AS wrote:
> What the heck would someone do with ISO 12,800 (extendable to ISO 102,400)?
>
Take pictures one otherwise couldn't take, of course. :-)
The first thing to realize is that the ISO film speed system makes
numbers that aren't outrageous seem so. 12,800 is only two stops faster
than 3,200, or four stops faster than 800. If DIN had become the
international standard, going those four stops would be going from DIN
30º to 42º. Doesn't sound so wild that way, does it? Don't let the
numbering system throw you.
During our sojourn in the NE, then were numerous times when I would have
liked a camera with better low light capabilities. Perhaps as or more
important than absolute top speed is improvement in noise and detail at
lower speeds. In a camera that goes to 12,800, I would expect that at
3,200, it would have noise much like my 5D at 800, and that would make a
big difference in my everyday shooting.
I've used this very practical example before, but I still think it's on
point. When my 5D was new, I went to an exhibition of jellyfish at the
Monterey Bay Aquarium. Let's look at the limitations.
1. The subjects are up to a foot deep, requiring good DOF.
2. The subjects are both moving through the water - in three
dimensions, and pulsing their bodies.
3. The lighting is dim, a compromise between subject health and
viewability by humans.
4. The glass is inches thick.
So, how about the classic solutions?
1. Even with a fast lens, DOF requires stopping down.
2. Slow shutter speeds with tripod would just be blurs.
3. Even if flash were allowed, the reflections would be hopeless.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/_MG_0194.htm>.
There is certainly noise there at iso 3200, but not too very much - at
least after a fair amount or NR work to balance NR and detail loss. .
Also, of course, the full pixel sample is the equivalent of a 3.6x3.2
in. (91x81 mm) piece of a 12x18 print, blown up to whatever size it is
on your monitor. In my case, it's like sitting less than two feet away
from a 32x48 in. print.
Being new to this, I also did some shots at lower isos, like 1600 and
1250, thinking to avoid all the noise at 3200. Definite mistake; the
loss of speed when hand holding shots of moving creatures created
fuzziness that was much worse on the image than the higher iso. And
wider apertures just left more of the subjects fuzzier from inadequate
DOF. You can see those problems in many of the shots here.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Aquarium/index.html>
There are definitely shots where high iso is the only answer. Soooo.
Next time I try to shoot such a subject, higher ISO/lower noise would
simply give me better results.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I can tell you that one has to learn to think differently when one has
> workable very high ISO available. A couple of weeks ago.... Here are my
> samples:
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/High%20ISO%20bounce%20flash/index.htm> They
> are converted from raw just as they were shot. No exposure adjustments and
> not even any white balance adjustments to correct for
> the daylight setting. Adding 2 more stops and correct color balance would
> produce excellent images.
>
> I was impressed and realized that I was still mentally stuck with the
> capabilities of ISO 400 film. :-)
I think that's the case for many photographers. Skimming the posts to
TOP about the same camera showed the same divide between those who can't
imagine what anyone would do with more speed and those who use what's
available already and dream of what more will allow them to accomplish.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|