[pduann]

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.

 

I agree. I tend to generalize.

 

But with the Nikon cameras I've used, the base ISO is almost always the cleanest, of corse I haven't used all Nikon cameras just the: d70,d200,d300,d7200,d700,d3,d800,d850.

 

 

 

<div>

Yes, you can do a lot with ND filters... but you need to buy them (probably several of them for different filter sizes) and carry them around.


And multiple exposures do not give you smoothened water or clouds, nor do they remove groups of tourists walking around your subject

 

 

 

The only time I use the low settings, is to beat back the sun for an hdr or to replace a ND filter for a long shutter. Seems to work ok for that. But I try to keep in mind that it might have less DR. Haven't tried on the D850 yet. I don't use it often. I don't know what would be better though, the low setting or the filter?

</div>

[JJ_SO]

I guess we're mixing up two things here, now.


First, there was the point that lowest available ISO is not necessarily base ISO of the sensor.


Second, there was a remark by toni that he wishes low ISO settings like Kodak offered on the SLR/c and SLR/n would still be available in today's cameras (just like I do). There's a reason why Kodak offered it back then (improve image quailty by lowering noise, which was an issue back then even at low ISO settings and long eposures), but that's not the reason why I (and I guess toni, too) would love to have this feature in our current cameras.


Yes, you can do a lot with ND filters... but you need to buy them (probably several of them for different filter sizes) and carry them around.


And multiple exposures do not give you smoothened water or clouds, nor do they remove groups of tourists walking around your subject

 

This appears to become an example of being a bit stubborn. "I demand low ISO 6" - and I can't see any sensible reason for that (I'm not saying who's stubborn, then  )

 

But you might update your outdated knowledge about multi-exposures and how to get a long time exposure impression: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/209...-0?lang=de

 

Scroll down to "Capture Looooong Exposures" - and that's without the disadvantage of increasing the noise by long exposures* - that's what you get with an ISO 6 camera. It's totally counterproductibe to hunt for less noise by lowering ISO, but then get longer shutter speeds and therefore more noise again. Doesn't make any sense.

 

It's also without the disadvantage of closing down the aperture and get massive diffractions. Great glass, great sensor and then ruin the best possible results by increasing noise and diffraction.

 

*) it just remains unclear, if a couple of stacked pictures will not increase sensor temperature - then I would have to live with a disappointment, I guess.

[Brightcolours]

My 9 stop ND filter is pretty colourcast-less. Hoya ND400 (no idea why it is not called ND512). I chose a 58mm one so it will fit my lenses with 58mm thread (like the Canon FL 55mm f1.2), all my old Nikkors (55mm f1.2, 50mm f2, 35mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5, 135mm f2.8, 55mm f3.5), Voigtlander 20mm with 52mm to 58mm step up ring, and the odd 55mm lens that I have with appropriate step up ring. I only need one to cover a wide focal range. And to be honest, of course I have not used it on all those focal lengths and lenses.

 

I also have a Marumi ND8 3 stop filter, also pretty colourcast-less.

 

For people who worry about every bit of sharpness, it is best to do things without ND filter, and so, lower ISO settings would be welcome for some.

[JJ_SO]

Well, things are different if you have to rely on 150 × 150 mm filters and need to use an appropriate holder to get the whole setup light-tight. I've bought a Formatt Hitech and all I can say it looks very much lowtech and needs massive colour corrections - Hoya ND4 is free of that. I could waste more money on other filters, but all I read so far about ND1000 filters was : No matter "which" and "how much", all of them show colour cast. Checking Google for color cast leads to pages of articles, so I stay highly sceptical.

 

Also, a M58 screw in filter will not help me and honestly, most of the time the big plate stays at home because it needs an even bigger holder.

 

Anyway, back to topic: D850 goes down to ISO 64, not many bodies - if at all - go "downer" and toni's and Markus' begging for lower ISO is nothing I support. Less than no noise apparently is possible - just don't push the shutter button too loud. 

[mst]

Thanks for trying to educate me, JoJu It doesn't need a kickstarter device to do that, the same can be achieved in post.

And didn't demand anything, either. Just mentioned I'd appreciate such a feature, because, just as in your case, my ND filters are usually at home when an opportunity to use them shows up. Unlike you, I still think there would be actually benefit by having low ISO in-camera (lower than 64). Not in terms of image quality, though, that wasn't the idea behind it.

[JJ_SO]

But in which terms then?

 

Btw., the cool thing - at least in theory, I still have to wait to find out if it actually is cool - with Arsenal is, you do the multi exposure in the field and come home with just one RAW instead a solid pack of fat RAW-files to download, backup and spend time in post. Doubtful if the results would be better.

 

The other cool side, as far as I could hope for: It doesn't matter much at which aperture you like to do "longtime bulb" shot. In theory 1000 shots of 1/1000 are giving the same result as 1 shot at 1 sec. I just mention "silent shutter in LiveVIew", which is a novelty with Nikon (but not with Fujifilm or Sony). That means no mechanical wear involved...

 

Also, no longer the problem of filter holders which are not light-tight, or filters which can reflect incoming light or increase aperture flares...

 

Until today I haven't thought about this advantages, so thanks for keeping the wish for ISO 6 upright. The longer I think about the more downsides I find - but not a single benefit. You cannot lower the voltage for the sensor ubless you like to risk read-out-errors. The problem with sensor heat and long exposures still exists and you will constantly have to work with a tripod.

[Brightcolours]

I like lower ISO settings (or ND filters) for capturing movement that otherwise is a bit difficult, like movement by the wind or ghosting walking people, even with larger apertures. So not talking about about 30 second exposures or something.

[mst]

But in which terms then?

Usability. The same reason why in-camera focus stacking exists in the D850

[mst]

I like lower ISO settings (or ND filters) for capturing movement that otherwise is a bit difficult, like movement by the wind or ghosting walking people, even with larger apertures. So not talking about about 30 second exposures or something.

Yup. Something like this:

 

 

[JJ_SO]

Usability?

 

But to get sharp shots with ISO 6, a tripod will be the only thing to use. I think, ISO 6 is much more limiting than a software based solution will be - which, btw was just impossible 13 years ago. A device like Arsenal would have come in a pretty big box, additional power extension cable and a couple of harddrives, each a massive 200 MB big.


Usability?

 

But to get sharp shots with ISO 6, a tripod will be the only thing to use. I think, ISO 6 is much more limiting than a software based solution will be - which, btw was just impossible 13 years ago. A device like Arsenal would have come in a pretty big box, additional power extension cable and a couple of harddrives, each a massive 200 MB big.