chris00nj
Young Luddite
Agreed. I think good images at 3200 are more than anyone needs. ISO 3200, 1/30, f/1.4 will render proper exposure at light value of 1, which is very very dark.
You can boost the D4 to ISO 204800. When will this be necessary?
nobbylon
Veteran
I shot a corporate event yesterday and have another to do tomorrow. I want to try as much as I can to be invisible to the people around me and also to the client that pays the bill. I don't want any complaints from speakers regarding flash going off in their face etc. Because of the light in the room I needed up to 3200 iso as I'm using f5.6/6.3 to get the focus I need. The D700 with a combo of 24-70 and 70-200 allows me to achieve that. I shot the same rooms a few weeks ago on the Leicaflex with 400 tri-x and can tell you that the Nikon was easier to get the shots with. Yes I like the film results a little more but the keeper ratio is much higher with the Nikon.
I'm sure that ths D800 is the dogs knackers and if I don't end up with a D3s or D4 it will definately be on my shopping list.
High iso capability just makes it a little easier
celluloidprop
Well-known
Yeah. And 6 megapixels are more than enough! And who needs lenses faster than f/2.8? Let's all start prescribing exactly what other people "need" in their cameras, it should be fun.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
But, Canon did add IS to these lenses, didn't they? They're not cheap, but it does represent a pretty significant jump in engineering/tech.
Even though i'm envious, re: the new Nikon, i'm still pretty well planted in the Canon camp. Just because of the lenses. Even though i use a couple of Nikons, i'm firmly convinced the Canon glass is better for what i want to do. Specifically OOF/bokeh. Sharpness is a wash. I just haven't seen any AF lenses that beat Canon's Ls.
I hope Canon counters with a high MP option. I want to be able to make huge prints, and i want the detail (in skin textures) to eliminate the vinyl skin thing - so i'll never think fondly again of medium format film.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm actually very interested in the performance of the new f/2.8 wide primes, just because it's nice to see an alternative to the 24L at half the price.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I get why some people are ambivalent toward more and more megapixels - diminishing returns, storage costs, processing speed, etc. can be real concerns. (I also get the joy of more megapixels - printing large is so easy these days.)
But higher ISOs? If you don't need them, don't use them. They have no effect on you. But there are obviously a lot of photographers out there who do want, if not need, them.
But higher ISOs? If you don't need them, don't use them. They have no effect on you. But there are obviously a lot of photographers out there who do want, if not need, them.
dallard
Well-known
Ah, now I see.
dallard
Well-known
Digital would be much better if it was worse.
nobbylon
Veteran
well said, and personally the D700 does what I need MOST of the time. Occasionally I could do with a couple of extra stops. I don't need the pixels but I could do with a camera that allows me to use 160th at 5.6 wherever I am.
robbeiflex
Well-known
I don't need to pixel peep, I can look at my own eresults. As for Hipstamatic, did I offend you? Awwww. Don't be so agro dude. Take a chill pill and settle for the camera that rocks your boat, whether it's D800, M9 or Hipstamatic
You asked for samples, I gave you them.
The Hipstamatic was a joke man. I thought you were funny. I think you're the one getting too defensive.
I think you should read his post again. Phantomas is all right, although I don't know where he stands on Hipstamatic and he makes typos sometimes. Perhaps there is a reason why Phantomas doesn't need samples.
Phantomas, how do your own "eresults" look?
Cheers,
Rob
Moriturii
Well-known
Sports photography, 1/4000+ in indoor light, that what these ISO features are for, not so you can take pictures of kids carrying whine bottles and baguettes in Paris in an afternoon.
Archlich
Well-known
So is Leica (always the smartest). They charge more for NOT engraving those letters on a a-la-carte body! The profits must be sweet.
Damn straight.
I totally applaud Nikon for this effort, especially after what happened last time regarding D700 vs 5D MKII.
All this is great for us, we get more versatile tools for our $€¥
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I haven't read any of the posts above as the camera doesn't interest me.
What caught me attention is that on a forum predominantly about rangefinder cameras, in 16 hours there have been 96 posts since the OP's. Just saying', as the saying goes.
What caught me attention is that on a forum predominantly about rangefinder cameras, in 16 hours there have been 96 posts since the OP's. Just saying', as the saying goes.
3rdtrick
Well-known
I have one on order at my local store...
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm wondering if any of you are the same as me in that you find nikon DSLRs increasingly... unattractive as their line evolves? Not that it matters in the grand functional scale of things, but I just can't help thinking that the d700 was a little bit sharper in the looks department, like the d3 compared to the d4. Just find the new models a little 'blobby'.
Looks like an amazing camera anyway, can't wait to see some real-world shots by photographers in darker conditions! Canons 5dX needs to be pretty damn good or more people are going to shift to the dark side with this thing..
Looks like an amazing camera anyway, can't wait to see some real-world shots by photographers in darker conditions! Canons 5dX needs to be pretty damn good or more people are going to shift to the dark side with this thing..
Archlich
Well-known
Because there is nothing new rangefinderish today (as usual) for the folks to get excited about.
Think about the X100 thread, in which people post a lot more than in this one. I guarantee you the M10 thread will at least triple that count.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Well... last week. I had my Sony NEX-3 with me, and my Nikon FM with Tri-X in it. I could simply not use the FM. Shot below is done at ISO 12800 + 2/3rds of a stop push in the raw converter. It needed lots of TLC in PP, but there IS a picture. If I'd only had film, or even my 2004 Nikon D70, I would have had... nothing.
Concert photography by Ronald_H, on Flickr
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Btw, I know that the heavy noise reduction shows, but the subject is deliriously happy with this shot. Drummers are notoriously hard to photograph. I'm sure she is going to hug and kiss me next time we meet. She is pretty and half my age How much more reason for hysterically high ISO performance do you need?
How much more reason for hysterically high ISO performance do you need?