Low ISO capability.

[iancoxleigh]

As DSLRs have developed there has been ever increasing progress made on achieving satisfactory lower-noise high

ISO settings. The new D3 and D700 support up to ISO 25,600 and have easily usable results up to ISO 3200 or even

ISO 6400. The D300, which I am currently using, gives quite good results up to ISO 800 and is usable even at 1200

or 1600 in a pinch.

 

Why has there been no progress in creating lower sensitivity settings? I, for one, would find ISO 25 or even ISO

12 settings to be very useful. As it is, I carry 4-stop and 8-stop NDs and often use my 4x6" hard edge grads as

ND filters as well. I was thinking of investing in a 10-stop ND filter when I began thinking that there should be

a better way.

 

Even if lower sensitivity settings than the base ISO 100 (or ISO 200 in the case of the D300) degraded image

quality in a similar manner as higher ISO settings, it would still be useful as all of the ND filters increase

the number of pieces of glass in front of the lens and that has a negative effect on image quality. The stack of

ND filters also increase the risk of flare and ghosting as well as hard-vignetting at wide angles. Plus, it is

hard to see and compose through a 10-stop ND filter -- particularly at dawn or dusk (and when trying to position

a grad line looking through the lens). Changing the ISO setting in camera would be much preferable.

 

This is especially true for higher resolution crop-sensor formats since your ability to stop down is limited by

diffraction sooner than on a comparable total resolution FX sensor. I only really like to push it to f/16 on my

D300 and prefer to stay at f/14 or even f/11.

 

So, why has there been no development in this area? Is there a shortage of actual photographers (at least

landscape photographers) who consult with the engineering teams at Nikon or Canon?

 

Maybe this goes right up there with the luminance-only DSLR or the fully-manual DSLR as too niche an item? I

doubt it though and it does not require any re-designing of the actual camera itself.

[ellis_vener_photography]

good question! I'll see if I can get an answer for you.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

I've wondered about this, too. My wife's Canon G3 has an ISO 50 option plus an electronic ND filter that I believe is about 2 stops - there's your ISO 12. But the smallest aperture is f8. That's probably why those "non-consumer" feature are included.

[f stop]

I just purchased a D300 myself, and had the same thought process! Unlike you I do not have the ND filters. I just wish I could

get iso 100 like my D200 had! ---

 

The bigger thing - in my humble opinion, is that the sensors are beginning to increase their stop range. This is very exciting.

[ronald_moravec1]

There are few who want low ISO quality. Look what happened to Ektar 25, the best color neg film Kodak ever made.

Kodachrome 25 bit the dust before 64.

 

Manufactures can not custom make cameras, but a higher quality low ISO optional sensor is something I would buy

without a doubt. Then I would have both a high and low speed camera.

 

Last week I found myself deep in the New York woods with a D40 and 18/135 f 3.5 lens. I did use 800 ISO and I must say

the pics are pretty good.

[atlatling]

Oh, who says there are FEW WHO WANT LOW ISO SETTINGS? I doubt that that is true. I certainly would use it if it were available. Fast is not always good. I have taught many to use the slowest films they can use. This would make for a marvelous camera to have that capability built in. I absolutely NEVER (with very rare exceptions) crank my ISO to faster than 100, the slowest it can be set, and really never above 200. It could change the industry. Or would the images degrade with lower numbers?

[dangoldman]

For panning, a slower ISO speed would make life much easier...

[tmcleland]

That's something I've been wondering myself. I was used to shooting ISO 50 film when I "defected" (and shot it at a 32 usually), so

to me, ISO 100 was blazing! I guess it would stand to reason that if one could lower the ISO to 50 or beyond that it would cause an

increase in quality yah? Isn't that sort of the conventional wisdom? The big "I won the lottery" Hasselblads and Mamiyas go down

to 50, so this idea hasn't been completely overlooked.

 

A friend of mine who's an astro-photographer had gotten a hack for his Canon that pushed the ISO up to 3200 or 6400 (one of the

two). I wonder if such a hack is available that would go the other way.

[cabbiinc]

You could always still shoot film. I'm not saying this as a jab at digital but it is an alternative that you can readily use.

[matthew_newton]

TM, only with film. With a digital sensor there is a certain amount of base sensitivity to the photoreceptors (ISO100 on most sensors, ISO200 on some). If you reduce the sensitivity below the base you are effectively ignoring some of the signal coming out of the photosites, which means you lose data and at a certain point you simply can't drop the signal because the photosite is maxed out in terms of the luminance it can register. I really don't know what the maximum de-sensitization a sensor can accomdate, but from what I have seen from manufacturer's cameras, it looks like about 1 stop down from the native sensitivity.