erik
Established
I like the way you think!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I recall how excited I was when the D3 was announced and Nikon had some sports promotional images at ISO 1600 with very low noise. Heaved a sigh of relief -- someone was listening! Those ISO 12800 shots give me the same feeling -- but I'm not upgrading. Got to get closer to the 300,000 shot MTBF on the D3's shutter first.
Ben
Ben
robklurfield
eclipse
At some point, almost anything can reach a point of overkill. 12800 ISO, hm? If Ford and Porsche came out with cars that produced 5,000bhp would you want or need one? Where would you drive them?
Eventually, if we're not there already, some "technical advances" will be meaningless in any practical sense.
What will you do with 12800 sensitivity? Take shots from the edge of a black hole's event horizon? Will you still need a Noctilux? If so, how high will it's price go?
Eventually, if we're not there already, some "technical advances" will be meaningless in any practical sense.
What will you do with 12800 sensitivity? Take shots from the edge of a black hole's event horizon? Will you still need a Noctilux? If so, how high will it's price go?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
with ISO 12,800, I can shoot football on badly lit high school football fields at night without flash! Can shoot indoors with DOF and high enough shutter speeds to not get blurry mush. Lot's of stuff!
Jamie123
Veteran
I think it's great and certainly useful. Anyone who thinks pushing the ISO barrier is ridiculous might remember that at one time ISO50 was "fast".
The only downside to this development is that one day we will no longer notice when we get photographed by a traffic camera because there will be no flash.
The only downside to this development is that one day we will no longer notice when we get photographed by a traffic camera because there will be no flash.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I think the D3s makes a m9 a very hard sell, considering it'll be cheaper than the m9. The only downside is the large form factor.
It's also worth pointing out that years ago ISO 1600 was considered overkill, and 6400, why would you even do that? Now ISO 12800 looks better than ISO 400 did a few years ago on high end dslr's, which is why we probably dont see a speed lower than 200. The improvements made in sensors are so great that the grainless look of an iso 50 film or iso 100 film can be attained at iso 200 or 400 on an expensive dslr. At this point in the game it makes more sense to add speed to the top end, rather than having slower speeds. The quality at 200 on a d3x/s is without a doubt amazing, the high shutter speeds will let you shoot wide open in most cases.
In my opinion the best thing about the d3s and it's 100k iso is that the lower speeds undoubtedly improve, and eventually these high speeds trickle down to lower models, so, in a couple years we'll have the new d40x (equivalent) that'll shoot at 25600 with acceptable results, while being 1/10th the size of the d3s.
It's also worth pointing out that years ago ISO 1600 was considered overkill, and 6400, why would you even do that? Now ISO 12800 looks better than ISO 400 did a few years ago on high end dslr's, which is why we probably dont see a speed lower than 200. The improvements made in sensors are so great that the grainless look of an iso 50 film or iso 100 film can be attained at iso 200 or 400 on an expensive dslr. At this point in the game it makes more sense to add speed to the top end, rather than having slower speeds. The quality at 200 on a d3x/s is without a doubt amazing, the high shutter speeds will let you shoot wide open in most cases.
In my opinion the best thing about the d3s and it's 100k iso is that the lower speeds undoubtedly improve, and eventually these high speeds trickle down to lower models, so, in a couple years we'll have the new d40x (equivalent) that'll shoot at 25600 with acceptable results, while being 1/10th the size of the d3s.
Matus
Well-known
that would make a great light meter for my 4x5 setup. When I come to think of it - it could second as a camera too
Ljós
Well-known
This for example: with a couple of friends recently, indoors, cozy but very dim lighting, EV 4 @ ISO 400 according to incident metering with Gossen Digisix. I had HP5+ in my M2 and a M-Rokkor 40 f2. So, I underexposed and took pictures mostly at f2 and 1/15th. (That's underexposing at 2 stops). I "pushed" to film a bit when developing, negs look usable. But: lots of motion blur from the friends just talking, moving etc. A number of pictures where more DOF would have been great, but it simply wasn't an option.
