gmpphotography Posted October 15, 2012 Share #1 Posted October 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) People are slowly beginning to realize that the ever increasing number of megapixels has turned into nothing more than an advertising gig since even Leica lenses are incapable of resolution levels to keep up with the sensors. I feel the same is the case with the quest for ever increasing ISO capabilities. Especially with Leica lenses we have equipment that performs better than virtually anything else at wide open apertures. Yes, there is depth of field to consider also. Thinking back to the film days, there was little that allowed shooting at ISO levels higher than 1000, yet I rarely heard of any requests for higher film speeds. What has changed? Do we really need ISO 10,000 or even higher? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep digital sensors at somewhat more reasonable ISO levels and put efforts into other improvements? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 Hi gmpphotography, Take a look here ISO Mdness?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kdriceman Posted October 15, 2012 Share #2 Posted October 15, 2012 People are slowly beginning to realize that the ever increasing number of megapixels has turned into nothing more than an advertising gig since even Leica lenses are incapable of resolution levels to keep up with the sensors. I feel the same is the case with the quest for ever increasing ISO capabilities. Especially with Leica lenses we have equipment that performs better than virtually anything else at wide open apertures. Yes, there is depth of field to consider also. Thinking back to the film days, there was little that allowed shooting at ISO levels higher than 1000, yet I rarely heard of any requests for higher film speeds. What has changed? Do we really need ISO 10,000 or even higher? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep digital sensors at somewhat more reasonable ISO levels and put efforts into other improvements? No, I don't think so... I have seen a lot of very nice action shots done at 1/8000 and ISO's of 6400 and greater with the new DSLR's. Unquestionably better shots than could be done with the previous generation of DSLR. And that is not even getting into low light shooting. Maybe that's not a good example for a Leica M system shooter, but a lot of us that do shoot M8's and M9's like to take low light shots and like to have images that don't have motion blur. Having an extra couple stops of speed can make an average image extra-ordinary. So, I welcome the added sensitivity of some of the newer sensors and just because something wasn't wanted in the film days does not mean we can't use that capability now. What other improvements would you want instead of the higher ISO... you've already eliminated additional resolution as a viable improvement? 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted October 15, 2012 Share #3 Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) I've been thinking about this, too. I was very happy when I received my 5D2 and was able to adjust ISO between shots. Coming from many years of film photography that was a revelation to me. As was the ability to capture clean(ish)-looking images at up to 3200 or thereabouts. These things really changed how I used the camera. Still I was very happy when I went back to film after two years with the Canon (which I still have btw and occasionally use). I have realised that the question really is about needs depending on the photographic task at hand. I'm usually quite content even in darker situations, say a pub, with an ISO 400 roll but sometimes I would want to be able to use smaller apertures and still get a sharp shot. In those cases I find that film limits me because my needs, then, are different. It seems to me there's a trend, which so far is not slowing down, towards cleaner and cleaner ISO performance at higher sensitivities. In a way it makes sense. Noise is after all a by-product. With many compact cameras for instance, including Leica's C-Lux series, for each new generation there's one level higher of usable ISO. On more competent cameras the leaps are usually much longer than that. But I don't think this is madness; rather it is a natural development. Today's cameras allow taking photographs which previously either couldn't be captured or couldn't be captured easily. This is of course a development reminiscent of the increased ISO sensitivity of film over the decades. Still for many photographers, and certainly for me and my photographic needs, there will likely be a point where the image quality noise-wise at a high ISO is sufficient for all applications which will obviate the need for even better performance. Ken asked what other improvements one can wish for. I can think of one thing - digital files that don't look so digital. In this respect I have some hopes for the upcoming M. It will be very interesting indeed to see the results of Leica having full control over the whole image-making chain. Edited October 15, 2012 by philipus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mija1789 Posted October 15, 2012 Share #4 Posted October 15, 2012 ... What other improvements would you want instead of the higher ISO... you've already eliminated additional resolution as a viable improvement? Dynamic range 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 16, 2012 Share #5 Posted October 16, 2012 Dynamic range Yes. I want that too. I'm expecting a noticeable improvement in the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted October 16, 2012 Share #6 Posted October 16, 2012 The higher camera ISO makes the lower priced Summarit lenses a reasonable option for those who can't afford a Summilux lens. This could only help sell more cameras and make Leica more competitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 16, 2012 Share #7 Posted October 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Images that you see posted nowadays from digital cameras are no better than those seen when photographers were held back by low ISO and film. To my mind they are less interesting, possibly because you have more and more photographers who are looking to the camera for a 'performance' advantage, when once upon a time it was the photographer who needed to increase his performance to make the better picture. So the initial spark of invention that shooting at 10,000 ISO brings is soon dissipated because everybody is copying the same technique or 'view', and pretty soon people realise anyway that the lowest ISO setting and a tripod still has its advantages. There are photographers using Lomo cameras and old film stock making more interesting and challenging photographs right now than almost any I have seen from high ISO DSLR's etc. Just wait and see with the M (M10), we will have lots of 'tests' posted to show the great high ISO capabilities, with yawn making images, and after the initial flood recedes they will form a very small proportion of the image content posted on LUF, or anywhere. Photographers should