Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 14 Feb 2016 (Sunday) 10:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Higher ISO values and where are we going with this?

 
LincsRP
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
427 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Lincolnshire,UK
     
Feb 17, 2016 15:07 as a reply to  @ post 17902174 |  #16

Lovely image there, Tom.

Ok, I'm going to venture into territory that I'm not 100% sure about and I cannot find the science page I viewed it so help me out anyone who does know better than I appear to: as light drops and we increase the shutter speed, bearing in mind photons do not hit the sensor all at the same time, therefore colour accuracy will suffer the higher shutter speed increases.

From my understanding, photons hit the sensor in the same way rain falls, in an irregular pattern. So, increase the shutter speeds higher leads to less photons hitting sensor with relevent colour info. As we're dealing with reflected light from our subject the photons have to bounce off our subject to our sensor to give us the colour.

So, given that sensors become more efficient and give us clean high ISO's nature (light/photons) won't be changing. I hope I'm making myself clear here as I'm not that efficient at getting my point across!


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,565 posts
Likes: 316
Joined Jan 2010
     
Feb 17, 2016 17:09 |  #17

LincsRP wrote in post #17902255 (external link)
From my understanding, photons hit the sensor in the same way rain falls, in an irregular pattern. So, increase the shutter speeds higher leads to less photons hitting sensor with relevent colour info. As we're dealing with reflected light from our subject the photons have to bounce off our subject to our sensor to give us the colour.

So, given that sensors become more efficient and give us clean high ISO's nature (light/photons) won't be changing. I hope I'm making myself clear here as I'm not that efficient at getting my point across!

Much of what you see as wrong colors in current cameras is added camera noise that has nothing to do with photons, and a lot of the muting of colors you see at high ISOs is because of NR used to hide that noise. Photon noise itself has fine chromatic components, but nothing like what you're seeing now with current read noise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 18, 2016 06:14 |  #18

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17902174 (external link)
.

Color is not the limiting factor, as there is plenty of color recorded in these levels of light......and even if there were a bit less color, that would still be ok with me, because I actually often prefer muted, almost monochromatic colors for certain types of scenes. In fact, for the image I posted I think I actually prefer the unedited one to the one with the more saturated colors.

.

Tom I quite agree that the more muted colours do represent what we see as twilight approaches and the light levels fall. The issue is that it seems almost impossible to recreate that in a photograph. We can get an image that is well exposed, but then it will have that bright as day look to it. It's much the same when shooting under a bright full moon, again I don't think I have ever seen the look you get in reality achieved in a finished photograph.

Although you cannot ever have enough good clean ISO (much like there is no such thing as too much ammunition for a shooter) I actually wish that we could have some native ISO values below ISO 100. I really don't want to have to muck about with ND filters, and good quality 95mm filters aren't exactly cheap. Being forced to shoot at f/16 just to get the shutter speed DOWN TO 1/160s @ ISO 100 is a PITA on a bright summers afternoon.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,269 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 18, 2016 08:02 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #19

I agree, I think it would be good if Canon could start working at the other end of the spectrum for a native ISO 50. Not sure how to technically go about that, but using an 85L in bright sunlight where you want that subject isolation, ISO 50 would be great!


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,815 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5037
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 18, 2016 10:09 |  #20

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17903081 (external link)
I think it would be good if Canon could start working at the other end of the spectrum for a native ISO 50.

They already know how to start. The minimum on the G15 is 80. Why not on DSLRs?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,565 posts
Likes: 316
Joined Jan 2010
     
Feb 18, 2016 11:06 |  #21

OhLook wrote in post #17903224 (external link)
They already know how to start. The minimum on the G15 is 80. Why not on DSLRs?

Minimum ISO depends on how the manufacturer assigns headroom quantity. The G15 may very well get saturated photosites at a lower exposure level than a DSLR with a minimum of ISO 100. Compact cameras have traditionally been considered more of a JPEG camera, even though many have RAW, in the way that ISOs are enumerated. Compacts traditionally have had only about 2.5 stops between metered gray and saturation or RAW clipping; DSLRs, 3.5 stops. So, your ISO 80 compact may actually saturate the sensor with the same exposure as a DSLR with a base ISO of 160. Another way of looking at is that in DSLR terms, the ISO 80 on the G15 is actually ISO 160 with a stop of implicit over-exposure. Of course, the difference is not always exactly a stop, but this has been true, historically.

