[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: I agree with where are going with this, but would like to make a few distinctions here. First, when we speak of how important high ISO is to us, there is both the question of how *often* we use it, and also how *good* the results need to be. And there is the matter of how much we are willing to pay for incremental improvement after that basic minimum threshold.

I agree, both quantity & quality are in the equation.

Marc Sabatella: In my case, I shoot high ISO a *lot*. Maybe 50% or more of my shooting is 1600 or above, because I do so much concert and indoor candid photography. I'd also say that performance is quite important to me in that it needs to exceed a certain level that pretty much rules out the small sensor cameras. Which is too bad, because, sure, I'd love a pocketable superzoom that would work for me. I'm willing to pay rather more for a DSLR to get above the threshold I want to reach. But beyond that, the differences between APS-C cameras is largely irrelevant to me, and FF just isn't worth the cost in dollars or size/weight.

Absolutely Mark, for you, the APS-c sensor is probably returning more $$ value than it is for %99 of the users out there. Clearly, your entry into DSLRs was well-thought out. Your discussion makes me think of all the DSLR users out there who would be just as well served with P & S cameras. I really miss my super--zooms, which made so much more room in my hiking bag for necessities.

Marc Sabatella: So I'm in a position of saying high ISO performance is extremely important to me, and yet it also doesn't really serve as much of a differentiator within the world of DSLR's.

I would benefit from a re-wording of this sentence, before I respond--do not want to misinterpret.

Marc Sabatella: If I might make yet another car analogy, decent high ISO performance is like brakes. I absolutely, positively need this, and would no more buy a camera with unacceptable high ISO performance than I would a car without brakes. But beyond that, brakes are brakes to me, and I really couldn't care less about differences in braking between cars - they're all good enough for me.

Analogical thinking is an awesome tool & I welcome the car metaphor into the discussion. To be fair though, I think brakes is off a little--here is why. All people who own a car must have brakes in order to use the car. However, all people who own a DSLR camera do not need High ISO in order to use the camera. I am not trying to nit pick--please do not be offended. But I think a better metaphor is in order here. For example. all cars need a steering system, but they do not all need a amplified power assist. And really, in the end, turning up ISO is really amplifying the sensor's sensitivity to noise. Turning up the hydraulic pressure is really turning up the wheel's sensitivity to force.

And when it comes to safety, it seems brakes cannot be good enough. If this were not true, we would still have drum brakes in front & rear of all cars. People value safety in their cars. And ABS brakes take that safety factor to an even higher level.

Marc Sabatella: But beyond that, the differences between APS-C cameras is largely irrelevant to me, and FF just isn't worth the cost in dollars or size/weight.

I could not agree more with the above statement.

---

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 04-10-2010 at 09:02 PM.

[Jewelltrail]

er1kksen: I look forward to the days (if ever) when we can shoot ISO 3200 with the same quality as today's ISO 200. Then the only important variables will be shutter speed, aperture, and lighting, lifting a lot of the practical restrictions on us photographer's creative restrictions.

Actually, if you shoot with the Nikon D3. those days are pretty much here. This is not to say a D3 ISO 3200 shot looks as good as a D3 ISO 200 shot. However, it is amazing how close a D3 ISO 3200 shot is to an entry-level. crop sensor ISO 200 shot.

But, for me, this is pointless, Firstly, I do not need this kind of ISO performance. Secondly, I do not want this kind of performance because it comes at, from my perspective, prohibitive costs. The costs are not all tangible ones, but intangible costs weigh heavily too. The whole point of having various ISOs is to learn the law of compromises--which is what photography has always been about. If we get technology in our cameras so good that all ISOs perform equally well, then that will be a sad thing indeed. Because compromise in photography, as in life, is not about having infinite powers. Indeed no, photography attempts to capture life, and towards that end, it needs to stay ever mindful of the finite world--for that be the world of which we are a part--this is where we live and die--in finitude.

In compromise we learn to live harmoniously with our finiteness, with our humanity. Let our cameras stay as flawed as we our, lest we lose all perspective.

[johnmflores]

Actually, if you shoot with the Nikon D3. those days are pretty much here. This is not to say a D3 ISO 3200 shot looks as good as a D3 ISO 200 shot. However, it is amazing how close a D3 ISO 3200 shot is to an entry-level. crop sensor ISO 200 shot.

