ISO 3.28 million, are you kidding me!

Pushing boundaries on these specialized cameras is a good thing, I see no good reason for it to "end" except maybe it would also bring an end to the "I don't need it" posts for every new camera release.
 
I can see the usefulness of high ISO photography for sports with long lenses, as Robert has said above. I do not anymore do such photography, though. I like to play with the available light outdoors and not indoors unless it is a portrait at a window, which allows me to take photos with most lenses and ISO 400 maybe.
 
I like the idea of being able to make an image without a flash in any lighting condition. Think about when Canon introduced the Digital Rebel, igniting millions of "film is better, no it isn't" threads on the Internet. That debate has been quiet for a long long time, although many, including myself, like film for aesthetic reasons. Back when I got the M8, I thought that the base ISO performance of that chip was equal to what I was getting with medium format film. Astonishing. I hope we see similar gains in dynamic range -- now that would really be something.

Consider too that if Nikon is setting this bar, you'll soon see the me-too's of the camera world offering similar capabilities. Our current cameras will one day seem like wet-plate negatives with an ISO of 6.
 
tsiklonaut said:
I better leave the astronomically high ISOs for the number supremacists...
Click to expand...

Right, like the sequence of images I got of elk rutting in full moonlight that were still a bit blurred at ISO 20,000 with a 1.4 lens. That was with a Nikon Z6 by the way and while AF had a hard time responding, MF in using the EVF in that high setting proved revolutionary for me in hitting focus in that low of light.

What blows me away more than clean high ISO is the narrow view of folks who lack the imagination in how it can be used to great effect.
 
KM-25 said:
What blows me away more than clean high ISO is the narrow view of folks who lack the imagination in how it can be used to great effect.
Click to expand...

When you only go out to photograph in bright sunlight, I can see why they would think that. I'm still stuck on about ISO 6400 being the top I have to use. I can completely use more... I like to photograph at 1/500th at least generally speaking due to my own internal shake and having to react quickly bringing the camera to my eye. I'd gladly take another 2-3 stops of clean high ISO than what I have.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Bragging rights?
Click to expand...

I am content with taking photos the way I like to do, and this happens to be possible quite well with ISO160~400 most of the time. It is an amazing technological achievement to have such high ISO possibilities for some special applications in quite a few areas that come to mind.
 
jsrockit said:
When you only go out to photograph in bright sunlight, I can see why they would think that. I'm still stuck on about ISO 6400 being the top I have to use. I can completely use more... I like to photograph at 1/500th at least generally speaking due to my own internal shake and having to react quickly bringing the camera to my eye. I'd gladly take another 2-3 stops of clean high ISO than what I have.
Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal for the intrepid thinker.

Be open, be curious and be ready for the ride of boldly going where no photographer has gone before...
 
KM-25 said:
What blows me away more than clean high ISO is the narrow view of folks who lack the imagination in how it can be used to great effect.
Click to expand...

Actually it was ment with a bit of irony and a decent dose of humor.

I am a big believer of technological progress. But ISO 3,280,000 is just not enough to take good enough pictures. I will wait a couple of months when Canon or Sony comes out with their new ISO 6,560,000 camera model so I will get 50% better pictures vs this Nikon, better if they make ISO 1,312,000,000 so I can be sure that I will make 100% better pictures than this advertised model. Must have well over 100Mpixels too, or I will be dissaponted in the photo quality since the competition is already there.

FYI, every night I need to photograph fireflies with a very long hand held telephoto lens at 1/32,000th shutter speed @ f16 in pitch dark with each fly's individual wing textures and eyes must be visible in 100% zoom, absolutely no noise allowed for perfect clarity. Nothing less will do.

It sure extends one's imagination and makes very practical sense in every way. :)
 
I think we are getting spoiled, back in the 1980s 3200 iso was a luxury and so grainy it was extra special purpose.

The highest speed film I occasionally used was HP 5 pushed to 1600 iso and Tri-x pushed to 800 iso and that was considered a big deal and was avoided if possible.
 
KM-25 said:
Right, like the sequence of images I got of elk rutting in full moonlight that were still a bit blurred at ISO 20,000 with a 1.4 lens. That was with a Nikon Z6 by the way and while AF had a hard time responding, MF in using the EVF in that high setting proved revolutionary for me in hitting focus in that low of light.

What blows me away more than clean high ISO is the narrow view of folks who lack the imagination in how it can be used to great effect.
Click to expand...

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16085/lot/130/
 
KM-25 said:
Right, like the sequence of images I got of elk rutting in full moonlight that were still a bit blurred at ISO 20,000 with a 1.4 lens. That was with a Nikon Z6 by the way and while AF had a hard time responding, MF in using the EVF in that high setting proved revolutionary for me in hitting focus in that low of light.

What blows me away more than clean high ISO is the narrow view of folks who lack the imagination in how it can be used to great effect.
Click to expand...

Usually all I wish to photograph is how a scene appears to my eyes. I do not wish to turn a night scene into a photograph that looks like it was taken at 2 in the afternoon.
Yes, for stopping fast motion, small stops for large DoF in poor light, etc., then I have been 'forced' to resort to high ISO (which looks like multi-colored confetti on my 5 year old camera). 'An' image is better than no image I guess.
And, handed this camera I could probably come up with use for the 3 million ISO.....maybe.
Maybe not. Just not much imagination I suppose.
 
tsiklonaut said:
How times change, before it was about megapixel numbers, now it's about ISO numbers?

Maybe I'm oldschool, but give me any ASA 100 film (which I'll develop around ASA 64-80 most of the time anyways so it's not a fixed number) and a tripod and I'm happy with that for decades to come.

I better leave the astronomically high ISOs for the number supremacists...
Click to expand...


I remember when ASA64 Kodachrome was considered fast. Somehow we managed to get great photographs under most light conditions.
 
Corran said:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16085/lot/130/
Click to expand...

Paul does great work and I still use 100-400 speed black and white films for my own silver gel prints too, different instrument for different tunes my friend. But I am really getting into some amazing imagery right now at ISO 10,000+ with fast glass.

These huge numbers are also a bit of a headline grabber too, we should be talking about what we are gaining in stops above 3200 which is a number that I feel can produce large prints in modern cameras.

So give me 4-5 stops above 3200 but with the same low noise and I will make images that will be pretty striking, especially in subdued mixed light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom