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

Sat Mar 5 16:02:19 PST 2016

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 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
>

-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
// On Facebook: http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto
// On Instagram: https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto