How about ultra low ISO ?

[dinners]

It's been mentioned a few times on other threads but I thought I'd ask the question.....

We're all familiar with ISO and for most of us the general rule is (for image quality) we like to keep the ISO down as much as we can till we're forced to increase it either because the lens we're using wont go wide enough aperture wise or we want to use shutter speeds too fast for the available light.

I was thinking about the recent DSLR models which allow very high ISO and perform pretty well - but what if you want to slow things down and require ISO performance in the other direction ?

If I want to capture a little movement with a slow shutter speed with wide aperture for shallow depth of focus on a bright day - I have to start using ND filters or if taking it to the extreme - welding glass.

Is it not possible to push the limits of 'low' ISO like they're doing with 'high' ISO and make the sensor less sensitive - rather than more sensitive to light ?

...perhaps it's a case a case of why bother when folk can add filters ?

 

[ding76uk]

I would imagine it is possible, but it would not be a general major selling point for the manufacturers, therefore the chances of putting it in cameras is slim to none

 

[dinners]

I would imagine it is possible, but it would not be a general major selling point for the manufacturers, therefore the chances of putting it in cameras is slim to none

Why do you think it wouldn't be a selling point ?

Genuine question.......

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd love to be able to take long (daylight) exposures without having to use filters.

 

[VirtualAdept]

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd love to be able to take long (daylight) exposures without having to use filters.

As would I, but I suspect the argument would be why spend all the money in research, design, advertising etc when the already well established route of using filters isn't particularly expensive, certainly not by comparison.
Just my tuppence, mind, I could be way off.

Mads

 

[ding76uk]

Why do you think it wouldn't be a selling point ?

Genuine question.......

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd love to be able to take long (daylight) exposures without having to use filters.

Low aperture you just heighten shutter speed. I genuinely think that the majority of photographers (lanscape togs possibly excluded) would hardly ever want to take long exposures frequently, and there is a perfectly acceptable method of doing so in ND filters.

When you look at it, landscapes are the only major group who would find this useful, and therefore a limited market appeal.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

iirc they tend to develop sensors with the key emphasis to be on low noise at high ISOs, to the detriment of the lower ISOs. The D300 can only natively go to iso200 for example.

Most digital medium format backs have a range more in the region of 50-400.

There will always be more demand for better performance in low light than in very bright light (let's face it, you're talking about a relative niche of landscape photographers who want high aperture AND a very slow shutter speed) - it's relatively easy just to bash an ND filter across the front of the lens, so I really can't see them catering to this need any time soon really, especially when iso 200 or 400 is as near as dammit (on 35mm) noise free - though the dynamic range could do with improving...

 

[dinners]

When you look at it, landscapes are the only major group who would find this useful, and therefore a limited market appeal.

That's why I mentioned it.

Freezing hands in sub zero - nothing worse than thumbing through filters.

I get the feeling that fantastic High ISO IQ enables photographs that would otherwise be impossible but low ISO would just make photographs that are possible - a little easier.

 

[Robbo]

I would love low iso, makes it easier than getting different nd filter sizes which can get expensive or a filter kit etc to cover all sizes.

I think if I had low iso it would allow more experimental time as I wouldn't have to mess on with filters etc ... It would be a very nice touch for me personally

 

[Arkady]

D3x goes down to the equivalent of 64iso...though I've never bothered to use it...

 

[Trappe]

I use ISO 50 on the 1ds quite often. 25 would be nice

 

[Trev Rich]

What about motorsport togs?
I was recently told on here that filters are needed on sunny days when you want to open up to say 1/40 sec for panning shots.

Lower iso would solve that problem.

 

[cowasaki]

The D700's lowest standard setting is 200ISO but it does have settings for LOW which get you to the equivalent of 100ISO. Yes lower as options would tend to make sense.

 

[Wobbler]

I use ISO 50 on the 1ds quite often. 25 would be nice

Back in the days of film, agfa used to make a 25 which was simply lovely film.

 

[cowasaki]

I suppose it is only going to get to 25 at the absolute most and for a drop from 100 to 25 it is not exactly the end of the world using a ND filter. Still if it was easy I am sure 5 and 10 ISO equivalents would be nice

 

[Bendihossan]

I use ISO 50 on my 5D almost time I take it out when shooting landscapes. Though I've found film cameras that started counted from ASA 12 film before!

 

[Musicman]

Back in the days of film, agfa used to make a 25 which was simply lovely film.

And there was Kodachrome 25, which I used to use on occasion.

I'd certainly welcome being able to dial down to that or lower. I don't use ISO 50 on my 5D that often, but when I do, it's quite handy.

 

[gingerjon]

I use ISO 50 on my 5D almost time I take it out when shooting landscapes. Though I've found film cameras that started counted from ASA 12 film before!

I think there was a black and white slide film that was ISO 12.

 

[Nod]

It's easy to filter up to get slow shutter speeds if you want them but not so easy to get faster speeds without higher ISO settings.

Is ISO 50 the native sensitivity of the 5D or does it involve an attenuating algorithm to simulate it? Do users of the lower ISO settings find they lose contrast and/or saturation at the lower settings?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Another solution to ND filters would be to take lots and lots of consecutive frames and average it in photoshop. That would work for long exposures, and require tripod.

Low iso would be easy to implement via a firmware update, just like they do ISO50 at the moment. Enough people have to send petitions to Canon and we'll get it.

 

[TommyPhoto]

I'm sure I read/heard somewhere that currently there is a limit to how low an ISO digital SLR's can do properly. Lower than that it works differently and somehow samples the image to create the feel of a lower ISO without it actually being as low in practice.

Tom N.

 

[subliminal1ne]

would love to use iso 25 everyday

 

[POAH]

I use ISO 50 on my 5D almost time I take it out when shooting landscapes. Though I've found film cameras that started counted from ASA 12 film before!

don't see why, you reduce dynamic range by doing it.

