semi-ambivalent
Little to say
bulevardi
Established
What I was interested in was the ISO in digital cameras.
I now have a 'modern' DSLR where the MP are quite high already, but the ISO just starts at 100... and than I ask myself:
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?
I now have a 'modern' DSLR where the MP are quite high already, but the ISO just starts at 100... and than I ask myself:
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?
Scapevision
Well-known
I can't imagine any finer details than what I get from ISO 100 on Sony A7r. Does it even exist?
I believe, in all the modern glory digital sensors the <100 iso is just to make the shutter speed go down, nothing else.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I have been reading this same question of "have we reached the point of enough megapixels?" and the same answers for years and years. I see us simply being on this continuum of max megapixels, currently somewhere around the 48mp mark now. But the questions and answers were the same back at the 24mp mark, or the 12mp mark. I don't remember anyone saying long ago that the 6mp max was simply not enough and we really needed XXmp. In a few years, we will be asking if 80mp is finally enough? or when we get to 120mp? 240mp? By then CPU's will be so fast and mass storage so large those will not be a factor.
I believe similar questions were once asked, is this blazing fast ASA 25 film fast enough? Or, now that we have ASA 100 film, it that fast enough? Wow, this new Tri-X is iso 400, certainly that is fast enough. Delta 3200? No one could ever need an iso higher than that, we said.
Does any of this really matter?
I believe similar questions were once asked, is this blazing fast ASA 25 film fast enough? Or, now that we have ASA 100 film, it that fast enough? Wow, this new Tri-X is iso 400, certainly that is fast enough. Delta 3200? No one could ever need an iso higher than that, we said.
Does any of this really matter?
I have no problem with huge MP counts as long as storage is cheap and computers are powerful enough (while being cheap).
I just hope they do not forget to make small cameras with large sensors...
I just hope they do not forget to make small cameras with large sensors...
willie_901
Veteran
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?
The answer is the sensitivity would become unacceptably low.
By acceptable I mean very few buyers would prefer ISO 25 instead of shadow region image quality.
There is no IQ advantage to a low calibrated exposure index (a.k.a. camera ISO setting). Once you use a shutter time and aperture that maximizes the photo -diode full-well capacity, you will also maximize the IQ.
The exposure index meter calibration plays no direct role.
Unfortunately increasing full well capacity decreases sensitivity.
The answer is the sensitivity would become unacceptably low.
By acceptable I mean very few buyers would prefer ISO 25 instead of shadow region image quality.
There is no IQ advantage to a low calibrated exposure index (a.k.a. camera ISO setting). Once you use a shutter time and aperture that maximizes the photo -diode full-well capacity, you will also maximize the IQ.
The exposure index meter calibration plays no direct role.
Unfortunately increasing full well capacity decreases sensitivity.
martinkirchner
Newbie
So, a build in ND-Filter would be great as a compromise.
We (all the photographers) have fast lenses, but the digital cameras were too sensitive for them. So a build in Filter would be good.
On the Topic-Question:
It is hard to believe for me that Nikon and Canon didn't talked with each other.
FF-Mirrorless-Cameras announced nearly at the same time, while years and years before that they weren't able to build it?
Its like the new feature the cameras get now and then which were advertised as the game-changing big deal.
In my opinion there were also ugly as hell. They don't look like a tool to take photos, they look like computers with a lens (which - in fact - they are)
Why not a design like the nikon F3 or S2 or Canon AE-1 or Canonet G-III...
bulevardi
Established
For me it would be acceptible ^^
Would there be reciprocity failure during long exposures otherwise? Like with films?
I like to play with long exposures, and I'm limited to shooting at night (I always use 100 iso for night shots, on tripod).
However, I can shoot sometimes during daytime too, but then I need a 25 iso roll, or ND-filters (which I don't have for each lens when using my DSLR). It's nice to have longs exposures in daytime though.
Will have to look for my ND again, will experiment someday again with that.
Dogman
Veteran
Don't know, don't care.
Most of the time I use Raw files exported as JPEGs. Looks better than out of the camera JPEGs and they print nicely. I'm sure this is clinically not the way to achieve the best image quality but I don't care because the pictures look good.
joe bosak
Well-known
Personally, can't afford to keep upgrading and i haven't yet learnt to use what i do own to my satisfaction yet.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I think it is more about being aware of the capabilities of you camera rather than learning how to use each of them. It is a little bit like learning software, say MS Word for example. I only use a small subset of its capabilities. For new cameras I am looking for improvements in image quality, not new features.
willie_901
Veteran
That's right. Or an on lens ND filter for those rare times when a shorter shutter time is not a viable solution.
willie_901
Veteran
For me it would be acceptible ^^
Would there be reciprocity failure during long exposures otherwise? Like with films?
I like to play with long exposures, and I'm limited to shooting at night (I always use 100 iso for night shots, on tripod).
However, I can shoot sometimes during daytime too, but then I need a 25 iso roll, or ND-filters (which I don't have for each lens when using my DSLR). It's nice to have longs exposures in daytime though.
Will have to look for my ND again, will experiment someday again with that.
There is no phenomenon analogous to reciprocity failure.
However, for exposures times longer than about 1minute fixed-pattern noise become visible. There are noise filtering solutions and some brands offer in-camera dark-frame subtraction to minimize this problem
David Hughes
David Hughes
Same here, I don't think I've bothered to look in the menu for more than the ISO and metering...
Regards, David
RichC
Well-known
I am!
I have 42 MP - but need more!
I've an exhibition on as part of Brighton Photo Fringe 2018, and my prints are A1 size (35 inches) on lightboxes - see below. They were taken with a 36 MP Nikon but at this size they are not quite as sharp as I'd like - passable but could be better...
Attachments
MCTuomey
Veteran
No, not too much if, say, you shoot landscapes (and print big) where a small, lightweight hi-res camera and some nice, compact MF lenses are a benefit for travel.
I like the 16-24 max space for what I do, but I see the benefit of the 36+ max bodies. Amazing what can be had for the money.
I like the 16-24 max space for what I do, but I see the benefit of the 36+ max bodies. Amazing what can be had for the money.
maggieo
More Deadly
For editorial and commercial studio photographers, this is going to be a boon. If your work is going up on a two-story Times Square billboard, the more pixels the better. Giant files make pixel-by-pixel retouching and manipulation easier and more precise.
As mentioned above, these cameras are like 8"x10" view cameras. Detail, detail, detail, is where it's at.
Those bigger than 35mm sensors have, according to the writing of folks who use the, amazing range and resolution, since they all use top-line lenses.
As mentioned above, these cameras are like 8"x10" view cameras. Detail, detail, detail, is where it's at.
Those bigger than 35mm sensors have, according to the writing of folks who use the, amazing range and resolution, since they all use top-line lenses.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I can't argue with that but I hope newcomers reading these posts realise that a mega-megapixel camera needs a harem of expensive lenses and a very large printer that will cost a fortune in ink cartridges to run.
Being practical I'd suggest for everyday use an eight mp camera would suffice; I can remember when they were saying it means printing at A3 (about 12" x 16½") and so should be more than adequate for A4 or A5. And you won't run out of wall space quickly either.
Alas, I don't see many 8 mp cameras about these days but I expect smartphones are going that way if not already there.
Regards, David
Argentia1
Established
What do we do with our digital images in 99.5% of the cases?
We only look at them on computer monitors.
Our computer monitors have only 2k or 4k resolution. So our 12, 24 or 35 MP images are only 2 MP or 8 MP images in real viewing situations.
We pay and waste huge amounts of money for high megapixel count just to destroy that resolution afterwords by using the imaging chain with the lowest quality (computer monitor).
For image quality not your input data, but the whole imaging chain is the decisive factor. That fact is mostly ignored by photographers. Also due to the marketing of the manufacturers: They concentrate their marketing messages on pixel count in the camera.
But this high pixel count cannot be fully used with the imaging chains computer monitor and digital projection.
It looks better in printing: But how often do you really print big?
For a 300dpi print of 30x40cm 18 MP are enough.
How often do we really print bigger than 30x40 centimeters?
And even if we do: For bigger prints the viewing distance is also bigger, so 300dpi are not needed, we can use 200 or 150dpi. So the 18 MP remain absolutely sufficient even for bigger prints.
We should be honest to ourselves:
We are wasting now too much money for high megapixel cameras. In 99.99% of the situations we either don't need that megapixel count, or we just cannot fully use it because of the strong limitations in the digital imaging chain (monitors, digital projection).
I have decided to stop being a part of that extremely expensive megapixel upgrading rat race.
I spend the money instead on travelling and making images on my journeys.