If you can get your hands on an ambient light meter, go out on a sunny day and measure the light in the sun, set the camera manually to the lowest ISO, and use the meter to shoot sunlit things with manual exposure at ISO 40, 50, and 64, maybe even ISO 32. You might be surprised at how little actually clips in the RAW file. It is up to your converter of choice to use the highest RAW highlights without distorting the tonal curve.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1204
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Feb 18, 2016 11:23 |  #22

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17903081 (external link)
I agree, I think it would be good if Canon could start working at the other end of the spectrum for a native ISO 50. Not sure how to technically go about that, but using an 85L in bright sunlight where you want that subject isolation, ISO 50 would be great!


I think you actually might see this, although they may not tell you, on the new 1Dx.

I say this because some of the first pictures posted, the ones of the hockey goalie in the dark arena comparing the 1Dx and the new 1Dx II, if you look carefully, that while they use the same exposure on both cameras, the new 1Dx II definitely appears to have more exposure - thus I think, ISO 50 on the 1Dx II, or at least close to it, is going to be equivalent to the old iso 100 on the 1Dx.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bsmotril
Goldmember
Avatar
2,516 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 232
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Austin TX
     
Feb 25, 2016 16:31 |  #23

For me, it's not about shooting in near dark, but it is all about shooting skaters moving fast in rinks and arenas with poor to average overhead lighting. More ISO headroom lets me bump up shutter speeds to get crisp action shots and not have to deal with so much noise in post processing.


Gear List
Galleries: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/smopho/ (external link) --- http://billsmotrilla.z​enfolio.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spacemunkie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,545 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 136
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 25, 2016 20:08 |  #24

Would be nice if there was a focus on lower ISO. Be great to be able to dip down to single figure ISO and not have to bother with ND filters....


Scott/Spacemunkie:My photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,419 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3352
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Feb 25, 2016 22:07 |  #25

Spacemunkie wrote in post #17913215 (external link)
Would be nice if there was a focus on lower ISO. Be great to be able to dip down to single figure ISO and not have to bother with ND filters....

This has never been much of an issue for me, though I could see the argument. I think the high ISO performance is far more important for the vast majority of shooters. I like the faster electronic shutter-speed solution that some manufacturers are starting to implement. I can go all the way to 1/3200s on my X-E2 now, though I can't imagine when I'll ever need to.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,269 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 3 years ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Feb 25, 2016 22:44 as a reply to  @ EverydayGetaway's post |  #26

You either support lower iso values, or have faster shutter speeds, to start whittling away the needs of a neutral density filter.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 26, 2016 07:07 |  #27

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17913370 (external link)
You either support lower iso values, or have faster shutter speeds, to start whittling away the needs of a neutral density filter.

The problem is that sometimes you can't increase the shutter speed above a particular point. I regularly need to shoot at no more than 1/160, and at times I need to go down as low as 1/60. All while shooting in or close to Sunny 16 conditions.

I really would like to see some form of in body solution that would allow native ISO values that would get me down to at least 1/60 at f/8 actually 1/60 @ f/11 would just about do.

IIRC on some really good days I did used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and K64 at airshows, instead of the Ektarchromes.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,269 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 3 years ago by TeamSpeed. (6 edits in all)
     
Feb 26, 2016 07:29 |  #28

True, if you wanted motion blur in your photos for a particular effect, then yes (prop blur on a plane, waterfall, ocean, etc), 1/16000 isn't a good shutter speed (like the electronically supported shutter speed the original 1D had). If you are shooting so that motion is stilled, then you could use faster shutter speeds to further reduce exposure vs using a 1-stop ND. It certainly does matter on what you are going for, as you point out. :)

Shooting with an 85L in bright sunlight so that you get that razor thin DOF for a portrait is a pain without a ND filter, or having a lower ISO available, or shutter speeds faster than 1/8000. A lower native ISO would be the best of the options, I would think.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 26, 2016 08:17 |  #29

Well I just went looking on my local camera dealers website, WEX, and they don't even list a ND filter in 95mm to fit my Sigma 150-600 C. They do have some 95mm filters and they are by Sigma but the choices are Protective, UV/UV-WR or CPL. The biggest ND I could find was 82mm. It's not like WEX is a minor player in the UK photo market. They are one of the larger indipendents here in the UK.

I know I could use a CPL to reduce a couple of stops, but across a 180 degree pan there is likely to be a significant difference in the effect. There is zero chance of me going to Amazon for quality filters, there is just too much chance of being ripped off with fake goods. Not something I am willing to chance on a £100+ filter. I'm not puting cheap filters on a £1000 lens either.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,269 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4849
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 3 years ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Feb 26, 2016 08:19 |  #30

You can use 2 polarizer filters, one as a circular and one linear, to create a variable ND filter. Perhaps that would work pretty well.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,383 views & 21 likes for this thread
Higher ISO values and where are we going with this?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ceaserjacky
619 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.