ISO 3200 is sooooo 2006!

[Peter55]

Hi Kevin

Hi Kevin

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.

I used to think like that, but someone pointed out to me the colors just are not the same in really low light. That's when I purchased my first flash system for events.

I still use my M5 and 50mm f/1.4 and ISO 400 film to shoot in really low light. But this is going to give me a "mood". I would think shooting with the D3 at ISO 25000 would give me boosted image brightness and I believe I would not get the "mood" of the Leica and ISO 400 film and f/1/4 or the colors that I would with flash on my DSLR/SLR's.

I would think ISO 25,000 will have other uses and I would gladly use it.

 

[photogdave]

Shouldnt this be in the evil slr´s forum. Its still not a RF so I really dont see why it matter to compare it with the M8. 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. High iso is great and I use Dslr´s myself and I love low light shooting, but people doesnt go in defense mode as soon as you point a rf at them.

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?

If you're shooting low light portraits, weddings or events, the people already know there is a camera being pointed at them, and have probably paid the photographer to do so. Not everyone shoots only candids in low light!

 

[kevin m]

Sorry for putting this in the M8 forum, but it was the only "digital" entry I saw. Perhaps "evil SLR's" would have been better.

I'm not knocking anybody's choice of camera; if you've got an M8 and you're happy, then I am, too. But I do like the flexibility useable high iso allows, and I do think it'll rock the RF world if it ever arrives.

 

[Riccis]

I'm a hack as well.

Nahh, you are a cool dude

 

[alien8]

I think these kinds of developments should clearly be judged from the viewpoint of the intentions of the photographer. Obviously a wedding photographer is likely to be trying to produce clear and pleasing images for her clients. One could say similar things about other domains of photography (news gathering, corporate/industrial, etc.) But for those looking to capture the essence of a some kind of human experince, then perhaps the technology can actually be inhibiting.

For example, this week I took borrowed a book of Daido Moriyama's photos from the library. Super high contrast, little if any shadow detail, the majority of them shot in low light situations. For me and I suspect many others these kinds of photos do a way better job of conveying of the feeling of darkness and night that we all know. I can't imagine what he would have produced if he went into those situations with iso 12,800 fx sensor-based digital and just started shooting. There would be way too much information to make the kind of images he has (everything would be lit - goodbye negative space). Of course, anything is possible in photoshop, but one's tools definitely inform one's process, and I think this is a good example of that.

In my case, for now, I think a film camera is more appropriate to the kind of photography that interests me. But I don't do commercial photography. If I did I'd want a D3, no question about it.

 

[KM-25]

BUT, ISO 1600 looks to be the legit limit of the Nikon.

I have had my D3 and D300 for a few days now, 6400 is really easy to use and keep under control. I can get 3200 to look super clean.

 

[jaapv]

Och - I wouldn't use clean high ISO M8, Summarit 1.5/50

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nikon?? Hah:
"After shooting with the camera with a few days under numerous conditions I can confidently say the Canon 1Ds Mark III is easily the most versatile full frame digital SLR currently available. Currently the only thing similar on the market is the camera it's replacing.
He he I really dont care btw

Yeah, it's easy to say things confidently when you haven't tried the competition. The D3 does have features that the 1Ds Mark III does not have. The resolution advantage of the latter is only 32% in linear resolution (the human eye does not perceive resolution differences spatially, so direct comparisons between megapixel counts are meaningless), which is noticeable, but not huge unless you plan to make billboard size prints. In other words its similar to the difference between 6 MP and 10 MP cameras, which is not huge either.

That said, due to higher resolution the 1Ds Mark III does offer a better alternative to medium format than the D3, if that's your cup of tea. Of course this is all based on calculated values; the true resolution of Bayer pattern sensor cameras is a more complex thing and has to be measured from a resolution chart.

Oh dear, the above sounds like a DPreview post. Please forgive me my regression to that level

 

[shadowfox]

What I want to see is a shootout between the biggest Phase One sensor and Velvia 50 or 100 on the same camera and lens.

 

[Kevin]

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

Don't dare publish it otherwise it will get "appropriated" by some dickhead named Richard Prince.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

What I want to see is a shootout between the biggest Phase One sensor and Velvia 50 or 100 on the same camera and lens.

Of course it would be also a shootout between the Phase One and the scanner, unless you had the slide scanned by a drum scanner with a truly professional operator. With something like the Nikon LS-9000 you can forget about; the digital back will win hands down. Even a Flextight won't suffice, since they scan MF only at 3200 dpi.

 

[shadowfox]

Of course it would be also a shootout between the Phase One and the scanner, unless you had the slide scanned by a drum scanner with a truly professional operator. With something like the Nikon LS-9000 you can forget about; the digital back will win hands down. Even a Flextight won't suffice, since they scan MF only at 3200 dpi.

Not necessarily, the velvia could be printed the traditional way, and the digital back result could be printed using inkjet. Then it's wet print vs inkjet.