monochromeimages
Established
Until recently the big race in digital camera development was megapixels. Thankfully manufacturers and users seem to be realising that we now have enough pixels for most applications and more often means less quality due to increased noise, especially with small sensor cameras.
The new race appears to be high ISO performance with minimum noise. Now I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but I just wonder whether we are becoming a bit too obsessed with it. The manufacturers need something to ‘improve’ so that we will keep buying new gear. Are we being brainwashed and when is high ISO high enough ? I have read in posts on this forum that the choice between camera A and camera B was made based on (slightly) better high ISO quality. I just wonder how many of us really need or will regularly use very high ISO and how many just think we need it because we have, in effect, been told we do.
Another related thought is that night shots have always required slow shutters and wide apertures and this gives them a certain character – motion blur, shallow DOF, even slight camera shake. If we have and use super high ISOs we can almost turn night into day and these characteristics will largely disappear. Technically this may be a good thing but do we risk destroying the distinctive character of the night shots we seek to improve ?
I have no particularly strong feelings on the above (and no real need for very high ISO) but I was thinking about it and I though it might be an interesting topic for discussion.
The new race appears to be high ISO performance with minimum noise. Now I’m not saying that’s a bad thing but I just wonder whether we are becoming a bit too obsessed with it. The manufacturers need something to ‘improve’ so that we will keep buying new gear. Are we being brainwashed and when is high ISO high enough ? I have read in posts on this forum that the choice between camera A and camera B was made based on (slightly) better high ISO quality. I just wonder how many of us really need or will regularly use very high ISO and how many just think we need it because we have, in effect, been told we do.
Another related thought is that night shots have always required slow shutters and wide apertures and this gives them a certain character – motion blur, shallow DOF, even slight camera shake. If we have and use super high ISOs we can almost turn night into day and these characteristics will largely disappear. Technically this may be a good thing but do we risk destroying the distinctive character of the night shots we seek to improve ?
I have no particularly strong feelings on the above (and no real need for very high ISO) but I was thinking about it and I though it might be an interesting topic for discussion.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
High ISO is the only reason why I would ever consider digital at all. I was shooting the other day with my F6 and big 'ol 28-70 AF-S with 1600 Fuji color film when I suddenly could no longer hand hold it with confidence just when the light was at its finest. At that moment I seriously consider trading it toward a D700. My friend regularly shoots it at 3200 and I am pretty sure it is better than what I can get with 800 film.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
There's a reason: hobbyists don't have -normally- several fast prime lenses for their digital camera, so it's hard to shoot indoors or in low light with a 5.6 tele zoom unless you go for high ISOs.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The style of photography has changed a lot over the years IMO with an emphasis on less use of flash and more emphasis on available light. People brag about the performance of the D700 at very high ISO but from what I've seen of the files from mine it starts to get pretty noisy up around 6400 if you look closely ... but they're probably on a par with the 640 files I get from my M8 which is a notoriously poor performer admittedly!
I guess you're right ... now that the megapixel race is done and dusted the manufacturers need something else to upstage each other with ... what next after the ISO battle has topped out at 100,000+ I wonder?
Oh yeah ... get rid of that pesky mirror system and build EVF's that really, really work as well as an optical viewfinder!
I guess you're right ... now that the megapixel race is done and dusted the manufacturers need something else to upstage each other with ... what next after the ISO battle has topped out at 100,000+ I wonder?
Oh yeah ... get rid of that pesky mirror system and build EVF's that really, really work as well as an optical viewfinder!
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't think so. High ISO performance is high on my list. I was never a fan of grainy, fuzzy low-light stuff anyway, but had no option with film if it was really dark. If you've never shot 2475 Recording film, you have no idea what grain can be! Now ISO 6400 is a lark. If you like noise, there are plenty of older digitals out there at a good price.
Or, just buy Keith's M8.
Or, just buy Keith's M8.
sig
Well-known
I do not think so, new functionality that gives me the opportunity to shoot more is always good
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Why? You can always turn down the ISO and get as much motion blur, shallow DOF and camera shake as you like.
This is not like the megapixel race, there isn't a real tradeoff.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think so. High ISO performance is high on my list. I was never a fan of grainy, fuzzy low-light stuff anyway, but had no option with film if it was really dark. If you've never shot 2475 Recording film, you have no idea what grain can be! Now ISO 6400 is a lark. If you like noise, there are plenty of older digitals out there at a good price.
Or, just buy Keith's M8.
My little 'Flawed Fräulein' is not for sale sorry ... I'm sure I still have some use for her!
monochromeimages
Established
Granted - but I did say 'have AND USE super high ISOs'.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
This "race" is not new.
It's been around for the past 2-3 years.
I shoot a number of weddings a year digitally and this is something that's been a bit of a godsend for wedding photographers.
