[davidmanze]

      Indeed JoJu! 

 

     My  D750  :wub:  is back in action......I love it's IQ..... actually it's a pretty good sports camera as it is, only having 1/2 a frame less than the D850 sans grip,   6.5 fps is getting there for FF.

 

   The two together cover my needs adequately, ten years back I never thought I would have such capable kit! 

[toni-a]

about base ISO

https://petapixel.com/2011/04/28/lower-i...ty-images/

 

About KodaK SLR ISO 6

 

Optimization setting of the Pro 14n and has lower noise and less purple fringing tendency than the existing one. ISO range is calibrated from 160 to 800, with the full extended ISO range being 6 to 1600.

 

http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm

[JJ_SO]

Linking to a 6 year aged article which was debating the sense of Lo 0.5 and Lo 1 (or ISO 50 in Canonish) is historcially interesting, but these days most users (not necessarily most forum readers  ) know that the lower ISO come at the price of reduced DR and don't improve noise level at all.

 

EDIT: On second thought: As long as few users are convinced it's best to take pictures without any compression and constantly fail to prove it, the very same users might also be convinced the lowest possible ISO is just the way to go.

[mst]

I don't think it can be considered as common knowledge. In fact, I tend to disagree that "most users" are aware of the lack of improvements at low ISO.

Regarding the Kodak: ISO 6 was then one (and basically only) why I was interested in getting one for a while (when 14 MP was still impressive). It was available on both the EF-mount and the F-mount version of the cameras... even though I never really liked the Sigma-based SLR/c, to be honest.

[JJ_SO]

I think Nikon choose wisely not to talk about ISO 50, 32, 25 but instead of Lo 0.3, 0.7 and 1 (EV). The manual also very clearly states about higher contrast (page 120) and I do think, amongst the users who need regularly low ISO the downsides are known - and the others are the people who think they can treat a DSLR like they uised to do with film cameras and never look into manuals.

 

 

Now I still don't got a  proof that pictures of  this fantastic Kodak ISO 6 machine would be superior in any way to contemporary cameras. The samples are just poor IQ compared to today's standards. toni-a, thanks for digging very deep in digital dust, but I would be very amazed if a machine from 2004 (!) could compete in any way with a modern camera.

 

What I saw in the samples, each of my also historical Sigma Merrills would eat for breakfast.  Not all old machines are better than modern ones. But on eBay they might be quite cheap these days. Age itself is not a quality per se.

[toni-a]

All I wanted to say is that best ISO isn't always the lowest, and thus LO1 with exposure similar to ISO 50 isn't ISO 50 actually and isn't better than ISO 100.

On that point we all agreed.

Kodak SLR had ISO 6 exposure equivalent, but no true ISO6 ND filters is still the way to go

[JJ_SO]

If I wanted to split hair, I could easily reply "the best ISO on D810 and D850 is also the lowest (ISO 64) - the other, lower settings don't even pretend to have to do with ISO".

 

So, on the Nikon side of things, at least with those two bodies the users can rely to get the bes lowest ISO if he or she uses the lowest ISO number that is - and don't care about "LO whatever".

[mst]

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

[JJ_SO]

ND filters usually have a color drift (if one goes for the real big 10 f/ stoppers), but how much better you think low ISO would become? And ISO 6 (down from 64) is just 3 stops less. Not sufficient for a long exposure in daylight.

 

At ISO 64 there already is no visible noise. Feel free to ask the manufacturers for ISO 6-1600. I'm pretty sure it will sell like mouldy bread. The low ISO setttings of any modern camera cover the needs and can't ne improved as noise can't become negative - if there is already no visible noise, double no noise will not lead to better results .

 

Using long exposures in daylight can be done with another technique: multiple exposures. As good as we have HDR stacks and focus stacks, we can also stack a couple of normal 1/15 exposures to get long times. At least, that's how Arsenal will do it. So, no ND filter = no color drift, no thread problems, tripod still necessary.

 

I think we continuously move to a much more software-based photography - after all, it doesn't matter how you can do long time exposures in daylight as long as they are convincing and trouble free. 

[mst]

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