Are we becoming too obsessed with high ISO performance ?

I much prefer that camera manufacturers distinguish their cameras by high ISO and extended dynamic range performance than having more megapixels than their competitors. The cameras that do well at high ISOs also tend to have a great dynamic range at lower ISOs so we all win.

Not that I don't want a M9 too but I was surprised it didn't offer a little more on the high ISO side of the trade-off between speed and megapixels. I guess they must figure than M9 users are more experienced and steady photographers who also buy faster lenses.

Now if we could get them to dump all this video crap and make cameras with an interface as clean as the Leica's....
 
IMHO this is not either or. Film has its beauty, and its pleasures.
The best of the digital cameras pushes the envelope though.
A D3 looks like Tri-X in XTOL at 2500 ISO. At 6400 it looks better than TMAX 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in XTOL. At 10240 ISO there is noise alright, but you can bring home a BW picture thats somewhat decent.
You can forget most Bokeh and depth of field issues an shoot at f/4 or lower at 1/60 of a second at light levels where you would barely see traces of silver on the Tri-X.
This aside though; Spring and Summer is coming and there will be enough light to enjoy using film.
 
One thing that can't be denied about the M9 is the extra stop or more you gain by being able to hand hold at much lower shutter speeds. Add that capability to the D700/5DII recipe and you should be able to get an image inside a cow! :D
 
Frank Petronio said:
Not that I don't want a M9 too but I was surprised it didn't offer a little more on the high ISO side of the trade-off between speed and megapixels. I guess they must figure than M9 users are more experienced and steady photographers who also buy faster lenses.
Click to expand...

Frank,

The problem, as I see it, with the M8/M9 is the sensor's producer (i.e. Kodak).

Look at the companies currently giving you "relatively clean" high ISO images; Canon & Nikon (don't know about Sony, Pentax and/or Olympus) - the sensors (in Canon's case), and the noise-reduction programming/algorithms are developed in house (to the best of my knowledge).

Leica is not big enough to be able to do all that effectively.
Sony would have been the only company that Leica would have gone to to acquire a decent sensor chip. I don't know why Sony & Leica wouldn't jump into bed together but perhaps it could have something to do with Sony's "Zeiss" branded lenses?

Instead, Leica went to Kodak for its sensors - while not bad, it's not the best choice.

So if there are any complaints about the M8/M8.2/M9 sensor's lack of clean high ISO imagery, one should look at the sensor (and any NR programming that goes on in the processing of the image).

Cheers,
Dave
 
monochromeimages said:
Are we becoming too obsessed with high ISO performance ?
Click to expand...

I think there will always be a desire to photograph what we can see. People can see in pretty dim conditions, even moonlight.

I leave my camera on auto-ISO all the time, and I'm surprised that even daytime scenes can require an unexpectedly high ISO setting. For example, this was at 1600 ISO on a D40x:

playwater-dsc_8829.jpg

(ISO 1600, 1/80 sec, f 4.5)

This image is pretty grainy when you pixel-peep (not that I've ever done that :) ). It would be nice if my 1600 ISO images had the quality of 100 ISO images. I hope the ISO war continues for a long time! :angel:
 
Last edited:
Blue faces

Blue faces

Those are great pictures in the casino, but I think most brides are going to want most of the pictures of their dresses and their faces to have a bit more realist color - leading to the use of flash for for of the non-church, non-dancing-at-the-reception shots. If you're back using flash, who cares what the ISO is?
 
KenR said:
Those are great pictures in the casino, but I think most brides are going to want most of the pictures of their dresses and their faces to have a bit more realist color - leading to the use of flash for for of the non-church, non-dancing-at-the-reception shots. If you're back using flash, who cares what the ISO is?
Click to expand...

I have a friend who uses flash indoors with his D700 even though it probably could handle the low light. He said he didn't like how it handled white balance of some indoor lighting. Probably needs to do some adjusting.
 
KenR said:
Those are great pictures in the casino, but I think most brides are going to want most of the pictures of their dresses and their faces to have a bit more realist color - leading to the use of flash for for of the non-church, non-dancing-at-the-reception shots. If you're back using flash, who cares what the ISO is?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. At least flash is a controlled light source. Natural/existing/ambient light can sometimes get pretty wild. The casino shots are a good example. As nice as those shots are, I wouldn't necessarily consider them flattering to the subjects. High ISO cameras as with high ISO color film can pick up a lot of different light. I know a guy who has the D700 and he swears that when shooting in low light situations at high ISO, the camera creates its own light. He'll find "light" in his images that he didn't see when he took the shot!