So, let's see what 12800 ISO could have done in this situation: that would have given me a comfortable f 2.8 @1/60th. You can quickly see that even ISO 12800 just gives you comfortable, but not luxurious DOF-choices. It doesn't take "shooting inside black holes" scenarios but very mundane photo occasions to see that higher and higher ISOs simply give more choice to any photographer.
I take pictures for my personal enjoyment, and while I follow the advancement of digital photography with great interest, I so love having a negative and using a camera that is almost 50 years old, that I am not tempted to buy a digital camera for myself. But I am in awe of the possibilities that have opened up.
That said, I still (for totally subjective and personal and emotional reasons that make "sense" to me
) sympathize with what some guy once wrote on Pnet (quoting from memory): Hell yes, I'll go digital the day I can soup my SD-card in ID11 1+1! (Make that HC-110 Dil. B for me )sojournerphoto
Veteran
Depending on how they've downsampled it that iso102400 image may be pretty rough actually. Likewise the 12800 and 6400 really both need to be seen as a print of sensible size not a downsampled screen image. Havind said that the full size images are very impressive.
Going back to the release of the D3 I think that the ice hockey shots were cheating a bit as there was lots of bright stuff, which doesn't tend to get noisy anyway.
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Whilst I agree about the flash point, this also requires good dynamic range, i.e. clean shadow detail that can be lifted in post to make appropriate prints. That will be interesting, as will the dynamic range at base iso.
Mike
sojournerphoto
Veteran
iso 200 is the base iso of the sensor. Any lower and the well fills and highlights get burnt in normal scene contrast. Canon's low iso (50) suffer from this reduce dynamic range.
I am interested in how they've done this - backlit sensor? what is the well capacity, 14 bit or more ADC... lots of questions about what it may pertend for next gen canons and digi rfs.
Mike
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
It has a few more tricks up its sleeve than just High ISO though. This is a neat one that seems to get ignored in these parts -
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/14/nikon-d3s-shows-its-high-iso-prowess-in-two-sample-videos/
And these are compressed and reduced to fit on youtube at that.
With so much information being transferred over the web, there is no reason to restrict oneself to still images as with print.
Not revolutionary - certainly other DSLRs have video, but combine it with the sensor, and the AF, gorgeous viewfinder, the weather-sealed rugged build, ridiculous battery life, a really large lens and accessory lineup and NPS and its not hard to see why this thing will have a lot of appeal.
What is nice is that they can keep the price the same, and sooner or later there will be a D700s that does most of what the D3s does for a fair bit less. Which in turn will probably push the price of the current D700 below the $2k mark new.
Sure it is an Evil SLR but the dark side isn't all bad :-D
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/14/nikon-d3s-shows-its-high-iso-prowess-in-two-sample-videos/
And these are compressed and reduced to fit on youtube at that.
With so much information being transferred over the web, there is no reason to restrict oneself to still images as with print.
Not revolutionary - certainly other DSLRs have video, but combine it with the sensor, and the AF, gorgeous viewfinder, the weather-sealed rugged build, ridiculous battery life, a really large lens and accessory lineup and NPS and its not hard to see why this thing will have a lot of appeal.
What is nice is that they can keep the price the same, and sooner or later there will be a D700s that does most of what the D3s does for a fair bit less. Which in turn will probably push the price of the current D700 below the $2k mark new.
Sure it is an Evil SLR but the dark side isn't all bad :-D
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
It's all about options
It's all about options
Ben Marks
It's all about options
This is interesting theoretically and, of course, if you stretch the point to an absurdity then the extra utility is of doubtful value. IMHO, we aren't there yet, though. I will be happy when I have my choice of f-stops in a dimly lit bar, on an urban street lit by street lamps, in crowd lit by the glow of fireworks, in the reflected light of a stage performance, in an intimate restaurant, at a romantic wedding lit by strings of hanging lights on a summer night, in a movie theater, in an underground parking garage . . . you get the idea. If humans are congregating and doing something, whatever the light levels, I'd like to be able to record it. And more importantly: to have creative choices about how I record it. ISO 5 million? bring it on. Oh, and can I have some dynamic range with that?
