ISO 102,400 anyone?

[Nigel Atherton]

I'm sure you're read our news story about the new Nikon D3s (can't figure out how to make that a link, but it's here: http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/new...0-102-400.html) and its incredible high ISO of 102, 400.
I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about such a high ISO. Would you like to have such a facility, even if the result looks like a sand storm in the Gobi desert? To be fair, the examples we saw, by Andy Rouse, didn't look as bad as that (they're in the video if you haven't seen it).
I can see why pro's would want it, but I too like the idea of being able to photograph things I can barely see, even if I'm not sure how often I'd want to do that.

[Mat Gallagher]

Canon have been quick to reply to the Nikon D3s with their new EOS 1D MKIV, which also features a max setting of ISO 102,400. See more here: http://tinyurl.com/yh6ydoq

[NRoberts]

Wonder how long that's been planned...

[shaun2k]

hmm...dont ever use 6400 let alone that figure..

i'm a quality junkie so i hate grain....urghhh colour blindness test sheet style effect

this was on 800:



and i'm not seeing much grain there, apart from the slight red advance, so whats the deal with uber iso's

102,400 iso on a k10d if possible would be....lol..





i'd use the bulb of wonders for major light hunting, unless its moving...mind you the ferry i was on was going at the time so not bad from the k10d

[Mike Lowe]

this was on 800:



and i'm not seeing much grain there, apart from the slight red advance, so whats the deal with uber iso's

102,400 iso on a k10d if possible would be....lol..

I LOLd...

[nspur]

I've taken shots at 12800 on Canon but I'm not sure that I would want to go to another three stops (not that I can on present kit). I did take one shot at 25600 on the 5DII and was really quite surprised (pleasantly). I think high ISO is nice to have but I wouldn't want to pay a great deal for it.

[shaun2k]

If the d3s can produce sharp grain free shots at 12800 in the hands of a amature user thats a bonus, and very usefull to both user and industry

[daft_biker]

I
I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about such a high ISO. Would you like to have such a facility, even if the result looks like a sand storm in the Gobi desert? To be fair, the examples we saw, by Andy Rouse, didn't look as bad as that (they're in the video if you haven't seen it).
I can see why pro's would want it, but I too like the idea of being able to photograph things I can barely see, even if I'm not sure how often I'd want to do that.

I photograph things I can barely see most days

As for the low light/high ISO thing....I'm sure it has it's real uses but naff light is naff light. For example the below image was taken on a very misty summer morning when there was little light and little contrast. I used a tripod and a 3.2 second exposure with ISO 100 so noise isn't an issue....I tried to brighten the shot up a bit in photoshop too.


The next shot was taken on a clear morning moments after the sun made it over the horizon. Same deal with the tripod and low ISO but I only needed something like 1/30th as an exposure with a similar aperture setting on the same lens.


Even if high ISOs were completely noise free the'd probably still be taken in naff light - like the shots in the vid?

That said I'm quite enjoying ISO 6400 for indoor family snaps and stuff. I like the idea of high ISOs too but they're no substitute for good conditions and/or good technique where appropriate.

[shaun2k]

Awsome shots, does that second dragonfly have frost on it, lol poor bugger...

how you kept the subject still for 3.2 seconds with that clarity is emmence

[daft_biker]

Thanks Shaun....the biggest problem with conditions still enough for shots like that is getting constantly bitten by midges. You can do a lot of swearing in 3.2 seconds! It's dew on the damselfly in the the 2nd shot....that one looks a whole load better bigger when you can see detail in the refractions and reflections