But, for me, this is pointless, Firstly, I do not need this kind of ISO performance. Secondly, I do not want this kind of performance because it comes at, from my perspective, prohibitive costs. The costs are not all tangible ones, but intangible costs weigh heavily too. The whole point of having various ISOs is to learn the law of compromises--which is what photography has always been about. If we get technology in our cameras so good that all ISOs perform equally well, then that will be a sad thing indeed. Because compromise in photography, as in life, is not about having infinite powers. Indeed no, photography attempts to capture life, and towards that end, it needs to stay ever mindful of the finite world--for that be the world of which we are a part--this is where we live and die--in finitude.

In compromise we learn to live harmoniously with our finiteness, with our humanity. Let our cameras stay as flawed as we our, lest we lose all perspective.

interesting philosophical point, but I still want great high ISO. I already know that the finiteness that you speak of lies in my creative vision and my mind's eye. The best tools in the world - ones that obeys my will - just reinforce how limited that will is...

[jgredline]

Actually, if you shoot with the Nikon D3. those days are pretty much here. This is not to say a D3 ISO 3200 shot looks as good as a D3 ISO 200 shot. However, it is amazing how close a D3 ISO 3200 shot is to an entry-level. crop sensor ISO 200 shot.

Actually there is allot of truth here, but there is more to it than that. I bought a D700 because I spend allot of time at ISO1600 and above as you know. But what I discovered is that it is way to big and heavy, especially with the Nikon glass to make for a practical street shooting rig. With out the grip it is still heavy and now awkward for me...So even though it has killer high ISO performance, I still use my K20D and small primes for street shooting.

[er1kksen]

Actually, if you shoot with the Nikon D3. those days are pretty much here. This is not to say a D3 ISO 3200 shot looks as good as a D3 ISO 200 shot. However, it is amazing how close a D3 ISO 3200 shot is to an entry-level. crop sensor ISO 200 shot.

But, for me, this is pointless, Firstly, I do not need this kind of ISO performance. Secondly, I do not want this kind of performance because it comes at, from my perspective, prohibitive costs. The costs are not all tangible ones, but intangible costs weigh heavily too. The whole point of having various ISOs is to learn the law of compromises--which is what photography has always been about. If we get technology in our cameras so good that all ISOs perform equally well, then that will be a sad thing indeed. Because compromise in photography, as in life, is not about having infinite powers. Indeed no, photography attempts to capture life, and towards that end, it needs to stay ever mindful of the finite world--for that be the world of which we are a part--this is where we live and die--in finitude.

In compromise we learn to live harmoniously with our finiteness, with our humanity. Let our cameras stay as flawed as we our, lest we lose all perspective.

The D3 (and even moreso the D3s) come very close to that goal, admittedly, but perhaps I should have added the qualifier "affordable." As in, affordable for any of us folks who are crazy enough to spend several hundred dollars on an SLR.

Your philosophical response is understandable and I respect the way you feel but at the same time I have to disagree. While I'm aware of my own finiteness and it enriches my life, my camera's limitations have nothing to do with that awareness, and there are many, many people with even more limited cameras who haven't even come to a mental understanding of that inherent finiteness, as well as many people who don't even have cameras who probably have a better understanding of it than I do. If that's what your camera means to you, that's great, and even if such an ideal camera came to be you could certainly choose to continue working with more limited cameras instead. I just don't think that most of us find the same meaning in our cameras. I know that for me, a camera that lacked such limitations would simply give me more freedom to express my creative urges as I wish to, giving me more room to explore and allowing me to grow more fully. To me a camera is just a temporary tool which I use to translate my thoughts into imagery, and the more effective it is at doing so, the better. My own creativity will remain finite regardless of advances in cameras, and that's the realm in which I truly wish to push boundaries. Not pushing against my camera's limitations. Pushing against my own limitations.

[Pentaxor]

I almost dislocated my neck when I slung a D3x around my neck. it's a heavy piece of machinery coupled with FX lenses. when I was younger, I always thought the bigger means better. well, there is truth to that statement (IQ wise) but also you have to pay a price as well. no, I'm not just referring to money but also with regards to handling weight. a D300 is already heavy for me, what more could a D3x? I like something bigger before because you look cool if you are handling something big and catches a lot of attention, like having a Dodge RAM rather than driving a beatle. only to realize later that it is such an incovenience in many ways and impractical as well on your part. you had to take special care to it, you can't just leave a camera like that hanging around your neck, you can't hold it with one hand, you can't sling it around your shoulder as it might go loose or get strike by some idiot while you are outdoors doing street photography, it is the last camera that you want to use on a vacation or anywhere that it is a hazard for such equipment. in other words, it's more a ferrari that is excellent in a race track and blowing every other car away, but you can't use it's potential in a traffic congested city or for driving on to the rough mountain paths.

[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor: I almost dislocated my neck when I slung a D3x around my neck.