Ben Marks
sojournerphoto
Veteran
This for example: with a couple of friends recently, indoors, cozy but very dim lighting, EV 4 @ ISO 400 according to incident metering with Gossen Digisix. I had HP5+ in my M2 and a M-Rokkor 40 f2. So, I underexposed and took pictures mostly at f2 and 1/15th. (That's underexposing at 2 stops). I "pushed" to film a bit when developing, negs look usable. But: lots of motion blur from the friends just talking, moving etc. A number of pictures where more DOF would have been great, but it simply wasn't an option.
So, let's see what 12800 ISO could have done in this situation: that would have given me a comfortable f 2.8 @1/60th. You can quickly see that even ISO 12800 just gives you comfortable, but not luxurious DOF-choices. It doesn't take "shooting inside black holes" scenarios but very mundane photo occasions to see that higher and higher ISOs simply give more choice to any photographer.
I take pictures for my personal enjoyment, and while I follow the advancement of digital photography with great interest, I so love having a negative and using a camera that is almost 50 years old, that I am not tempted to buy a digital camera for myself. But I am in awe of the possibilities that have opened up.
That said, I still (for totally subjective and personal and emotional reasons that make "sense" to me
Fair cop - in spite of what I saif I habitually shoot at iso3200.
You can soup your SD cards in ID11 at whatever dilution you favour. It will probably not have any effect whatsoever...
Mike
Mephiloco
Well-known
SLR's don't work too good for video, imo, without throwing several thousand dollars worth of other equipment on them, also the D3s doesn't shoot at 120fps from what I've seen
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Event horizon's a good call actually - there is a limit as the light dims in terms of the number of available photons and there random arrival times. However, there are also some really wacky ideas out there that I am not even close to understanding, never mind being able to explain.
Mike
gavinlg
Veteran
I understand how people get funny about the high ISO abilities like this camera has, but I think if they actually used them in real life situations they would suddenly find out very very quickly just how useful it is.
Canon is releasing their 1d mk4 monday next week. Should be interesting to see what they do with that!
Canon is releasing their 1d mk4 monday next week. Should be interesting to see what they do with that!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Like I said maybe it's just me ... but I think a photo can tell you so much by what the technical limitations were when it was taken. A darkish photo tells me it was dark ... a little motion blur tells me something was moving ... the more blur, the faster I know it was moving!
Remove those limitations and sterilize it by all means ... into a perfecty exposed, noise free, grainless, razor sharp moment in time!
Don't get me wrong ... I think High ISO capability is great but to what point ... why does it need to top 12800 ... or 6400 for that matter?
Remove those limitations and sterilize it by all means ... into a perfecty exposed, noise free, grainless, razor sharp moment in time!
Don't get me wrong ... I think High ISO capability is great but to what point ... why does it need to top 12800 ... or 6400 for that matter?
Last edited:
Mephiloco
Well-known
A lot of people shoot at large apertures because they have to, not because of a stylistic choice. Higher ISO doesn't 'sterilize' photos. At one point ISO 400 was considered extremely fast, and before that, iso 50 was considered fast.
It's also worth pointing out that photography isn't accurate to what the human eye sees, and to maintain that photography is documentarian and about capturing an event as it happened is absurd. Having a higher iso merely allows more flexibility in terms of what kind of skew you want to put on an event. Something shot at f16 at 1/15th of a second would still have the blur a shot at f1.5 would have at 1/15th, but there would be a greater seperation between the blurred object and the stationary background, as opposed to having a blurry foreground and a blurry background due to the depth of field. Having a higher ISO affords you the luxury of choosing which way you want it as well as opening avenues previously unavailable, such as shooting the subject at 1/1000th at f1.5 and having no motion blur.
swoop
Well-known
I think the high ISO race is a lot more practical than the megapixel race.