Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/03/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Wait sh*t, I made math mistakes! Ha ha 400 800 1600 3200 6400 12.8K 25.6K 51.2K 102K 204K 408K 816K 1.6M 3.2M On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote: > Math is not hard: > > 400 > 800 > 1600 > 3200 > 6400 > 128K > 256K > 512K > 1M > 2M > 4M > > So 6400 to 4M ISO is 6 stops. ISO 400 (Tri-X) to 4M is 10 stops > > or more realistic, ISO 6400 is now so clean that it's the old ISO 400, or > 4 stops, may be even old ISO 200, so 5 stops. > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > >> I shoot at iso 6400 all the time as that's where my out iso tops off at >> and >> I shoot at night a lot so that's where many of my shots end up when I'm >> not >> near a street light or shop window. >> In the 90's my location film was Neopan 1600 and in low light or night >> But >> that's surprisingly only a two stop difference between Iso 1600 - 3200 - >> 6400. >> My camera for several years now is a Nikon D700 and is an almost 8 years >> old >> camera technology.. >> So in digital years Lorne Greene would tell us I'm shooting Plus x with a >> Speed Graphic and no flash bulbs. Say cheese! >> Nikon has introduced a couple of generations of cameras since and neither >> they nor Leica nor Canon nor any of these camera companies are sitting >> around on their haunches when it comes to this kind of stuff. Or whoever >> is >> designing the sensors I guess someone else. Its a bourgeoning technology. >> Its a chip eat chip world. >> I'd expect from all I've read to not be shooting at iso 1,000,000 when I >> get >> my next camera body very often if ever. I'd expect it to have jumped >> another >> couple of stops, not ten. >> So that's iso 6400 to 12,800 to 25,600. That's a stop faster than the >> photojournalists you mention but these new bodies just came out or are >> about >> to so I'm giving them a stop for all their efforts and thinking it might >> even be two. >> I'd expect to be getting totally viable iso 25,600 shots at night or >> indoors. (like in my closet). As in able to blow them up a bit without too >> much noise or funny color. >> But the idea of not only being able to get viable shots at night not near >> street lamps but also be able to capture action there and stop down a few >> stops greatly appeals to me. I'm already able to do a bit of that >> already... >> As in not shoot my night shots at slow iso's and wide open. >> >> 2.8's are the standard speed of pro grade zooms now a configuration that >> has >> never appealed to me because of the bulk and weight. >> I've recently lens wise made a commitment to the new Nikon 1.8's. >> Its not fast, not slow not expensive not cheap. Great if not the best >> optical specs. Light weight compact durable. >> I've got the 35, 50 and 85 over the past couple of years. >> Next I get the 20 or the brand new cutting edge 24 and I'll feel like I >> have >> a complete lens system of 1.8's. >> Zoom free. Not shooting zooms makes me feel ever so slightly Leica like. >> >> So f iso 25,600 and be there. >> And f8 is the new f 1.4. >> 125th is the new 15th. >> >> >> >> On 3/5/16 10:07 AM, "Jack Milton" <jmilton2 at maine.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > 3 million ISO may not be really useful because of noise but what has >> happened >> > is the quality at ?lower? ISOs, like, 6400, or 12,800, get?s a slight >> bump. >> > When I was shooting film we jumped through darkroom hoops to get ASA >> 1600 or >> > 3200 from B&W and color neg film. Photojournalists now think nothing of >> > shooting at 3200, 6400, 8,000, or 12,800. In my estimation, on say, a >> Nikon >> > D4, ISO 6400 looks like ASA 400 color negative film. For several years >> now >> > these cameras can see in the dark and appear more sensitive to light >> than the >> > human eye. Not so long ago, sports photographers had to light arenas >> with >> > expensive, heavy strobes to shoot basketball or hockey. Now we take high >> > quality available light indoor or night sports photos for granted. >> >> The other >> > thing that?s happened is an f/2.8 lens is now considered to be fast. >> F/2.8 >> > telephotos and zooms are now normal lenses?double or quadruple the ISO >> and >> > f/2.8 does seem fast. A lot of younger photographers are separating >> their work >> > with truly fast lenses at f/1.4 or f/1.2 and shooting wide open in all >> > lighting. >> >> Jack Milton >> >> > On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Mark Rabiner >> > <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >> > >> > I heard the guy say it and I was not sure >> > if I was hearing things. >> > Last night at a Nikon D5/ D500 introduction they >> > were giving at a secret >> > high tech B&H room upstairs. >> > "1 point 6 4 million" >> > he said. >> > And he was talking about the D500 which is DX cropped but cost two >> > grand. >> > He'd already talked about the D5 full frame flagship about out and >> > cost 6.5 >> > grand. Who pays that kind of money for a camera body? :) >> > I >> > didn't hear him say the word "million" when giving out the specks on >> that> >> > one. But looked it up just now and found it. ISO Three Million! >> > (Great for >> > shooting the dark side of the moon at midnight without a rocket >> > ship.) >> > >> > >> > You numbers guys: how many f stops more is 3,000,ooo than the measly >> 6400> >> > cruising speed iso I'm topped off at now but which I do a good amount >> of my >> > >> > shooting walking home from movies at night. And can shoot anything I can >> > >> > see. No street lights have to be anywhere near. >> > Inquiring Rabs wants to >> > know. >> > >> > I'm guessing I can shoot a black cat in a coal mine at midnight >> > springing >> > through the air at an imaginary moth frozen solid mid leap in near >> > total >> > darkness. That's my guess. Stopped down to 5.6. Every hair on its >> > back >> > frozen. >> > Its the future folks. >> > Star Trek rules and Star Wars is >> > Mickey Mouse. >> > >> > >> > In the past years the flagship Nikon camera went up to >> > around a half a >> > million. So that's what kind of leap has been made. >> > >> > "At >> > iso 1.64 million you get plenty of noise" the guy said. >> > "as it is 1.64 >> > million what do you want? >> > I'd like to know what iso I could be shooting with >> > to get the same kind of >> > results I'm getting now at 6400. Which is 2 stops >> > more than the 1600 I'd >> > been shooting at with film. Neopan 1600. No longer >> > made. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Mark William Rabiner >> > Photographer >> > >> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > See >> > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >> > information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users >> > Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark William Rabiner >> Photographer >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > // On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto > // On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto // On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto