102,400 ISO? - WHAAAT?

petersmart

petersmart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,000
Edit My Images
Yes
Wish they'd invest the same effort into increasing dynamic range........
 
The new Canon 1D mark IV has a similar capability. Personally, I'm a somewhat cynical about manufacturers who claim international telephone number sized ISO ratings. Ultimately it's no good if the image quality is still a load of cobblers in real world situations.
 
Run the image taken at 10,000 iso through some noise reduction software and it'll probably come out ok. The one taken at over 100,000 iso looks very noisey and I doubt if any professional would want to use the resulting image for anything commercial.
 
-Rob- said:
The question is though could your A200 take a picture at iso 400 in the same conditions as the D3S was used at 10,000 iso?
Click to expand...

I think he was pointing out his A200 was crap at iso 400, he wasnt slagging the D3S so you can hold fire on reporting him to the Opinion Police.
 
CraigF said:
I think he was pointing out his A200 was crap at iso 400, he wasnt slagging the D3S so you can hold fire on reporting him to the Opinion Police.
Click to expand...

I understood perfectly what he was trying to say thanks and I wasn't slagging off his opinion so there will be no reporting going on.

Mind your head up there!
 
Gary, it will take pics of your breath after a curry.........!!!!
 
And about the same as ISO 800 on a 400D...

So for the same scene, aperture and noise the shutter speed would be about 4-5x faster!
 
A question I always have to ask is: have we reached the point where the camera can get a decent exposure, yet be unable to AF? Is there likely to be a situation where the photographer cannot even see anything through the viewfinder and still get a decent shutter speed?
 
The 100K ISO is not really for normal use but is there as a better than nothing option. If you can only get the shot at 100K then nothing else will do.
 
I've taken pics at max ISO (12000?) on my D700, and they're, shall we say, noisy . However, it was pretty dark, but the AF worked. If needs be I'd have just switched to manual though.

However, I could imagine if you're a press tog, the ability to shoot at higher and higher ISO's is doubtless a good thing. Image quality is arguably less important than the subject matter itself in that kind of situation.
 
The way I understand it is that the higher the max ISO, then the better quality the mid range ISO's of the new camera are compared to the top ISO's of the previous cameras (which would be the same value)... thus giving you the ability to shoot faster shutter speeds in the same light at the top ISO of your old camera... is that not right? :shrug:
 
jontucker said:
The way I understand it is that the higher the max ISO, then the better quality the mid range ISO's of the new camera are compared to the top ISO's of the previous cameras (which would be the same value)... thus giving you the ability to shoot faster shutter speeds in the same light at the top ISO of your old camera... is that not right? :shrug:
Click to expand...

that's my understanding

that's why I don't understand this thread criticising a pic taken at 100kISO for only being as good as a pic taken at 400?

anyone would think the light was the same and the tog had just randomly chosen that ISO

as a wedding tog I don't expect to ever shoot at 100k ISO, but if it makes 1600 or 3200 useable in a dark church with low/negligible noise then it's got my vote
 
looks to noisy to use professionally. The lower iso's look excelent for what they are.. can see it being an excelent wedding photograhy / sports / pap camera
 
keirik said:
that's my understanding

that's why I don't understand this thread criticising a pic taken at 100kISO for only being as good as a pic taken at 400?

anyone would think the light was the same and the tog had just randomly chosen that ISO

as a wedding tog I don't expect to ever shoot at 100k ISO, but if it makes 1600 or 3200 useable in a dark church with low/negligible noise then it's got my vote
Click to expand...

I think people are comparing the 100K ISO images with the images taken at the mid range ISO's of their current camera's (that's how this thread reads anyway).

Surely what they should be doing is comparing the top ISO's of their current cameras with the mid range (same value) of the new cameras?
 
Amp34 said:
And about the same as ISO 800 on a 400D...

So for the same scene, aperture and noise the shutter speed would be about 4-5x faster!
Click to expand...

No, 128x faster
 
alexhcowley said:
The new Canon 1D mark IV has a similar capability. Personally, I'm a somewhat cynical about manufacturers who claim international telephone number sized ISO ratings. Ultimately it's no good if the image quality is still a load of cobblers in real world situations.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt - what is really apparent between the two brands is the way they 'handle' ISO. Nikon seem to deal with it with a speckled effect that looks very similar to film grain that I can deal with. However, IIn and the MK3 added a lot of colour to the noise which to me was not as good as the way the Nikon handles it.

However, time will tell - I will look forward to seeing the end results in practice by other members.
 
The important factor to consider here is not image quality at the max settings but at those in the middle of the speed range.

Whilst I consider ISO3200 pretty much unusable on my 40D, the noise characteristics of a sample 1D4 image at the same ISO look more like the 40D at ISO 640-800 perhaps.

Assuming from this that the 1D4 is 2 stops better for noise, the higher acceptable ISO allows for a shutter speed four times faster - very useful for all sorts of low light photography goodness :cool:

Interesting point about the A/F though; never thought of that before..
 
Af systems are pretty good. I've had AF successfully tracking birds in flight on my 1DsII when exposure was ISO1600 @f/4 and 1/8s. That's pretty damn dark and a 5 year old camera!
 
mr_pants said:
Is there likely to be a situation where the photographer cannot even see anything through the viewfinder and still get a decent shutter speed?
Click to expand...

Good point pants, and I'd say almost certainly yes.
The D3 and D700 already seem to amp up available light with hand holdable shutter speeds at max ISO.
It may be a very rare situation, but maybe there will be times when live view is the only way to see whats going on!
 
Amp34 said:
Nope, for ISO 10,000 not 100k
Click to expand...
Ah
Which would work out about 4-5 times faster, and only 8x faster with 100k if i'm correct (each stop is double the last.. 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, (4-5x) 12,800, 25k, 50k, 100k (8x)).:)
Click to expand...
Each stop is double the last yes, so the numbers you're quoting are stops, i.e. 100k is 7 stops from 800. To compensate you'd therefore need to increase the shutter speed by 7 stops, or 2^7=128 times as fast :)
 
I wonder if there's an absolute limit, i.e. 1/8000th, FF, 25MP at ISO whatever, would actually be only one photons arriving on each sensor or something like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top