[Leica] ASA One Million+ f25,600 and be there!

Sat Mar 5 16:00:09 PST 2016

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 ³lower² ISOs, like, 6400, or 12,800, get¹s 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 that¹s 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