So the D4 has a max ISO of 200k+

cambolt

cambolt

Green Spotted Nose Turtle
Local time
10:24 PM
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
312
102400 was ridiculous enough on the D3s, now 204800 on the D4? Please please please please please someone enlighten me as to how this could be in any way useful, maybe I'm just being even thicker than usual.

Has Nikon just made the D4 for the weird youtube freaks who spend all their time drooling over DSLRs as some kind of weird looking computer, and have massive firefights over Nikon vs Canon?

ENLIGHTEN ME!:mad::bang:
 
You miss the point OM. Indispensible for photographing the the inside of a black Angus cow at midnight on a dark moonless night down a coal mine.
NOW you are enlighted.

ron
 
In case you ask the best place for the Angus breed and Nikon is down said coal mine, preferably flooded.

ron (Hereford breeder and Canon user).
 
What happened to Tmax 3200 and a Noctilux?

...and in my rage I have inadvertently posted this in the RF photography discussion section :bang:
 
It makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that f/2.8 is the new f/.95 for those who can't shake their dependence on zooms.
 
Beats me, I got along fine for my needs with 800 iso print film and f2.8 wides indoors. Now with virtually any size sensor and IS I'm good to go.

Bob
 
what about 15 lux, f 4.5 and 1/125th of a second?
seems little light, but if you are in a club and want to freeze some dancing with no flash and use a wide lens (like the CV 15 or whatever Nikon has for it) there are not many other options....
Very specific task but "still"...
Would be nice to have 3200 on Leica M8/9/10 etc.
G
 
mdarnton said:
It makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that f/2.8 is the new f/.95 for those who can't shake their dependence on zooms.
Click to expand...

I did a job the other day, pre wedding shoot, a very dark indoor green house, a few exposures at 3200 iso, 2.8, a zoom I can't shake and would have loved 5 more stops.
There is NO Leica with a Noctilux that could get me that shot.
 
cambolt said:
What happened to Tmax 3200 and a Noctilux?

...and in my rage I have inadvertently posted this in the RF photography discussion section :bang:
Click to expand...


That's really extreme ... if advances in digital sensor technology are making you feel rage you need help IMO.

Get over it and save your rage for the things that matter!
 
EV 7@400ISO is a common light level for indoors at night with light bulbs, etc. Some distance from the light sources, or more cozy light and you run into EV 6, EV 5 in no time at all, just plain vanilla indoor scenarios.
So recently it was EV 5, and what would have been great was: 125th shutter speed to freeze action and f 5.6, at least, to have sufficient depth of field for the setting. Let's see, EV 5@400 (I do not have a digital camera, and use 400 speed B&W film for most everything) works out to 1/8th of a second at f2... bummer. To get me the settings I would have liked to use I would have needed ISO 25600! So I made do with what I had, and sure it "works", but I can fully appreciate how convenient it would be to have these ISO settings.
So when a comparatively simple setting like this calls for 25600 ISO to get the desired pictorial effect, I have no trouble at all imagining pictures that call for even higher ISO. No trouble at all.

Greetings, Ljós
 
I've taken photos at f2 6400 ISO with my D700 at 1/4 second where the movement blur was extreme and all but ruined the majority of my efforts. Five stops better would have given me 1/125 sec and my job would been far easier.

I also see a use here!
 
If they can do it, why not ? Someone will use it somewhere. It is the result of a natural progression in sensor technology and it's not like it's a primary feature for which we are paying a large additional price premium, so what's the "down side" for you ?
 
DamenS said:
If they can do it, why not ? Someone will use it somewhere. It is the result of a natural progression in sensor technology and it's not like it's a primary feature for which we are paying a large additional price premium, so what's the "down side" for you ?
Click to expand...


Exactly!

As usable as 6400 is in my D700 it's still pretty murky when you look closely ... the shadows are noisy and the dynamic range suffers.

A sensor that offers what the D700 at ISO 800 offers but at 6400 would be some asset IMO.
 
f6andBthere said:
That's really extreme ... if advances in digital sensor technology are making you feel rage you need help IMO.

Get over it and save your rage for the things that matter!
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I wasn't really in a rage.
Thing is, you say that having an ISO up to 200k would be freeing...
Not if the noise is ridiculous.
I'm thinking noise at max ISO is going to render the photos unusable for professional work at least...
 
cambolt said:
102400 was ridiculous enough on the D3s, now 204800 on the D4? Please please please please please someone enlighten me as to how this could be in any way useful, maybe I'm just being even thicker than usual.

Has Nikon just made the D4 for the weird youtube freaks who spend all their time drooling over DSLRs as some kind of weird looking computer, and have massive firefights over Nikon vs Canon?

ENLIGHTEN ME!:mad::bang:
Click to expand...

Higher shutter speeds, the ability to stop down, or being able to shoot in extremely dark situations, depending on your desires. Instead of f/1.4 @ 1/30 @ 1600, maybe you can do f/4 @ 1/60 @ 25.6k. Less subject movement, lens nearing or at its prime performance zone, no razor-thin DoF so that a small AF error can blow your shot...

Don't know why this question is always asked. If you don't shoot at high-ISOs or see a need, awesome. Don't use them. For me, one of the great things about digital is that we can shoot in light that was all but impossible in the film era. 1/3 of my LR archive is at 1600+.
 
200k is the 'pushed' ISO, it doesn't look great. Usable in a pinch, when it's the only way to get the shot.

100k is the top built-in ISO - it's going to be noisy, but likely fine for small prints and web use.

The 12.8, 25.6k ISOs look like they'd make nice 8x12s, maybe larger.
 
cambolt said:
Don't worry, I wasn't really in a rage.
Thing is, you say that having an ISO up to 200k would be freeing...
Not if the noise is ridiculous.
I'm thinking noise at max ISO is going to render the photos unusable for professional work at least...
Click to expand...



LOL ... so you've had a BEX and a good lie down then?

:D
 
I generally use 1600 as a max on the D700, at a push 3200. From pics I've seen, the D3s upped the max usable to 12800 so a 2-3 stop advantage and from online samples looks like the D4 is topping out at 25600 so 3-4 stops.
These figures are based on my own pics with the D700 and a friends D3s. Yes you can get a pic at the extended iso's but for most people it's unusable however for press guys it's another way to get the photo.
Look at some of the night shot pics of the stricken ship this week, noisy and pretty horrible BUT there's pictures.
High iso is only part of this cameras abilities anyway. It can only be good as the tech will filter down to lesser models in time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom