10-31-2017, 10:17 AM
That might be true for the D810 and D850, but not necessarily for other Nikon DSLRs (or other brands for that matter), where the lowest ISO ("regular" ISO, not talking about Lo-Settings) does not necessarily give the best results.
For the record: MTF tests at PZ are also not necessarily done at the lowest available (regular) ISO setting. On the D3x for example, ISO 200 delivers slightly better results (read: higher numbers) than ISO 100.
Regarding the Kodak: of course it can't compete with modern sensors. It was one of the first available full-frame DSLRs, at that time you basically only had the choice between the Kodak, the mighty expensive 1Ds and the (horrible) Contax ND.
The point was: at the setting of ISO 6, the camera delivered much better results (in terms of noise) than at its base setting.
I still wish that similarly low settings were still available in modern cameras. It's similar in effect to ND filters... but works with any lens, so any filter thread size
For the record: MTF tests at PZ are also not necessarily done at the lowest available (regular) ISO setting. On the D3x for example, ISO 200 delivers slightly better results (read: higher numbers) than ISO 100.
Regarding the Kodak: of course it can't compete with modern sensors. It was one of the first available full-frame DSLRs, at that time you basically only had the choice between the Kodak, the mighty expensive 1Ds and the (horrible) Contax ND.
The point was: at the setting of ISO 6, the camera delivered much better results (in terms of noise) than at its base setting.
I still wish that similarly low settings were still available in modern cameras. It's similar in effect to ND filters... but works with any lens, so any filter thread size
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com