LOL Yes sir, I can see that one playing out. The only good thing about this is, even with the outrageous cost of health care, the D3x and accompanying lens would be more than enough collateral for a Dr to take you in and fix you.

Yeah, I know, you are Canadian and have a socialized health care system. Therefore, even if you had the Walmart $19.99 50 mega-pixel Point & Shoot around your neck when the damage happened, they would still need to fix you.

[Pentaxor]

LOL Yes sir, I can see that one playing out. The only good thing about this is, even with the outrageous cost of health care, the D3x and accompanying lens would be more than enough collateral for a Dr to take you in and fix you.

Yeah, I know, you are Canadian and have a socialized health care system. Therefore, even if you had the Walmart $19.99 50 mega-pixel Point & Shoot around your neck when the damage happened, they would still need to fix you.

and How does Rhode Island's health care system working so far? I'd bet there are a lot of good Canadian doctors there asking for collateral.

although my feeling is that the newly passed health care bill would certainly do a lot of changes with concerns to medical costs. I do however believed that the U.S. government had already given more than enough pampering work for the business and industrial sector. I think it is time that they should give something back to the general public as that is why they are there for in the first place. anyway, we also have our own problems as well.

[johnmflores]

Great capture. It has that authentic photojournalistic feel. Somehow you got the feeling across that this was an important moment (whether it was or not, I don't know ;-)). The b&w adds a lot to the mood of the scene.

Thanks. It was a very heavy moment indeed, and I was honored to be invited to capture the candidate at a very pivotal and emotional moment. I had to be very discreet, thus the diminutive DA70...

[johnmflores]

K-x, ISO 3200
DA* 50-135
F4.5, 1/320 (manual)
LR NR

[Marc Sabatella]

Absolutely Mark, for you, the APS-c sensor is probably returning more $$ value than it is for %99 of the users out there. Clearly, your entry into DSLRs was well-thought out.

Not really - I kind of lucked into it. My wife wanted faster focus than the superzooms I was looking at, and a friend who is a musician and photographer gave me a heads up that low light photography would go better with a DSLR, not that I had any way of putting that into context.

Marc Sabatella: So I'm in a position of saying high ISO performance is extremely important to me, and yet it also doesn't really serve as much of a differentiator within the world of DSLR's.

I would benefit from a re-wording of this sentence, before I respond--do not want to misinterpret.

OK, how about this:

Having good high ISO performance is very important to me. But since all APS-C cameras have good high ISO performance, this doesn't really help me choose one over another.

To be fair though, I think brakes is off a little--here is why. All people who own a car must have brakes in order to use the car. However, all people who own a DSLR camera do not need High ISO in order to use the camera.

OK, true. Not sure this ruins the analogy. But sure, amplified power steering assist works better - if in fact it's something not everyone needs, but essentially all cars have.

Maybe a better analogy would be back to cameras: what if I said I think a spot meter is very important in a similar way (I don't think this, but let's say I did). Not everyone needs a spot meter - just like not everyone needs good high ISO performance. For people that need spot metering, it's a big deal - but not a differentiator, because virtually all cameras offer this.

[Marc Sabatella]

Too much talky, not enough looky :-)

Here's ISO 3200 equivalent from the K200D:



Link to larger version:

http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p947215510.jpg

[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: OK, how about this:

Having good high ISO performance is very important to me. But since all APS-C cameras have good high ISO performance, this doesn't really help me choose one over another.

Agreed on this too. The only way to get more than incremental gains in High ISO performance, is to move into FF, after selling the house. I am happy right here, in Pentax Crop-Sensor land. I know many Point and Shooters, who look at we Crop-Sensor shooters, in a manner analogous to the way we have been looking at Nikon D3 (FF) users. The same criticisms can be levied upon us (Crop-Sensor shooters), by P & S shooters. That is, Crop Sensor DSLRs are expensive & heavy.

Pentaxor: and How does Rhode Island's health care system working so far? I'd bet there are a lot of good Canadian doctors there asking for collateral.

although my feeling is that the newly passed health care bill would certainly do a lot of changes with concerns to medical costs. I do however believed that the U.S. government had already given more than enough pampering work for the business and industrial sector. I think it is time that they should give something back to the general public as that is why they are there for in the first place. anyway, we also have our own problems as well.

Yes, you make good points--not good to open this can of worms here though. I best stop now.

[yperion]

K20D and 16-45 f/4

iso640


iso1000


iso1600


iso3200 tamron 90 f/4.5



noise reduction performed

[Jewelltrail]

yperion:K20D and 16-45 f/4

Love the last one.

K20d, with Tamron 90mm, ISO 1250, 1/30th, f5