Originally posted by noelpolar This is a seriously dummed down question (no offence meant
)
As an example.....in my own case.....for 95+% of what I do the shots are redundant hobbiest shots.....ie if I get the moment or not there is no real consequence......I can occasionally get great 300mm shots at silly low shutter speads (< say 1/50s.....if no subject movement)....for these shots I'll probally be on continous burst shooting and take a 5 or so shot burst using best available techniche.....
BUT for the must get shots..(the 5%)...for whatever reason......would I shoot <1/200 or so......
OR. accept a higher ISO..... or maybe less DoF? Or even have planned the shot better for more light (artificial or natural)? What do you reckon?
I think it just depends on the shot. Does accepting less DoF ruin the shot? do you need the shutter speed? I really think we should be thinking about the combination of shutter speed and aperture we want for a shot as a first priority (or at least one of these two). The ISO would be secondary and should come into play in terms of whether you think it's too high (and thus adjusting the aperture or shutter speed to make the shot) or whether you need to stick with your target parameter and let the ISO go up.
Personally, if you have a K5 or newer camera, I wouldn't worry much about ISO much. I wish I would have realized this a few years ago, but since getting the K3, I've been finding that I can get pretty acceptable shots (on print and even on screen) out to ISO 12800 and even occasionally higher. I went back and did the same with my K5 and realize I could have been shooting that way before too. I was too often compromising on my shutter speed and aperture to keep ISO down. Now I don't worry about it.
Consequently TAv is now my favored mode (or straight up M mode).