/
 
in low light, when i had a D3 and was covering events, i always converted to B&W. i really didn't like the bright reds and blues that just seemed 'too bright' in the images. now I find that Neopan 1600 and using slow shutterspeeds I can generally get nice enough images if I do happen to shoot something in low light, and once printed those prints just seem to have more atmosphere. i never was a fan of that plastic clean look, each to their own though. naturally.
 
TWoK said:
I don't care for flattery. If you think film does a good job with different lighting situations that's because your labs scans were corrected. Film certainly does a WORSE job in strange lighting situations and often has an uncorrectable, at least my my mediocre post-processing skills, color palette. In daylight/sunlight film is glorious, but in my minimal experience at night or in low light you can really get some odd colors which don't look appealing or natural to me.
Click to expand...

Well of course, you're not concerned with flattery. You're not shooting a wedding here. :D And, I don't think film does a good/better job with different lighting situations. High ISO film is just as wacky in similar lighting conditions. My point: for the most part, existing/ambient light with multiple sources can be uncontrollable, while flash can be very controllable and predictable and more flattering for wedding photos. Btw, I shoot and scan my own film, and I'm scrimping and saving for a D700, so you're preaching to the choir. :D

/
 
RayPA said:
I had never shot with a VR lens, and then I shot with a buddies Nikon 70-300 VRII--pretty impressive to see the VR work. It easily can get you an extra stop or two.
Click to expand...

I love VR. Be mindful that it works it's miracles on photographer movement, and not subject movement though.
 
From what I understand, using a Sony sensor in the M9 was a non starter. In this case, the hardware is the reason why images shot at 2500 can't keep up with Canon and esp Nikon. The stuff I've shot at 2500 would be comparable to maybe 6400. I don't blink when shooting 3200 on the D3 but 2500 on the M9 doesn't give me the same warm and fuzzies.

Kodak sensors in and of themselves aren't that bad since they're what you'll find in imagers used in astrophotography and those players would laugh at us complaining about the price of the M9.

If Leica can jump the hi iso and the inadequate internal memory=poor buffer hurdles, the M9 would be beyond killer. That and move the baseplate lock knob back to the left side where it should be ;)
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
I love VR. Be mindful that it works it's miracles on photographer movement, and not subject movement though.
Click to expand...

Yeah! I was hand holding at 300mm and watching my subject bounce around in the VF, because I happen to a human being with a breathing pattern, nervous energy, and a heart beat. Half-press the shutter and I could see the bounce diminish until there was none at all. Rock steady. Instant tripod. Very cool, really.


/
 
Nah - better high ISO performance is something that's useful. Megapixels? Not really. It's just a number - often meaningless. Take a look at TWok-san's pics. They're excellent. I'll take all the high ISO performance, all I can get - film or digital. Don't care about the megapixel count nearly as much.
 
RayPA said:
The casino shots are a good example. As nice as those shots are, I wouldn't necessarily consider them flattering to the subjects. High ISO cameras as with high ISO color film can pick up a lot of different light. I know a guy who has the D700 and he swears that when shooting in low light situations at high ISO, the camera creates its own light. He'll find "light" in his images that he didn't see when he took the shot!
/
Click to expand...

However, to shoot this with color film you would either need a filter to correct color balance and lose much needed stops - now your 1600 speed film is back to 400 speed film... (I don't do low light color - black and white only, and this is part of the reason...) - or you would live with a harsh and totally unnatural color cast. The ability to set white balance in-camera is a digital advantage in low light - like it or not. It does a better job precisely adjusting for color temps, rather than having a one size fits all color temps (regardless of setting) filter - and you don't lose stops due to the filter. Pictures like the casino pics would look much worse under most circumstances using color film and would likely be either blurrier due to motion blur from being forced to use longer shutter speeds due to the loss of light using a temp correction filter - 80A as I recall, with a two stop (I think) filter factor. 1600 speed film is now 400 speed film. Good chance you wouldn't have enough light @ 400 ISO to even take those pics if you want them somewhat color corrected... or you do without the filter, regain the stops, and live with a harsh color cast that's sure to be way, way worse than the completely acceptable pictures posted at the casino.
 
Last edited:
I don't like to worry about it, personally.
I love the work of old masters like W. Eugene Smith and Robert Capa. If they did it with slow films, by today's standards, exposed a stop or two under to get a dimly lit scene with a handheld camera (and those extra stops not even giving them 400 ISO) then I feel I should try to do the same. No I'm not putting myself in that league of photographer, but I can aspire to work towards it. I usually have nothing higher than 400 in my M4 and the M8 doesn't ever go above 640. That extra stop still is spoiling me and my technique I think though.
I think with the availability of ISO 25000 on the DSLR's some photographers are becoming a bit spoiled with the evening light now being more tack sharp, motion frozen better. The mystery of night is disappearing with the very high ISO sensors. Yeah, it's convenient but how much further are we from point & click then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom