ISO 3200 is sooooo 2006!

K

kevin m

Veteran
Local time
11:49 AM
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
2,208
Images from Nikon's new D3 are starting to pop up on the web. I've attached a link to the blog of a wedding photographer on the DWF (Digital Wedding Forum) who's posted some example pics from the D3, including some available light shots at iso 25,000.

I still can't quite wrap my head around a five-digit iso number yet. :D

I'm crossing my fingers that this sensor technology will (eventually...?) makes it's way to the RF world.

http://coreymcnabb.blogspot.com/
 
Man, I can't wait for ISO 9,999,999,999,123 in 2012! Combine that to filming whole events at 76 FPS and being able to print 4x6 images from 8,654,345 MegaPixel files!

Ned "the Fanboy" photographer.
 
The D3 looks impressive but I've been thinking lately that better ISO performance in digi doesn't really equate to the same kind of gains in film, eg strictly more sensitivity. Digi grain / noise in horrible, even in very moderate amounts. I love the look of 1600ISO colour neg film, for me it's not in the least bit offencive. Moybe the progress in CMOS technology is more about keeping a consistant quality of output at all "normal" speeds than it is taking photos in the pitch black. Having said that, as technology progresses it will indeed open up new doors of opportunity.
 
Digi grain / noise in horrible, even in very moderate amounts.
Click to expand...

I think that depends. Chroma noise looks like hell, but luminance noise, as in the Nikon sensors to date, tends to look more like film grain, I think, but much less obtrusive.
 
For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up :rolleyes:
 
Ben Z said:
For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Blasphemy! Don't you want to help the economy, do your part as a patriot?
 
MikeL said:
Blasphemy! Don't you want to help the economy, do your part as a patriot?
Click to expand...

I wish. There isn't a whole lot I can buy that's still made in the US, and even the bulk of my tax dollars appears to be ending up overseas :bang:
 
It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up
Click to expand...

I never use this word, but.....whatever!

If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it.

It's an exciting technological development in photography, but you can't get excited about it because the wrong brand name's on the front of the camera...:confused:
 
Kevin

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

"If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it." - Kevin

You keep saying this, but what about people who like using film as well as digital?
I have 6 dslr's including a Canon 1Ds Mark II and 6 slr 35mm film cameras and one Leica 35mm Rangefinder and one Crown Graphic 4x6 film camera. My Leica M5 and 50 Summilux first version just produced this week one of my favorite photographs.

I repeat: My Leica M5 and 50 Summilux first version just produced this week one of my favorite photographs.

Oh and I was at ISO 400 indoors!!
 
Last edited:
Ben Z said:
For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I could have used a cleaner 6400 iso for a gig I shot last weekend. I was shooting at 1.4 @ 3200 and the shutter was barely fast enough. I'm a hack as well.
 
Hi Peter, I'm still using film. I think my Nikon scanner is where my digital dollars should go for now, because I love the look of scanned chromogenic B&W. That, and I still prefer to shoot "full frame."

But shooting in really low light was part of the appeal of the M system to me, so I can't help but get excited about this. :D
 
ErikFive said:
It is impressive that Nikon had done this btw, but why do I need 25000iso? Just to run around with my f:5.6 kit lens and take pictures in complete darkness? :)
Click to expand...

I don't understand the mentality of questioning useful technology that is given to you.

A picture taken at 25000iso f:5.6 will have greater DOF than a picture taken at f:1.0. How can anyone say this is not useful?
 
kevin m said:
If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. Just like I didn't stand in line to buy an M8, Xbox360, iPhone, etc. Guess I'm just really missing out here. Or maybe my technological world stopped developing in oh, what, 2005? :rolleyes:

- John
 
ErikFive said:
Everyone will turn their head away when you point it at them anyway so you cant use it the way you use a Rf. Its like pointing a bazooka to someone ´s head and not expect them to react.
Click to expand...

Did anyone notice the lens they put on the D3 versus the D300 on their site? I guess size sells....or it's like wearing vertical stripes.

Nikon announcements
 
I'm crossing my fingers that this sensor technology will (eventually...?) makes it's way to the RF world.
Click to expand...

I will be more excited when it gets into the sub $1,000 DSLR world so I can afford it.
 
I'm Impressed

I'm Impressed

BUT, ISO 1600 looks to be the legit limit of the Nikon.
1600 film isn't that bad although it can be trying to scan. It doesn't have the latitude slower negative films have, but it nowhere as critical as shooting transparencies.

In my world fast primes make up for slow zooms and 1600 is just fine. Smaller cameras are always better too.

My doctor is a camera nut and he's buying one of those D3s (I've already heard all about it) and I don't look forward to my next visit. I don't think he will be impressed with my new film scanner. Too bad.
 
I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the M8.

Unless there's an implication that's already implicitly sanctioned by the moderators?...

Hmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom