Do we really want ISO 51200

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by studor13, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. The D3/D300 will have usable ISO 3200 and possibly even 6400. With 25600 now
    available I am fairly certain that IQ at this almost insane level will be good
    on a D4 (can I say that?).

    So, ISO 51200 will very soon be available.

    Does it make sense any longer that we keep using this doubling of numbers? Why
    not start a new acronym, say DSO, or DSR (Digital Sensitity Rating), or whatever
    so that ISO 200 becomes DSR 1. (ISO 100 can be DSR 0.7 or something)

    Given that ISO 800 is now almost noise free why can't this be DSR 2.

    I am not aware if there is an ISO command dial on the D3/D300 but how on earth
    are they going to fit 51200, 1024000 on newer models?
     
  2. Have you not heard of DIN?
     
  3. At some point, we'll just turn it up to "eleven." Canons will just go from zero to ten, but we'll have that extra little something on Nikon bodies. All due respect to Spinal Tap's Nigel.
     
  4. What a dreadful idea. Everyone already knows what ISO means.
     
  5. Yes, good ol' DIN to the rescue. Double speed = + 3 on the DIN scale.

    Recalling that Tri-X was rated 400ASA/27DIN and exerting some menthal powers, we see that ISO 51200 is no more than 48 DIN.
     
  6. I'm less interested in ISo 25600 than I am in inctreasing the dynamic range performance of a DSLR to EV17
     
  7. matt that was really funny.
     
  8. Sure was (the Spinal Tap reference).

    Kodak claimed a very fast B&W film with thermal development recently.
    It will never ever see any light as it will not be marketed.

    I was quite excited at the prospect of having a fast enough film to do hand held UV photography and enquired about it. It is not going to be made at all.
     
  9. Please not another acronym. Personally I think we should have kept with ASA.
     
  10. Increased dynamic range is the holy grail but reliable, noise free VERY high ISO is something I
    think every creative photographer can use. I mean, just think about it. Your eye can see FAR
    more than any current camera can in low light. The ultimate solution would be a camera that
    can see as good or better than your eyes in low light. Just think of the possibilities. Imagine
    the kinds of pictures you could take if you could capture images in near total darkness
    without a flash.
     
  11. With long exposures just about any camera will see better than humans can in low light.

    Sensitivity and low noise are great for certain types of photography, but better dynamic range at base ISO is IMO far more important.
     
  12. ISO is easy you just need to learn the power of two table. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 etc. So for instance ISO 6400 (64) is 2 to the 6th power, hence it's 6 stops more than ISO 100. Shutter speed has the same numbers but they have been rounded of, so for instance is 1/60s (should be 1/64s) is 6 stops less than 1/1s.

    Btw, AFAIK high ISO will be limited by photon noise so clean high iso is impossible. I'm too stupid to explain it so: http://www.photo.net/learn/dark_noise/
     
  13. "With long exposures just about any camera will see better than humans can in low light."

    And?

    That comment is meaningless. Do your eyes need a long exposure to see in low light? No.
    Therefore a camera can't see as well as the human eye in low light.

    Besides, this isn't a choice between very high ISO and increased dynamic range. Obviously
    BOTH are desirable.
     
  14. Chris, you claimed that the human eye can see far better than any camera in low light. I disagree and can easily prove my case. Long exposures cannot be applied if you want to stop motion - which is a disadvantage for some - but the resulting image quality (of using low ISO settings on a tripod) is far superior to anything that can be done at high ISO. In addition to the noise in the images, using a high ISO setting produces images with reduced dynamic range. Thus you'll have blocked up shadows and blown-out highlights if you try to use high ISO for night photography.

    It's the wrong tool for the job.
     
  15. I would hope they go backwards with the ISO. As far back as ISO 64 or even ISO 25. Who needs ISO 6400 whith all those expensive dedicated flash units.
     
  16. If you don't need ISO 51k, that does not mean that nobody could possibly ever need it. So why complain? Nobody forces you to use it. I can easily think of a PJ in a dark african back alley at night where he is, for obvious reasons, unhesitant to use flash and the only way to get a sharp, if grainy, image is to crank up the sensitivity.
     

Share This Page