look at the person in the mirror for a great image, not wait for the M. Steve 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share #8 Posted October 16, 2012 Images that you see posted nowadays from digital cameras are no better than those seen when photographers were held back by low ISO and film. To my mind they are less interesting, possibly because you have more and more photographers who are looking to the camera for a 'performance' advantage, when once upon a time it was the photographer who needed to increase his performance to make the better picture. So the initial spark of invention that shooting at 10,000 ISO brings is soon dissipated because everybody is copying the same technique or 'view', and pretty soon people realise anyway that the lowest ISO setting and a tripod still has its advantages. There are photographers using Lomo cameras and old film stock making more interesting and challenging photographs right now than almost any I have seen from high ISO DSLR's etc. Just wait and see with the M (M10), we will have lots of 'tests' posted to show the great high ISO capabilities, with yawn making images, and after the initial flood recedes they will form a very small proportion of the image content posted on LUF, or anywhere. Photographers should look at the person in the mirror for a great image, not wait for the M. Steve I agree. As you said, before these super high ISO speeds were available, it was up to the photographer to deal with it. Inevitably, that put the photographer's personal stamp on the photographs. It seems that people are relying much too often on the features and capabilities of their cameras and let the camera do the "picture taking." The result is often a photograph that might technically be perfect but without personality. There are plenty of situations where super high ISO speeds make shooting a lot easier. Isn't that ultimately what people often look for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share #9 Posted October 16, 2012 The higher camera ISO makes the lower priced Summarit lenses a reasonable option for those who can't afford a Summilux lens. This could only help sell more cameras and make Leica more competitive. I can't agree with that. In the early days of Leicas slow lenses were all that was available. Photographers had to combine that with very slow film speeds. Let's not forget, ISO 20 was normal and ISO 100 was considered a high speed film. Yet photographers routinely produced excellent photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted October 16, 2012 ... you've already eliminated additional resolution as a viable improvement? I have not eliminated that, those limits are set by the laws of physics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 16, 2012 Share #11 Posted October 16, 2012 I have not eliminated that, those limits are set by the laws of physics. For that matter so is ISO and everything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlorianM Posted October 16, 2012 Share #12 Posted October 16, 2012 The higher camera ISO makes the lower priced Summarit lenses a reasonable option for those who can't afford a Summilux lens. This could only help sell more cameras and make Leica more competitive. Keep in mind, a 50 @f1.4 will look rather different than a 50 @f2.5, so its not all just about the high ISO performance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 16, 2012 Share #13 Posted October 16, 2012 [...]Wouldn't it make more sense to keep digital sensors at somewhat more reasonable ISO levels and put efforts into other improvements? Why either-or? Why not both higher ISO and other improvements? . 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted October 16, 2012 Why either-or? Why not both higher ISO and other improvements?. That wasn't the original question. I asked if the super high ISO capabilities are necessary. From the responses, it seems that there are definitely diverging opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 16, 2012 Share #15 Posted October 16, 2012 Why either-or? Why not both higher ISO and other improvements?. Exactly. There would be an inherent conflict in wishing for more megapixels and higher usable ISO values, but not between more dynamic range and higher ISO levels. And yes, I am all for higher usable ISO levels (as an option). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 16, 2012 Share #16 Posted October 16, 2012 I can't agree with that. In the early days of Leicas slow lenses were all that was available. Photographers had to combine that with very slow film speeds. Let's not forget, ISO 20 was normal and ISO 100 was considered a high speed film. Yet photographers routinely produced excellent photographs. And aren't you glad things have evolved past the days that ISO 100 was considered a high speed film? I am, and I'm looking forward to gaining the option of using even higher sensitivities. Although, I agree with Steve ... necessity is the mother of invention ... If you're stuck with technical limitations you can find ways to still produce some innovative images. So, one has to guard against complacency when given more technical capabilities. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 16, 2012 Share #17 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Higher ISOs simply gives one more opportunities to take photos and more ways to take them. They don't remove anything from a photographer's toolkit. The original 1Ds camera was pretty poor at ISO1250 and now one can shoot at that speed with very high quality results via numerous cameras. I have a friend who can now shoot night shots from a helicopter. Additionally, you have to think of the application for an image... small usage on the web can be ok for noisy 100,000 ISO images. Regarding maximum resolution... high quality lenses used on the Nex 7's 24MP APS C sensor show that 56MP full frame cameras will make sense for some users... whenever they become available. Greater dynamic range isn't the end all and be all of photography either. You can always add lights to change the DR just as shooters often do to use lower ISOs. Besides, lighting is an art in itself that many are not using because they are relying on the camera's technology to record detail at the expense of craftsmanship or style. Edited October 16, 2012 by AlanG 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share #18 Posted October 16, 2012 ...they are relying on the camera's technology to record detail at the expense of craftsmanship or style. Amen. Camera technology is no substitute for knopwledge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 16, 2012 Share #19 Posted October 16, 2012 Amen. Camera technology is no substitute for knopwledge. True.... but they are not mutually exclusive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted October 17, 2012 Share #20 Posted October 17, 2012 technology is a tool. with better tools, u can theoretically achieve better results. imagine what Cartier-Bresson would achieved if he had had Leica M Monochrom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now