma issues even after literal mental gymnastics to make it “fair” (unrealistic comparison, nobody processes images like that) and a green channel only noise chart
>magenta tinted grey squares from trying to edit out the green tint
Yep. Another nikon L.

The Z7 and Z89 really have terrible color science.

>>4513232
>tiny bit more noise
>looks like almost twice as much
The DXOmark sports score does not lie.

>>4512847
what does pee do anyway I never figured that out

At least for digital cameras, M mode is consequence not an intention.

>Start with P
>i don't like the DOP so change the aperture
>Camera goes into A

>Start with P
>i want faster shutter speed so change the SS
>Camera goes into S

>Start with P
>i need to change the both
>Camera goes into M

I don't see the point for AE... well for most of what I shoot anyway. I want to set the aperture, because it affects the shot the most, imo. Then I use the shutter to choose exposure. Only if the exposure needs too long of a SS I'll use the ISO dial. Camera doesn't know how I want to expose the shot so I would be using the exposure comp dial anyway... So why not just use full manual? Effectively I'll just be turning one dial to choose exposure anyway.

File: Screenshot_20260609-054355.png (1.13 MB, 1080x1041)

Thank you guys for another learning opportunity
>>4513236
>mental gymnastics to make it “fair”
Could you elaborate on that? Equalizing for resolution or brightness? Or the extreme pushing?
>green channel only noise chart
DxO has several of there own charts comparing the two that look basically the same.
>>4513237
>The DXOmark sports score does not lie.
You know what the highest rated FF models for that are? R3, which is probably due to the built in NR, followed by the a7III. I found it odd the D800 and RP both have a higher sports score than the Z7, despite looking like this, but they would never lie so what do I know.

File: Untitled.png (434 KB, 648x316)

>>4513280
No one takes pics from their $1600-2000 pro camera, scales them down to 2mp, and applies gaussian blur. The z7 is meant for big prints and deep crops. Not being a z6 with sharper edges and even worse color science due to its worse noise.

Even after max mental gymnastics this is as close as it gets to the ff/apsc difference without making the sensor smaller, and its a blurred downscaled image. The noise might be mathematically close but this isnt /p/ - astronomical imaging and the worse chroma component makes it perfeptually ass.

The nikon z7 and z7ii are shitty cameras.
>dpreview screenshot
We all know they cheat on exposure and fuck with the lighting now. Dpreview is a useless amazon owned shill website staffed by amazon trannies that ban their forum members for talking about hardware and firmware issues with cameras. I saw a thread linked here where their mods had a meltdown and banned everyone for saying fuji’s autofocus was still inaccurate after a firmware update.
>sirs, this is lies and disinfo! you are hurting fujifilms sales sirs! this is amazon marketing website!

>>4513280
Isnt the dxo sports score the ISO where the noise level crosses a standard level, not how steeply it declines after that?

>>4513280
>equalizing cameras meant for different things is making it fair
No, it’s mental gymnastics that stinks of a subvert admission that someone bought a 45mp camera designed to shoot exclusively at ISO 64 and be a cope for studios that cant afford medium format expecting it to be a normal 35mm snapper. But to be fair, nikon pretended the 45mp sensor was general purpose.

Nikon remade this mistake 4 times with the z7, z7ii, z8, and z9 and still hasn’t fixed their open aperture focus except on the z8 and z9. No wonder they’re headed towards being the #4 brand. If fuji somehow fixes their autofocus it is over for nikon. They have no competitive pro and hobbyist cameras, no competitive consumer cropmeras (they’re worse than fuji, even), third rate tech, green skin and unnatural colors, and manufacturing quality worse than china’s. All they have is megapixels and sharpness.

>>4513305
>>4513301
Reads like an awful lot of cope to me nophoto

>i bought this high resolution camera and the ISO noise is really ugly. its basically iso 64-400. what a letdown. guess i’ll sell it and look elsewhere to do my big prints and deep crops. maybe the canon r5 will be better.
>UH NO IF YOU APPLY GAUSSIAN BLUR AND SCALE IT TO 2MP IT HAS THE SAME COMPUTER SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO AS…
Gearfags, especially nicucks, genuinely miss the point. Funny they were on the other side of this with d850 vs 5ds.

>>4513310

Spoken like a true gearfag. Sad.

>>4513312
Oh sure. So, why are you coping to defend nikons shitty cameras in a psam thread? Everyone knows the autofocus sucks, the build quality is randomly bad, the 45mps are noisy for their intended use, they dropped support for half their dslr lenses, etc…

Nikon sucks. (They always have in some way)
Just let it go.
If someone says nikon sucks don’t waste your time replying.
Is that hard for you?
How pointless is it to counter “z7 kinda noisy for ff” with “NOT WITH GAUSSIAN BLUR+EXPORT AT 2MP!”? Its totally irrelevant. Pointless. You’re just adding “nikons fanboys suck” to “nikon sucks”.

Please, take a deep breath. Say it with me…
>nikon cameras kinda suck
>not many people like them
>and that’s ok

>>4513315

Maybe you should take a breath. That was my first comment in the thread. The level of your gearfaggotry is insane and truly pathetic.

>>4513316
If you’re not the fanboy posting cope charts why even get mad and reply?

Just let people dislike shitty $2000 cameras anon. Nikon isnt going to pay you for this.

>>4513317

Not mad, but gearfaggotry is truly disgusting and pathetic. I don't use nikon either, but if I did the pictures would be great... Like on any modern camera.

>>4513323
>ugh, stop caring. stop asking questions. just give companies money. consoom.
very reddit opinion. on 4chan we hate 99.9% of products and have detailed reasons why. you may now buy a 5dII or if you’re smart, an eos 1v, and realize we’re right about modern cameras being shit. tootles!
>great photos from a modern camera
sure just edit the soul back in after correcting all the aliasing kek

>>4513326

Well, you keep gearfagging, I'll be taking photos. Toodles!

>>4513326

Btw I'm on my second digital camera body. Bought my first one back in 2008 and second in 2016. I think I may buy one this year too! Consoooom or what ever :D

>>4513328
Wow your mom let you buy a camera when you were 8?

>>4513317
>why even get mad and reply?
Why do you all the time?

>>4513344
oh look a nikek that thinks everyone who says nikon sucks is one guy

>shill nikon on /p/ for months
>now /p/ says nikon sucks
>HOW?
(Its cuz nikon sucks)