Sony and The Future

[Dr. Harout]

Birma, don't be surprised if someday a B&W sensor comes out.
And if it does, I would surely be tempted to have one (on a second thought I would definitely buy it). And that would have its own ISO settings...

[bakubo]

Birma, don't be surprised if someday a B&W sensor comes out.
And if it does, I would surely be tempted to have one (on a second thought I would definitely buy it). And that would have its own ISO settings...

I think I recall a DSLR some time back, maybe a Kodak, that either had a B&W sensor or maybe it was modified with the Bayer filter removed and maybe the anti-alias filter too. I seem to remember reading about it a few years ago. I think it was 6mp, but very detailed and sharp. Maybe someone remembers the details.

[David Kilpatrick]

Kodak DCS 760M, Bayer filter not fitted, just a plain removable infra-red. I recently had a DCS 760C - the normal colour version - for a few months, bought two of these classics to use for a while. The 6 megapixels is in a 1.3X factor chip and really far better than any other 6 megapixels even from five years later, when 6mp APS-C was the standard. For a turn-of-the-millennium camera, the 760 was amazing.

But I wanted a D5000 so I sold the DCS outfit.

David

[Dusty]

I must say that I am a bit confused as to why the trend seems to be for the base ISO to creep upwards (ISO200 is the new ISO100?). I know there is a trend (obsession?) with cameras at the moment to be able to shoot in the dark as if it is daylight (ISO102,800 ) but surely some people want lovely clean, low ISO stuff. Why isn't anyone coming up with an ISO25 camera? What are us "take it slow, with a tripod" landscape types meant to do? Or am I missing the point and ISO200+ is now as good as ISO100 used to be?

The other things that go missing at higher ISOs is the ability to slow that shutter speed down for the glassy look on a gently flowing stream, and other creative effects.

I notice that all the Medium Format Digitals start at ISO 50. After all who needs ISO 6400 when you have a half dozen strobes trained on your model?

Dusty

[Birma]

I notice that all the Medium Format Digitals start at ISO 50. After all who needs ISO 6400 when you have a half dozen strobes trained on your model?

Dusty

Very interesting Dusty. I may have to start my own pressure group, along side Barry's "MLU Crusade", for low ISO (Sony) dslrs. I realise that there is a goodly proportion of sports / low-light photographers out there, but surely there are quite a few landscaper / tripod types as well?

How does lens quality / IQ relate to camera ISO? Is there any point sticking CZ glass on a body and then shooting at ISO 6400? I'm assuming that you getter cleaner / neater pictures with better IQ and therefore you can clean up your noise better? But perhaps not, and great glass is wasted on high ISO? I'm waaaay out of area of knowledge here so happy and hoping to be put straight.

[Dusty]

Good Glass is good glass, so putting CZ on at 6400 should give you better results than funky Chinese knock-offs at the same ISO.

Besides the creative control losses by being forced to use high ISO, I can't imagine that there's not some loss of IQ as well.

I'm not as well versed in digital sensors as I was in film, but I can make some educated assumptions. I'm pretty sure that every sensor has a "sweet spot" for a certain ISO that gives the best IQ. We seem to see that readily enough in our results. I'm also sure that shooting for high ISO capabilities in a sensor is done by a sensor who's base ISO (sensitivity) is higher to begin with. Pushing E-6 400 speed film to 1600 gives better results than pushing 200 to 1600. To design a sensor with a good range from ISO 25 to ISO 12800 would be really tough. Easier to go from 200 to 12800 and save 3 EV.

It may be that if this insanity of shooting in the dark continues, we may have to buy specialized cameras for low ISO work.

Dusty

[Andy B]

It may be that if this insanity of shooting in the dark continues, we may have to buy specialized cameras for low ISO work.

Dusty

What good is having a camera if you can't capture a close-up of a mouse dashing across the floor of a dark coal bin?

Andy

[bfitzgerald]

Have to say I have greatly enjoyed the high ISO boom and low light digital wonders in the last few years..I like the 5d in that regard, potent weapon indeed.

On the other hand, I cannot say I really need to go higher than ISO 3200, not very often, so I for the life of me wonder why we are at 12800 and more in some cameras. Let's say ISO 6400 is more than I would need, but I would take it if given Though I can push the 5d to that at times and wing it, just about.

In 10 years time they will be mocking us, how did we manage with only ISO 12800! lol
I would like to see lower than ISO 200 on a body myself, and maybe even lower than ISO 100, saves carrying an ND filter..maybe the A5xx isn't ideal for landscapers..in some cases that is.

[Lonnie Utah]

I would like to see lower than ISO 200 on a body myself, and maybe even lower than ISO 100, saves carrying an ND filter...

I concur.