Why such High ISO?

[Solarflare]

Hu !

Funny, a thread over 5 pages about the trivial question why people need higher ISOs in their cameras.

Because they had always needed it, but only recently it finally actually got available ?

I have no issue to hit HI.2 on my camera in reallife situations. Just try to shoot sports with a 55mm f/4 lens and you're there very quickly.

Or not even that. For example, try to shoot indoors with anything. Very quickly light can get really low and you will want to get a f/0.7 lens.

Thats one of the main reasons why I am thinking of getting the D600 or D800E, after all. Much better High ISO performance, and availability of lots of bright prime lenses.

 

[zaroba]

They keep pushing for higher numbers for the same reason computer equipment keeps getting better. Because they can and because people will buy it.

Technology wont stop advancing just because something doesn't seem to be needed. Like computers, hardware is so far more advanced then software that a computer that was top of the line 3 years ago can still play the newest games at acceptable frame rates. I remember 20 years ago talking with friends in school about what it would be like to have a 1gb hard drive and not being able to fathom what could be done with all that space. Now I am sitting on over 15TB of hard drive space and there are 3TB hard drives on the market.

And fifty years from now the cameras that are around will make today's cameras look like the cameras from fifty years ago. Probably in less time given how fast technology is advancing at an ever increasing pace.
Eventually we will leave Megapixels and get into Gigapixels.
How about a camera that takes 3d holographic photos? (without the need for multiple lenses or cameras)

 

[Garbz]

Like computers, hardware is so far more advanced then software that a computer that was top of the line 3 years ago can still play the newest games at acceptable frame rates.

False example. Games development stagnated as creators started targeting consoles. Now several years later the console hardware is still old and crap so any game that won't run on a console will ultimately cause a loss in sales. Hence the difference between the quality of console games and computer games is limited to software tweaks which can be turned on and off like hardware tessellation, post effects, shadow details, FSAA and screen resolution. Actual developments which would make computer games look better like a dramatic increase polycount, improved reflection rendering etc don't happen for all except a few key games.

And good luck playing a game like Farcry 3 (which intentionally butchers graphics on consoles to look good on PCs) on 3 year old hardware.

 

[zaroba]

False example. Games development stagnated as creators started targeting consoles. Now several years later the console hardware is still old and crap so any game that won't run on a console will ultimately cause a loss in sales.

Makes sense.
And a much better explanation then my assumption was.

And good luck playing a game like Farcry 3 (which intentionally butchers graphics on consoles to look good on PCs) on 3 year old hardware.

Sorry, I would have to disagree with this, I mean, look at the requirements for the game.
Minimum requirements for FarCry 3 is a core2duo with 2gb of ram and a 512mb 8800gtx - all of which were available 5 years ago.
A system containing a core i3 with 8gb of ram and a 1280mb gtx 470 could be made 3 years ago and actually just about meets the recommended system requirements for the game.

It all depends on how well and clean you run your pc.
If I still had my old 640mb 8800gts, I could test farcry 3 on a core2duo system, but it finally died last summer after running great for 6 years.

 

[raaskohx10]

High ISO and no noise (just like human eye). That's what we want but ofcourse that is a big challenge for all camera and lens manufacturers. May be they achieve that in the year 3013.

 

[Garbz]

Sorry, I would have to disagree with this, I mean, look at the requirements for the game.
Minimum requirements for FarCry 3 is a core2duo with 2gb of ram and a 512mb 8800gtx - all of which were available 5 years ago.
A system containing a core i3 with 8gb of ram and a 1280mb gtx 470 could be made 3 years ago and actually just about meets the recommended system requirements for the game.

It all depends on how well and clean you run your pc.
If I still had my old 640mb 8800gts, I could test farcry 3 on a core2duo system, but it finally died last summer after running great for 6 years.

This ties into the "intentionally butchers" comment I made before. The Crytec engine scales REALLY far between old hardware and new hardware. Hell there's is a massive difference simply running Farcry 2 in Windows 7 and Windows XP due to DirectX 11 support. You CAN run FarCry on the minimum system but I think you'd be mad. I have a pretty good computer, all components less than 2 years old and it's definitely not the cheapest available at the time. They are better than the "recommended" components (quad core, 1GB vid ram, 4gb RAM) except for my RAM but have 16GB vs 4GB won't make a difference. Anyway on my better than recommended setup I run it with half the settings on high, and half the settings on medium to get acceptable frame rates and I'm not running at the correct native resolution of my screen either. MSAA is turned off too.

Putting everything on low and you won't even get basic reflections or refractions on water, something the Source engine introduced to great fanfare in 2004. It's playable but it looks bad. Back in 2004 games relied on carefully placed textures to create the illusion of shadows and tone. These days if you turn off dynamic lighting and shadows you're in for one visually dull gaming experience.

Sidenote:
Kind of reminds me back when we had competitions to see who could get the highest frame rate in Quake 3. Turning off ALL light sources and removing ALL textures made for a very weird looking game.

 

[CCericola]

Because high ISO is cool. You want to be cool don't you?

 

[chuckdee]

High ISO and no noise (just like human eye). That's what we want but ofcourse that is a big challenge for all camera and lens manufacturers. May be they achieve that in the year 3013.

Naw....it will come sooner than that.....I hope.



____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain." - Helmut Newton