Is the technology getting too good?

[mike_sea]

Hi All,

 

How fast is too fast for low ISO.

 

In recent times, I have wanted to take a photo outdoors (one of a blurred champion bike rider. After stacking on

three ND filters (ND4 and 2x ND2's) I finally reached the speed I was after for the results I was trying to create.

 

With a minimum ISO setting of ISO 200 I am wondering if other people feel that the rise in low end ISO is

something we ALL want?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the speed of the latest Nikon's and have hand held sunset shots that were

inconceivable prior to the D3 [D300]. I also shoot sports in what can only be described as atrocious light...the

latest jump has been a quantum leap to me.

 

Are there any other areas that some feel we are going too far in or taking away from our skills as technology

develops?

 

 

 

Mike Sea

[ellis_vener_photography]

You do know that you can set the D3 and D300 for ISO 100 ? it is the L1.0 setting --and there are always ND filters if you need them.

[wpahnelas]

technology by itself is neither too good nor not good enough. if it enables you to do something that was either impossible or possible only with great difficulty, then it is useful. we tend to see gee-wiz technology as fabulous in its own right. as regards the capabilities of current high-end cameras, however, the technology is useless unless it can be utilized effectively by the person operating the camera. and that's how it's always been...

[tommyinca]

"technology getting too good?"

 

Yes, If it could take say 50 fps and then a computer program can stack them up and blurr them. You won't be

needing to stack those umpty ND filters. By then, any Joe or Jane could do what you want. Now that could be a

problem. Don't compliant :-)

[lex_jenkins]

Too good? Not good enough would be more appropriate. I agree, the trend toward lower noise, higher ISO performance has ignored another type of exposure preference some folks would like. ND filters are a poor substitute for a through-the-lens viewfinder camera.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hello,

 

In my humble opinion, Technology is not getting too good...

 

It is just the way the cameras are designed which is deliberately oriented for such or such performance and this is implemented in a way which sometimes is detrimental to other performances.

 

Ok, you can't expose slow enough under a bright sunny day to get the blurr you want because you can't step down the ISO level enough... Just ask yourself what you've done in the old time with a camera loaded with - say - a 400 ISO film in the same situation...

 

Most DSLR cameras of expert or pro level are especially designed for action photography and tend to emphasize the ever-ready-to-freeze-the-action-even-under-poor-light side. No camera, film or digital has ever been the "all in one wonder" too many people chase in camera world. I admit alternative concepts are fewer and mostly higher priced than then used to be.

 

But so-called advanced technology has deprived photographers of many useful features and controls which used to be many times more widespread some years ago than trying the kind of effect you are striving to obtain... DOF control and the use of hyperfocal being one of them... It is simpler for the manufacturer to present a uniform range of AF lens even when AF is seldom a practically useful feature (wide angles under 35mm on FX format for example) or zooms instead of primes where their actual relevance is minimum and the lack of any engraved DOF scale on the barrel a major liability.

 

A Nikon able to go as far down in ISO settings as say 25 ISO why not ? But is it technically feasible if you also want to retain high ISO settings ? And if so, at what additional cost for the customer ? ... In my opinion it makes better sense on a digital medium format camera where high ISO settings are less critical for most users and for which "staged" photography with special effect might be more relevant for a larger size of users' panel... This said, the main practical limit will be your budget. We can only hope for digital MF camera to see more moderate and affordable prices in the future.

 

Now, for ND filters, I vaguely remember they used to be available as gelatine filters to be mounted by the owner on specific empty mounts and having very high light absorbtion coefficient (something around x 100 or more) and designed for some scientific applications. This will solve your problem if they can still be obtained. I am almost sure they should still exist because they were used for solar photography in daylight and this kind of pictures is certainly still common.

 

FPW

[samoksner]

We've always had this issue of too much light, not enough light... Back in the day, it was either slower film or ND filters, now, it's lower ISO or (you guessed it) ND filters. True, ASA 50 and even 25 speed film was available, but i'll sacrifice that over some of the inconveniences of film. And from ISO 100 to 25, it's only 2 stops, a 2 stop ND filter i hardly an inconvenience. Most cameras offer ISO 100 and many Canon pro level cameras offer ISO 50 if you need it.

[bgelfand]

If enough people want an effective lower ISO, it should not be too hard for Nikon to accomplish with their present sensors. All that is need is a Neutral Density filter that fits over the sensor rather than the lens. You would need some feedback from sensor to the meter to recalibrate the meter for proper exposure.

[jonb]

If the adjustable ISO range can only be so many stops, I would rather have those stops at the high-ISO end for the simple reason that I can always add ND filters, but I can't always add more light -- especially good light. Yeah, ND filters are a pain, but not <i>that</i> much of a pain.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

I found a place on the Net you can afford gelatin ND Wratten filters of a very powerful grade.

 

http://www.anchoroptics.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=412

 

I think you may found the right amount of light reduction with a single filter

 

FPW

[tachion]

Hmmmm, I see a business opportunity: Why doesn't some smart manufacturer (like those folks that make replacement

focus screens) make a little insert for your DSLR, that puts a tiny little ND filter right over the sensor. It would be pretty

easy to pop in and out of your camera, as easy as changing film in the old days. Just flip up the mirror, insert an ND4,

and presto, your D3 or D300 goes down to ISO 25, without your viewfinder darkening horribly. I see a niche market here!

 

The alternative to a bunch of ND filters is two crossed polarizers. Make sure the one on the lens is a circular crossed

polarizer and the one on the outside a linear crossed polarizer. By rotating the outer polarizer relative to the inner one,

you can "dial in" the amount of light reduction from about 3 stops to 10 stops (depending on the quality of the filters).

Since most landscape folks will already own the circ-pol, a less expensive linear polarizer will add less cost than a full

set of NDs. You can compose (on a tripod of course!) with the polarizers aligned, so you can see through your

viewfinder, then cross the polarizers to the get the shutter speed you want. Great for water falls and such.

Note you may need some exposure compensation.<div></div>

[mike_sea]

Hey all,

 

What a stimulating discussion and one that has taught me two things. 1. gel filters 2. cross polarisers.

 

Maybe we should think about a line that shares some lost ideas or techniques.

 

I know that I still use hyperfocal distance readings in certain circumstances but aagree you really don't need to understand it to get "The Shot".

 

 

Thanks for your wide, honest and thought provoking responses.

 

 

 

Mike