Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Math is not hard: 400 800 1600 3200 6400 128K 256K 512K 1M 2M 4M So 6400 to 4M ISO is 6 stops. ISO 400 (Tri-X) to 4M is 10 stops or more realistic, ISO 6400 is now so clean that it's the old ISO 400, or 4 stops, may be even old ISO 200, so 5 stops. On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > I shoot at iso 6400 all the time as that's where my out iso tops off at > and > I shoot at night a lot so that's where many of my shots end up when I'm not > near a street light or shop window. > In the 90's my location film was Neopan 1600 and in low light or night But > that's surprisingly only a two stop difference between Iso 1600 - 3200 - > 6400. > My camera for several years now is a Nikon D700 and is an almost 8 years > old > camera technology.. > So in digital years Lorne Greene would tell us I'm shooting Plus x with a > Speed Graphic and no flash bulbs. Say cheese! > Nikon has introduced a couple of generations of cameras since and neither > they nor Leica nor Canon nor any of these camera companies are sitting > around on their haunches when it comes to this kind of stuff. Or whoever is > designing the sensors I guess someone else. Its a bourgeoning technology. > Its a chip eat chip world. > I'd expect from all I've read to not be shooting at iso 1,000,000 when I > get > my next camera body very often if ever. I'd expect it to have jumped > another > couple of stops, not ten. > So that's iso 6400 to 12,800 to 25,600. That's a stop faster than the > photojournalists you mention but these new bodies just came out or are > about > to so I'm giving them a stop for all their efforts and thinking it might > even be two. > I'd expect to be getting totally viable iso 25,600 shots at night or > indoors. (like in my closet). As in able to blow them up a bit without too > much noise or funny color. > But the idea of not only being able to get viable shots at night not near > street lamps but also be able to capture action there and stop down a few > stops greatly appeals to me. I'm already able to do a bit of that > already... > As in not shoot my night shots at slow iso's and wide open. > > 2.8's are the standard speed of pro grade zooms now a configuration that > has > never appealed to me because of the bulk and weight. > I've recently lens wise made a commitment to the new Nikon 1.8's. > Its not fast, not slow not expensive not cheap. Great if not the best > optical specs. Light weight compact durable. > I've got the 35, 50 and 85 over the past couple of years. > Next I get the 20 or the brand new cutting edge 24 and I'll feel like I > have > a complete lens system of 1.8's. > Zoom free. Not shooting zooms makes me feel ever so slightly Leica like. > > So f iso 25,600 and be there. > And f8 is the new f 1.4. > 125th is the new 15th. > > > > On 3/5/16 10:07 AM, "Jack Milton" <jmilton2 at maine.rr.com> wrote: > > > 3 million ISO may not be really useful because of noise but what has > happened > > is the quality at ?lower? ISOs, like, 6400, or 12,800, get?s a slight > bump. > > When I was shooting film we jumped through darkroom hoops to get ASA > 1600 or > > 3200 from B&W and color neg film. Photojournalists now think nothing of > > shooting at 3200, 6400, 8,000, or 12,800. In my estimation, on say, a > Nikon > > D4, ISO 6400 looks like ASA 400 color negative film. For several years > now > > these cameras can see in the dark and appear more sensitive to light > than the > > human eye. Not so long ago, sports photographers had to light arenas with > > expensive, heavy strobes to shoot basketball or hockey. Now we take high > > quality available light indoor or night sports photos for granted. > > The other > > thing that?s happened is an f/2.8 lens is now considered to be fast. > F/2.8 > > telephotos and zooms are now normal lenses?double or quadruple the ISO > and > > f/2.8 does seem fast. A lot of younger photographers are separating > their work > > with truly fast lenses at f/1.4 or f/1.2 and shooting wide open in all > > lighting. > > Jack Milton > > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Mark Rabiner > > <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > > > I heard the guy say it and I was not sure > > if I was hearing things. > > Last night at a Nikon D5/ D500 introduction they > > were giving at a secret > > high tech B&H room upstairs. > > "1 point 6 4 million" > > he said. > > And he was talking about the D500 which is DX cropped but cost two > > grand. > > He'd already talked about the D5 full frame flagship about out and > > cost 6.5 > > grand. Who pays that kind of money for a camera body? :) > > I > > didn't hear him say the word "million" when giving out the specks on > that> > > one. But looked it up just now and found it. ISO Three Million! > > (Great for > > shooting the dark side of the moon at midnight without a rocket > > ship.) > > > > > > You numbers guys: how many f stops more is 3,000,ooo than the measly > 6400> > > cruising speed iso I'm topped off at now but which I do a good amount of > my > > > > shooting walking home from movies at night. And can shoot anything I can > > > > see. No street lights have to be anywhere near. > > Inquiring Rabs wants to > > know. > > > > I'm guessing I can shoot a black cat in a coal mine at midnight > > springing > > through the air at an imaginary moth frozen solid mid leap in near > > total > > darkness. That's my guess. Stopped down to 5.6. Every hair on its > > back > > frozen. > > Its the future folks. > > Star Trek rules and Star Wars is > > Mickey Mouse. > > > > > > In the past years the flagship Nikon camera went up to > > around a half a > > million. So that's what kind of leap has been made. > > > > "At > > iso 1.64 million you get plenty of noise" the guy said. > > "as it is 1.64 > > million what do you want? > > I'd like to know what iso I could be shooting with > > to get the same kind of > > results I'm getting now at 6400. Which is 2 stops > > more than the 1600 I'd > > been shooting at with film. Neopan 1600. No longer > > made. > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark William Rabiner > > Photographer > > > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See > > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users > > Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto // On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto