ISO 3200 is sooooo 2006!

[kevin m]

Images from Nikon's new D3 are starting to pop up on the web. I've attached a link to the blog of a wedding photographer on the DWF (Digital Wedding Forum) who's posted some example pics from the D3, including some available light shots at iso 25,000.

I still can't quite wrap my head around a five-digit iso number yet.

I'm crossing my fingers that this sensor technology will (eventually...?) makes it's way to the RF world.

http://coreymcnabb.blogspot.com/

[NB23]

Man, I can't wait for ISO 9,999,999,999,123 in 2012! Combine that to filming whole events at 76 FPS and being able to print 4x6 images from 8,654,345 MegaPixel files!

Ned "the Fanboy" photographer.

[kevin m]

Man, I can't wait for ISO 9,999,999,999,123 in 2012!

So 1954 was the year technology stopped for you?


Did you look at the examples, Ned?

[TJV]

The D3 looks impressive but I've been thinking lately that better ISO performance in digi doesn't really equate to the same kind of gains in film, eg strictly more sensitivity. Digi grain / noise in horrible, even in very moderate amounts. I love the look of 1600ISO colour neg film, for me it's not in the least bit offencive. Moybe the progress in CMOS technology is more about keeping a consistant quality of output at all "normal" speeds than it is taking photos in the pitch black. Having said that, as technology progresses it will indeed open up new doors of opportunity.

[kevin m]

Digi grain / noise in horrible, even in very moderate amounts.

I think that depends. Chroma noise looks like hell, but luminance noise, as in the Nikon sensors to date, tends to look more like film grain, I think, but much less obtrusive.

[shadowfox]

Impressive. At ISO 3200 it's still very smooth.

[Ben Z]

For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by Ben Z

For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up

Blasphemy! Don't you want to help the economy, do your part as a patriot?

[Ben Z]

Originally Posted by MikeL

Blasphemy! Don't you want to help the economy, do your part as a patriot?

I wish. There isn't a whole lot I can buy that's still made in the US, and even the bulk of my tax dollars appears to be ending up overseas

[kevin m]

It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up

I never use this word, but.....whatever!

If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it.

It's an exciting technological development in photography, but you can't get excited about it because the wrong brand name's on the front of the camera...

[Peter55]

Hi Kevin,

"If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it." - Kevin

You keep saying this, but what about people who like using film as well as digital?
I have 6 dslr's including a Canon 1Ds Mark II and 6 slr 35mm film cameras and one Leica 35mm Rangefinder and one Crown Graphic 4x6 film camera. My Leica M5 and 50 Summilux first version just produced this week one of my favorite photographs.

I repeat: My Leica M5 and 50 Summilux first version just produced this week one of my favorite photographs.

Oh and I was at ISO 400 indoors!!

[ywenz]

Originally Posted by Ben Z

For once I feel lucky I'm just a hack, because the low-light capabilities of my 20D and M8 are both more than adequate for my abilities. It must be frustrating when you're so good at photography that you have to suffer while technology tries to catch up

I could have used a cleaner 6400 iso for a gig I shot last weekend. I was shooting at 1.4 @ 3200 and the shutter was barely fast enough. I'm a hack as well.

[kevin m]

Hi Peter, I'm still using film. I think my Nikon scanner is where my digital dollars should go for now, because I love the look of scanned chromogenic B&W. That, and I still prefer to shoot "full frame."

But shooting in really low light was part of the appeal of the M system to me, so I can't help but get excited about this.

[ywenz]

Originally Posted by ErikFive

It is impressive that Nikon had done this btw, but why do I need 25000iso? Just to run around with my f:5.6 kit lens and take pictures in complete darkness?

I don't understand the mentality of questioning useful technology that is given to you.

A picture taken at 25000iso f:5.6 will have greater DOF than a picture taken at f:1.0. How can anyone say this is not useful?

[foto_fool]

Originally Posted by kevin m

If Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Epson, or anybody else squeezed this sensor into an RF body, this forum would be a ghost town while its members stood in line to buy it.

No, I wouldn't. Just like I didn't stand in line to buy an M8, Xbox360, iPhone, etc. Guess I'm just really missing out here. Or maybe my technological world stopped developing in oh, what, 2005?

- John

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by kevin m

Images from Nikon's new D3 are starting to pop up on the web.

