What happened to low ISO?

[BardAzima]

I don't think there was ever going to be a 'visual revolution' with a few stops of improvement in high iso performance and no on promised one. You could shoot film at 6400 just like you can shoot a dslr at 6400 but what is does mean is that pictures that were once taken in these situations with loads of noise and fell apart at anything over 6x4" can now look very good printed to make larger sizes which is great for both photographers and clients.

Ask any good wedding photographer what high iso has done for them during church ceremonies where no flash is allowed.

Wholeheatedly agree.  What used to matter with film at 25-50 ISO is pretty irrelevant now.  200 ISO is amazing.  But more importantly, as a wedding photographer and a natural light photographer when it comes to children and babies, the low light wonders of my D700 (let alone the D3s) are an absolute miracle.

[epatsellis]

Hi Bernard,

What do you mean ISO 6 ??  

Is that Kodak really a good camera? it has been hardly critisized everywhere.

Fred.

Well for the spray and pray, take it out of the box and just use it crowd, it sucks. If you have plenty of light, understand how to get the best out of a camera and are willing to learn it's foibles, it can be a wondrous sight to behold. Look at it crosseyed and it'll bite you in the ass. I love mine, but always have a backup plan.

erie

[douglasf13]

Your 3DX seems to have better IQ than my Alpha 900, although much of the sensor technology is shared, AFAIK.

Best regards
Erik

  The D3x's 14bits and CFA create much of the difference between the two cameras.  The D3x can certainly coax more shadow detail when boosting shadows, due to it's 14 bits (however the 14 bits are achieved,) and so it has a DR advantage over the A900.  The A900 has better color separation/hue resolution in the greens than any current Nikon camera, because of the CFA choice.  The cost of the better color separation of the Sony's CFA is that it blocks more light to the sensor than the Nikon's CFA, so more amplification is required at a given exposure.  That is why the D3x has a bit better noise performance in low light.

  It's really not a matter of better than.  For landscape shooting, it's a matter of better shadow detail vs. better detail in things like foliage. The ideal landscape 35mm combination would probably be the 14bit D3x sensor with the A900's color filter.    


p.s. from what I understand, the Sony CFA also makes the camera less friendly with some converters due to how the converters implement WB, causing blotchiness and poor detail. RPP has been a revelation in detail for my A900 files.

[douglasf13]

sorry, duplicate post.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't argue with your statement.

To me it seems that the processing pipeline in ACR and Lightroom 3 Beta 2 really improve high ISO performance on my Sony Alphas, at least in some cases.

Best regards
Erik

The D3x's 14bits and CFA create much of the difference between the two cameras.  The D3x can certainly coax more shadow detail when boosting shadows, due to it's 14 bits (however the 14 bits are achieved,) and so it has a DR advantage over the A900.  The A900 has better color separation/hue resolution in the greens than any current Nikon camera, because of the CFA choice.  The cost of the better color separation of the Sony's CFA is that it blocks more light to the sensor than the Nikon's CFA, so more amplification is required at a given exposure.  That is why the D3x has a bit better noise performance in low light.

  It's really not a matter of better than.  For landscape shooting, it's a matter of better shadow detail vs. better detail in things like foliage. The ideal landscape 35mm combination would probably be the 14bit D3x sensor with the A900's color filter.    


p.s. from what I understand, the Sony CFA also makes the camera less friendly with some converters due to how the converters implement WB, causing blotchiness and poor detail. RPP has been a revelation in detail for my A900 files.

[douglasf13]

Hi,

I don't argue with your statement.

To me it seems that the processing pipeline in ACR and Lightroom 3 Beta 2 really improve high ISO performance on my Sony Alphas, at least in some cases.

Best regards
Erik

  I agree. LR3 beta 2 is a GIANT leap forward for A900 files compared to LR2.  However, as much as I want to stick with the ease of an all LR3 workflow, I've begun experimenting again with converting RAW in RPP and sending the TIFFs to PS or Lightroom, and you just can't beat the raw conversion quality of RPP, IMO.  The slow, methodical application of adjustments in RPP really makes a difference.   The NR of LR3 still works well on TIFFS, as far as I can tell.