How has the Auto ISO setting worked out for everyone in low light? Doesn't that let the camera choose the best ISO for the lighting situation?

Michele,

I think this makes sense in theory. This is one of those settings that I may work myself into. I don't know what the down side to this would be. So many good features to take advantage of.

Mike - cute little girl, by the way - the ISO wouldn't have anything to do with a digital being blurry, as I understand this. The lens is the one that needs the light for focus in auto, not the recording of the pixels - isn't this true?

Jimmie using my trick while shooting people really doesn't work, unless you want just an idea. People move too much.

Congrats on the camera!

The ISO setting directly and proportionally affects the shutter speed. A shutter speed set too low will cause blur, a high SS will stop action. The longer the shutter is open the more time to record movement. You could think of it like this -- when the shutter is open you are recording like a movie camera for that instant in time.

I always use a 200 setting, I'd use 100 if it were an option when using flash. I still feel it's still an inability to focus when not enough light is present regardless of speed. In no way am I trying to speak as an expert, but even taking pictures of my artwork, I always get the best results when taking them outside on a bright day. Under lower light conditions, it will usually blur a tiny bit, just enough to bother me. I thought it was me accidently moving the camera, which is why I had brought up the use of a remote control due to the lack of a cable cord option. I always use a tripod, and I have a pretty light touch (I think I do). I will continue to experiment with the model light on my strobe.

Michele, not to keep pushing the issue, but while I was with my wife at the doctor's this morning, I was browsing thru a copy of Popular Photography. Nov. 2004. It had a brief article on white balance and digital cameras. It highly recommends using RAW files, or at least taking both RAW and JPEG. If you'd like, I could e-mail you a sample of two pics, one not touched and one with only white balance adjustments. The difference was made under five minutes. It gives the immediate impression that a warming filter was used. It would have taken me (you may be quicker if you're better at Photoshop) about fifteen minutes opening seperate windows and balancing each color individually. The auto adjust feature in Photoshop rarely gives me a good result. Anyhoo, let me know if you'd like to view the pics before spending the money on the software. They're about 5 megs each, but I'd have to get permission from the model first before sending.

Jimmie,

If you are shooting outdoors in shade (in what I would consider a normal sunlit day) there should be plenty of light to focus, even at the lowest ISO setting of 200.

Another thing that comes to mind is if the surface is not perpendicular to the direction of the lens. Auto focus has a hard time with these circumstances. I wouldn't think this would be the case while you were shooting art work.

You could try increasing the depth of field by putting the auto dial to landscape, but you shouldn't have to do this to get good focus. I would consult with your local camera shop expert. You may have something broke inside or need a tweek in some way.

Do you get an indication that you are "in focus" in your view finder? Is it only while using a flash that your results are bad?

Hi Jimmie,

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but have you tried increasing your depth of field, to say f8 or f11? For still models, I usually end up shooting on 400 ISO, ~f8, and hope for an exposure that isn't too long where model movement is a problem. I've had better results shooting artwork also at higher depth of fields vs. lower depth of fields.

I'd also be very interested in your results with raw files, as I've been shooting jpgs, mostly because I don't want to wait for the time it takes to write raw to memory. But I'd love to see the difference in image quality.

Holly

Jimmie, thanks for the offer of posting the RAW files. Don't go to too much trouble though.

I'm sorry, I guess I did'nt make myself too clear. It's the opposite, I get great results when using flash or sunlight. In lesser light, it will be out of focus although the camera will indicate that it is good. The last pics I took, I was using window sunlight, but thru white shades. I thought I'd have enough light, but obviously not. When I used a strobe flash on her daughter, the pics are extremely sharp, I mean extremely! Even with the model lighting, which is not as bright as the flash, I still get very good results. I thought either she could be moving a bit, or I'm pressing too hard causing the camera too move, but I don't think that's the case. I took pictures of the chair before she sat down and it was'nt as sharp as when using a brighter light. I'll try adjusting depth of field and see what happens.

I'll try posting small files of the pics, a small section of it as I'd rather have her permission before doing so. It'll be a small section of her shirt. I'll post them later.

Thanks.

Ok, I timed myself to two minutes to make adjustments. This was done by using the "cooler or warmer" option. It even shows you the temperature which is a nice feature. Then I adjusted the exposure, also done with a slide option. It may have actually been much less than two minutes, but I had to crop the pic first. It may not be a drastic change, but it looks better when it's not so small.