Hey Kevin: you misplaced your thread: it's on the Leica M8 forum!

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by ErikFive

Everyone will turn their head away when you point it at them anyway so you cant use it the way you use a Rf. Its like pointing a bazooka to someone ´s head and not expect them to react.

Did anyone notice the lens they put on the D3 versus the D300 on their site? I guess size sells....or it's like wearing vertical stripes.

Nikon announcements

[rover]

I'm crossing my fingers that this sensor technology will (eventually...?) makes it's way to the RF world.

I will be more excited when it gets into the sub $1,000 DSLR world so I can afford it.

[Dektol Dan]

BUT, ISO 1600 looks to be the legit limit of the Nikon.
1600 film isn't that bad although it can be trying to scan. It doesn't have the latitude slower negative films have, but it nowhere as critical as shooting transparencies.

In my world fast primes make up for slow zooms and 1600 is just fine. Smaller cameras are always better too.

My doctor is a camera nut and he's buying one of those D3s (I've already heard all about it) and I don't look forward to my next visit. I don't think he will be impressed with my new film scanner. Too bad.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the M8.

Unless there's an implication that's already implicitly sanctioned by the moderators?...

Hmm...

[Peter55]

Originally Posted by kevin m

Hi Peter, I'm still using film. I think my Nikon scanner is where my digital dollars should go for now, because I love the look of scanned chromogenic B&W. That, and I still prefer to shoot "full frame."

But shooting in really low light was part of the appeal of the M system to me, so I can't help but get excited about this.

I used to think like that, but someone pointed out to me the colors just are not the same in really low light. That's when I purchased my first flash system for events.

I still use my M5 and 50mm f/1.4 and ISO 400 film to shoot in really low light. But this is going to give me a "mood". I would think shooting with the D3 at ISO 25000 would give me boosted image brightness and I believe I would not get the "mood" of the Leica and ISO 400 film and f/1/4 or the colors that I would with flash on my DSLR/SLR's.

I would think ISO 25,000 will have other uses and I would gladly use it.

[photogdave]

Originally Posted by ErikFive

Shouldnt this be in the evil slr´s forum. Its still not a RF so I really dont see why it matter to compare it with the M8. Everyone will turn their head away when you point it at them anyway so you cant use it the way you use a Rf. Its like pointing a bazooka to someone ´s head and not expect them to react. High iso is great and I use Dslr´s myself and I love low light shooting, but people doesnt go in defense mode as soon as you point a rf at them.

It is impressive that Nikon had done this btw, but why do I need 25000iso? Just to run around with my f:5.6 kit lens and take pictures in complete darkness?

If you're shooting low light portraits, weddings or events, the people already know there is a camera being pointed at them, and have probably paid the photographer to do so. Not everyone shoots only candids in low light!

[kevin m]

Sorry for putting this in the M8 forum, but it was the only "digital" entry I saw. Perhaps "evil SLR's" would have been better.

I'm not knocking anybody's choice of camera; if you've got an M8 and you're happy, then I am, too. But I do like the flexibility useable high iso allows, and I do think it'll rock the RF world if it ever arrives.

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by ywenz

I'm a hack as well.

Nahh, you are a cool dude

[alien8]

I think these kinds of developments should clearly be judged from the viewpoint of the intentions of the photographer. Obviously a wedding photographer is likely to be trying to produce clear and pleasing images for her clients. One could say similar things about other domains of photography (news gathering, corporate/industrial, etc.) But for those looking to capture the essence of a some kind of human experince, then perhaps the technology can actually be inhibiting.

For example, this week I took borrowed a book of Daido Moriyama's photos from the library. Super high contrast, little if any shadow detail, the majority of them shot in low light situations. For me and I suspect many others these kinds of photos do a way better job of conveying of the feeling of darkness and night that we all know. I can't imagine what he would have produced if he went into those situations with iso 12,800 fx sensor-based digital and just started shooting. There would be way too much information to make the kind of images he has (everything would be lit - goodbye negative space). Of course, anything is possible in photoshop, but one's tools definitely inform one's process, and I think this is a good example of that.

In my case, for now, I think a film camera is more appropriate to the kind of photography that interests me. But I don't do commercial photography. If I did I'd want a D3, no question about it.