 

[Trappe]

Back in the days of film, agfa used to make a 25 which was simply lovely film.

Yes I used to use Kodachrome 25...lovely film

 

[Jamieconverge]

don't see why, you reduce dynamic range by doing it.

exactly, ive never used lower than iso 200 on my d300 for the reasons of it reducing image quality/contrast. id absolutely love a native iso 50, not sure why an iso 200 seems to be typical minimum now. actually took what may have been my first proper shot at 1/8000th the other week (needed f2 dof, and was shooting into the mid-day australian sunlight!) which just shows sometimes a lower iso could be needed for other reasons than a lower iso!

 

[Naboo32]

It's been touched on here, but I think that the real issue lies with the ability (or lack of) of the sensor to accurately apportion large amounts of light to the appropriate photosites, without it 'spilling over' and effectively reducing contrast :|.

Although I can't express this in pure scientific terms , as I understand it the light and sensor in a digital camera are similar to sound and an amplifier in a stereo system. We know that very high ISO values act like an amplifier which is turned up to boost a weak signal (i.e. low light), but with very low ISOs the situation is more like a very loud sound being turned down in volume by the process of attenuation. In the case of audio, this smooths out some of the curves and makes the sound less dynamic, but in the case of bright light I guess that there would be a problem with stray light bouncing around in the camera and spilling over into adjacent photosites, if they are left to fill up very slowly with strong light at 'reduced amplification' (i.e. the attenuated levels which an 'ISO 25' would require) :shrug:.

In long exposures at current 'normal' ISO levels, the light levels are far lower, so this 'bleed over' would not be as apparent (I suspect). My theory is that the stronger the flow of light and the harder the camera tries to 'hold it back', the more chance there is of the light 'overpowering' the sensor :shrug:.

Again, I'm no expert on this subject and am not stating my opinions as fact - just trying to add something to the debate .

 

[mrtoad]

Why do you think it wouldn't be a selling point ?

Genuine question.......

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd love to be able to take long (daylight) exposures without having to use filters.

too narrow a market for that

my lowest iso is 64 and conforms with the tranny film i used to use with good saturation and fine grain

some used 50 but lost on speed

32 was for the botanists with tripods

too narrow a market old chap

 

[c_robinson]

i know a number of people who shoot motorsports who would love lower ISO settings, especially in bright light event (daker, safari rally etc)

at some points last summer i was finding myself at 1/320, f/11 iso 100, and that corner would have been ideal to play with some at 1/50th but it wasn't going to happen!

heard stories of iso 100, 1/800 @ f/11

 

[Big_Ham]

ISO 50s the lowest I've come around on a 1D Mark II. It's quite handy, but then again ND filters work well enough.

 

[mrtoad]

ISO 50s the lowest I've come around on a 1D Mark II. It's quite handy, but then again ND filters work well enough.

i thought the low iso was to reduce noise etc...how does the ND achieve that
i should talk..my 100 iso shots recently are full of noise

 

[Arkady]

I can't really tell if the shots I took at 'Low 2' or 64 ISO equivalent are any less noisy than the ones at the supposedly optimal 100 ISO on the D3x...I suspect there maybe some compromise going on there with regard shadow or highlight detail...
I'll wait til it's sunny again and do some proper testing - I didn't think to shoot at both settings with the same subject so it's hard to tell with any certainty...

 

[King_Boru]

D3x goes down to the equivalent of 64iso...though I've never bothered to use it...

I wonder if that has something to do with the 64ASA Tungsten film that many commercial photographers used. I wouldn't be surprised if that setting has been included for that reason alone.

I wouldn't mind seeing more 25 and 50 ISO's in the mid range models. I read that reducing the ISO has its complexities as well as pushing. Perhaps its not as easy as one would expect.

 

[Arkady]

...I read that reducing the ISO has its complexities as well as pushing. Perhaps its not as easy as one would expect.

It's why I stick to 200 on the D3 and 100 on the D3x

Still going to have a proper look though...

 

[mrtoad]

I wonder if that has something to do with the 64ASA Tungsten film that many commercial photographers used. I wouldn't be surprised if that setting has been included for that reason alone.

I wouldn't mind seeing more 25 and 50 ISO's in the mid range models. I read that reducing the ISO has its complexities as well as pushing. Perhaps its not as easy as one would expect.

i agree on that...favourite slide film at one time was K64 with Fuji100 close behind.
my cam goes down to 80 and the other one 64
i tended to use the low ones purely because of my experience with transparencies

 

[SpikeK6]

You will probably find that they are working on it already.
If they put everything into a camera at the same time there would never be a reason to upgrade or bring out new models, and we the customer would never have a reason to buy the new model with this and that on it.
Bikes are same with all the little gismo's, if they put them all on next years model then no one would buy the after that.

Just my thoughts

spike

 

[Big_Ham]

i thought the low iso was to reduce noise etc...how does the ND achieve that
i should talk..my 100 iso shots recently are full of noise

Not just to reduce noise. For example if you want a long shutter speed on a bright day you can only go so far. Slap an ND filter on and you can carry on increasing the shutter.

 

[mrtoad]

Not just to reduce noise. For example if you want a long shutter speed on a bright day you can only go so far. Slap an ND filter on and you can carry on increasing the shutter.

good point...my comment was for general photography in the mind set of a previous fine grain film user...your missed that didnt you

good call

cheers

 

[Big_Ham]

good point...my comment was for general photography in the mind set of a previous fine grain film user...your missed that didnt you

good call

cheers

I may or may not have noticed the second page. :bonk:

 

[mrtoad]

I may or may not have noticed the second page. :bonk:

well smarten up will you...this is TP