Latest Nikon release rumours

On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100 anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter [which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].


An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is
the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer
shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100
anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better
to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter
[which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].


An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.


I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even give
up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

On Aug 20, 4:53 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ps.com...



On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is
the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer
shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100
anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better
to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter
[which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].

An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even give
up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
venues because of the lighting.

According to Thomas T. Veldhouse :
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?


There is always neutral density filters.


There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer shutter
speeds.

Actually -- I have one example where neutral density filters
would work, and the camera (my D70) won't go to a low enough ISO to
*allow* a properly exposed image. This is with the older version of the
Medical Nikkor (200mm f:4 with close-up lenses and built-in ring flash).
The closest shots, with the standard AC-powered flash power pack have
too much light for anything above 25 ASA (this is an *old* lens --
before they started calling the same system ISO). The slightly newer
version with a flash power pack powered by twelve D cells, has a switch
on the panel to drop the effective flash output by a factor of 4, so I
can use that one with the minimum ISO 200 on the D70 without a neutral
density filter.

Of course -- the *ideal* neutral density filter for this would
be one which fit *around* the actual lens, and dropped light from the
flash ring instead, so the stack of "filters" (up to two close-up lenses
expected in the design) would not be so extreme. And with the closest
shots, the neutral density filter would have to be closer to the lens,
because that close-up lens (the 2X from the set) has too much curvature
to allow filter threads on the outboard end.

The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100 anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter [which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].

Well ... there is the risk of overflowing the charge buckets
with that much light, so there would be a lot of blown pixels.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"Pete D" wrote:

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even
give up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

In larger sensor cameras, ISO 50 and the hypothetical 25 are meaningless.
For them to be meaningful, each pixel would need twice or four times the
charge storing capacity that's available in the current technology. In the
Canon 5D, everything under ISO 400 is meaningless. But the meaninglessness
of ISO 100 and 200 is due to the lack of bits (and perhaps excessive noise,
but that can't be seen without the bits) in the AD converters.

On the 5D, ISO 1600's real nice; 11x14s that look a lot nicer than 6x9s from
35mm Tri-X.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 20, 4:53 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ps.com...



On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that
is
the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer
shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and
be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100
anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be
better
to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter
[which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].

An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even
give
up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
venues because of the lighting.

Just how many sports fotogs are they trying to support?

RichA wrote:
All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
venues because of the lighting.


I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
ISO100.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

On Aug 21, 3:52 am, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 20, 4:53 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that
is
the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer
shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and
be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100
anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be
better
to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter
[which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].

An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even
give
up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
venues because of the lighting.

Just how many sports fotogs are they trying to support?

Unknown.

On Aug 20, 5:25 pm, RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:53 pm, "Pete D" wrote:



"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Aug 20, 1:15 pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Aug 20, 3:40 am, "Pete D" wrote:
What about ISO 50?

There is always neutral density filters.

There is absolutely no point in that barring one case only, and that is
the
case where you want a lower ISO solely for the desire to use longer
shutter
speeds. The whole idea is to let all the photons hit the sensor and be
counted ... minimal noise. Modern sensors are so low noise at ISO100
anyway,
it may not be a practical difference, but in theory, it would be better
to
have true ISO50 than to reduce the light via a neutral density filter
[which
also is a cumulative drop in quality due to more glass].

An ND filter is just one option. Adjusting f-ratio is another to
extend shutter speed.
In point of fact, some cameras that can do 50 ISO show as much or even
more noise at that setting as 100. There is no measurable drop in
quality using a good quality filter, unless you catch a reflection or
there is some unforseen interaction between a filter and lens combo,
more likely with very wide angle lenses. But then using 50 ISO would
be easier than using any filter.

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50 might even give
up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted on me.

All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
venues because of the lighting.

I've shot sports at ASA3200 with a 300mm f2.8 before. Sometimes
that's just what you've got to do. One reason I switch to digital was
that the film was getting increasing difficult to find

Youth and high school football fields are pretty poorly lit around
here. If you're not on the sidelines with a big flash, you need a
big, fast lens. On the sidelines, sometimes I break out both EX580s
and fire them both together to get some light on the field --
especially if it's dusk. I'm thinking of making a new bracket to hold
one flash above the camera and one below the camera to help illuminate
inside the helmets when it's really dark.

While some of you seldom shoot above ASA 200 or whatever, I seldom
shoot below 400 because I shoot a lot of sports.

"Pete D" wrote in
:

I would give up the bull**** ISO 1600 and 3200 to get ISO 50
might even give up 800 for 25. All this high ISO crap is wasted
on me.

Whereas I rarely set my D200 below 400, and would really *love* to be
able to use 3200, 6400, 12800.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-
b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info