Why such High ISO?

Nothing to do with quality .. Everything to do with selling cameras

² spot on !

I wait until they have ISO 3.276.800 and up to. And hopefully they upgrade the shutterspeeds aswel, so I can shoot sooo fast that I can capture images of history into my camera.
 
The Nikon F Photomic of the 1960s meters went up to ASA 6400. Push-processing, push developing, grain big enough to count. One company went as far as installing lamps to pre-illuminate film to get it past threshold. Picked up two stops of sensitivity. "Need for Speed" is nothing new. Much of the gains of late are improvements in software and on-chip firmware. Improvements in base-ISO come mostly from reducing "dark-Current" on the chips, the amount of current the sensor generates without light hitting it. Basically, the noise floor.
 
Faster shutter speeds, smaller apertures, better handheld in low light, and basically because they can.
 
I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.

Kodak's 14-megapixel 14n or Pro 14n (one of those two) d-slr had user-selectable in-camera ISO values down to ISO 6. (Yes, ISO six). It also offered multi-format capture sizes. It was one of the early 24x36mm AKA "full-frame" d-slr cameras, back in the early 2000's. It was geared toward commercial photographers, and others for whom LOW ISO settings would prove useful.
I suspect that those ultra-low ISO values were "extended", and would be what Nikon would call "Lo-", as opposed to actual, calibrated, 100% genuine "ISO" values. But still...it would dial the sensitivity wayyyyyyyy down!!! Imagine--no need for ND filtration!!!
 
I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.

Kodak's 14-megapixel 14n or Pro 14n (one of those two) d-slr had user-selectable in-camera ISO values down to ISO 6. (Yes, ISO six). It also offered multi-format capture sizes. It was one of the early 24x36mm AKA "full-frame" d-slr cameras, back in the early 2000's. It was geared toward commercial photographers, and others for whom LOW ISO settings would prove useful.
I suspect that those ultra-low ISO values were "extended", and would be what Nikon would call "Lo-", as opposed to actual, calibrated, 100% genuine "ISO" values. But still...it would dial the sensitivity wayyyyyyyy down!!! Imagine--no need for ND filtration!!!

Hey Nikon! Canon! Sony! Pentax!

You listening to this?
 
I don't mind it so much, as was previously mentioned the quality of the low end keeps going up so my urge to go out and blow a grand on an L-series is sort of subdued by the fact that I don't need a f/1.4 to take decent shots in the dark, you know?

Though I would like to see more innovative technology or big changes I'm happy that at the very least they're improving something.
 
I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...
 
When I was a sophomore in high school the world's FIRST ASA 400 color print film hit the market!!! Woo-hoo!!! Within about five years, Fuji had introduced an ASA 1600 color print film, whioch had very big grain, but still, a nice "look". With digital sensors of the more-recent generation, digital noise levels have gone wayyyyyyyyy, wayyyyyyy down from where they were with the d-slr cameras of a decade ago. The overall performane of the better, newer sensors allow f/4 zoom lenses to function VERY well, even in marginal lighting conditions.

Pairing the newer, best-in-class sensors with the high-speed prime lenses of f/1.2 and f/1.4 and even f/1.8 aperture values, the boundaries of the really low, low-light photography have been expanded to a positively HUGE degree. These new, expanded ISO values of the last few years have brought us a simply HUGE advancement in what has become "usable light" in which to make pictures without bringing in artificial illumination.
 
I would have to say high ISO is useless for me, i do a few 1 minute or more long exposures at 100 with no problems, but anything even as fast as 1/125th at an ISO over 800 looks like crap...(that's on a 7D), the 40 was rubbish over 400...
When you get nicer, better performing cameras.. You'll really appreciate the high ISO range.
 
Why are companies pushing for such high ISO numbers? At what point would someone really use ISO 25,600? It seem so pointless to go so high as IQ will drop because of it. Is it just bragging rights at who can produce the better sensor? It seems the same as shutter speed, I can't think of when someone would use a shutter speed of 1/8000th.
-Hunt

1/8000th of a second will give you a very sharp photo of bird taken handheld with a large telephoto lens.

skieur
 
I, for one, would love to see single-digit ISOs in a DSLR.

Kodak's 14-megapixel 14n or Pro 14n (one of those two) d-slr had user-selectable in-camera ISO values down to ISO 6. (Yes, ISO six). It also offered multi-format capture sizes. It was one of the early 24x36mm AKA "full-frame" d-slr cameras, back in the early 2000's. It was geared toward commercial photographers, and others for whom LOW ISO settings would prove useful.
I suspect that those ultra-low ISO values were "extended", and would be what Nikon would call "Lo-", as opposed to actual, calibrated, 100% genuine "ISO" values. But still...it would dial the sensitivity wayyyyyyyy down!!! Imagine--no need for ND filtration!!!

Hey Nikon! Canon! Sony! Pentax!

You listening to this?

Well, Kodak's patents are all up for grabs now, so who knows...?
 
Nothing to do with quality .. Everything to do with selling cameras


I mostly disagree

With the D4 I have more detail at higher ISOs than with the D700 or 300. With the D4 I can photograph a night sports game at a high school with dim crappy lights and sell 3x the number of photos. Its mostly because I can keep twice as many shots due to, better exposure, less blur, and more detail. I routinely shoot manual at f2.8 or f4 and 1/500 or 1/750 at ISO 10,000.

Some camera manufacturers say they can go up to say... 25,000 ISO and it doesn't matter its still a crappy photo. Thats a sales ploy. Having a camera like the D4 or 1Dx that can shoot all day at 6400+ ISO is nice.
 
Why not? One day we will have ISO 25600 that looks as good as ISO 800 today.

If that happens then you wouldn't need ISO 25600 because ISO 800 would also look that much better. If it that dark out that you need that high of a ISO then focusing with todays focus screens wouldn't be easy right.
Well at least with my camera focusing is very hard in low light.

Kodak's 14-megapixel 14n or Pro 14n (one of those two) d-slr had user-selectable in-camera ISO values down to ISO 6. (Yes, ISO six). It also offered multi-format capture sizes. It was one of the early 24x36mm AKA "full-frame" d-slr cameras, back in the early 2000's. It was geared toward commercial photographers, and others for whom LOW ISO settings would prove useful.
I suspect that those ultra-low ISO values were "extended", and would be what Nikon would call "Lo-", as opposed to actual, calibrated, 100% genuine "ISO" values. But still...it would dial the sensitivity wayyyyyyyy down!!! Imagine--no need for ND filtration!!!

Hey Nikon! Canon! Sony! Pentax!

You listening to this?

Well, Kodak's patents are all up for grabs now, so who knows...?

From what I read about this case is that Apple, Google, and that Chinese company Huewei are the top three companies trying to buy them up. I don't remember seeing any camera companies in the mix. They would be smart to take notice if they aren't. I'm happy if Huawei walks away with nothing to be honest. Also what would Apple and Google do with camera and other photography tech? They don't make cameras(yet?).


RIP Kodak! I hope they can save themselves.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top