Gone are the days of dark halls and reasons to use big powerful strobes to light them.
The trade off is, of course, people forget what grain looks like.
People forget how bad high ISO colour film really was in the grain dept.
This is not just a thing that hobbyists (as Juan suggested) longed for with slow lenses.
Professionals like it (and wanted it) in order to stay even more competitive than they may already have been with each other.
That said, maybe Riccis would chime in (if he's not too busy), there's something to be said for old school grain - but nowadays it takes a certain (and educated) client to want it and ask for it.
Cheers,
Dave
It's been around for the past 2-3 years.
I shoot a number of weddings a year digitally and this is something that's been a bit of a godsend for wedding photographers.
Gone are the days of dark halls and reasons to use big powerful strobes to light them.
The trade off is, of course, people forget what grain looks like.
People forget how bad high ISO colour film really was in the grain dept.
This is not just a thing that hobbyists (as Juan suggested) longed for with slow lenses.
Professionals like it (and wanted it) in order to stay even more competitive than they may already have been with each other.
That said, maybe Riccis would chime in (if he's not too busy), there's something to be said for old school grain - but nowadays it takes a certain (and educated) client to want it and ask for it.
Cheers,
Dave
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yes, but that's like saying that by having and using colour film we lose the characteristics of black & white photography. I don't see how when you get option B in addition to option A it's somehow a loss because you're no longer restricted to option A.
I guess technically it might even be true, but practically it's completely meaningless - you can always continue to shoot in black & white or in low ISO if it is that particular look you're after.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There's a thread somewhere here on ISO 25,000 images from an M8. Give the poor M9 a break!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There's a thread somewhere here on ISO 25,000 images from an M8. Give the poor M9 a break!
So I guess that's achieved by a three stop underexposure at 2500 then process the crap out of it?
That must look nice ...NOT!
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
AAAARGH ... you said it again you masochist!
Remind me not to ever stand anywhere near you when that lightening bolt from Solms arrives to strike you down you heretic! :angel:
Arjay
Time Traveller
High ISOs as the new holy grail - I don't think so.
High ISOs as the new holy grail - I don't think so.
High ISOs as the new holy grail? This may look attractive at first sight, but when you look at the microstructure of high ISO shots, you might become disillusioned: High ISO shots have a tendency to provide reduced color saturation and image resolution, and often feature a microstructure that tends to look a little like a watercolor picture.
Practically all of today's advances in this area are due to better, more sophisticated firmware/software algorithms that aim at finding a better compromise between signal-to-noise ratios and image resolution.
Real advances on an image sensor level will only become apparent when backside imaging sensors will become available on a larger scale and for full 35mm format sensors. Such sensors will preserve the pixel numbers and chip formats of their predecessors, but will offer much larger photosite areas, because all ancillary circuitry and circuit traces will be located underneath the actual photosites, occupying less area between the light sensitive areas.
IMHO, high ISO performance with today's sensor technology is a somewhat less offensive, yet still a dumb marketing concept, as it exclusively relies on software/firmware, and not on sensor technology.
The real challenge is still aheaad of us: Contrast rendition. Today's digital sensors still offer some 2 EV less in contrast rendition as today's best film emulsions, and that's the landmark to beat in order for digital to better film.
High ISOs as the new holy grail - I don't think so.
High ISOs as the new holy grail? This may look attractive at first sight, but when you look at the microstructure of high ISO shots, you might become disillusioned: High ISO shots have a tendency to provide reduced color saturation and image resolution, and often feature a microstructure that tends to look a little like a watercolor picture.
Practically all of today's advances in this area are due to better, more sophisticated firmware/software algorithms that aim at finding a better compromise between signal-to-noise ratios and image resolution.
Real advances on an image sensor level will only become apparent when backside imaging sensors will become available on a larger scale and for full 35mm format sensors. Such sensors will preserve the pixel numbers and chip formats of their predecessors, but will offer much larger photosite areas, because all ancillary circuitry and circuit traces will be located underneath the actual photosites, occupying less area between the light sensitive areas.
IMHO, high ISO performance with today's sensor technology is a somewhat less offensive, yet still a dumb marketing concept, as it exclusively relies on software/firmware, and not on sensor technology.
The real challenge is still aheaad of us: Contrast rendition. Today's digital sensors still offer some 2 EV less in contrast rendition as today's best film emulsions, and that's the landmark to beat in order for digital to better film.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's nice -- as others have said, what do you lose? -- but it's not decisive for most people, most of the time, when they're actually taking pictures. Often, the very same people think it's decisive because they never take pictures, but read spec sheets and pixel peep.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"but when you look at the microstructure of high ISO shots,"
I never do that. I look at prints.
I never do that. I look at prints.
