Pixel size verses low light capability (Page 4): The SLR may be a better choice... I think those are single pixel...

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Architect1776 wrote:

Then my 6.5mp 10D should do total darkness wonderfully.

The SLR may be a better choice... I think those are single pixel

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

I am an Engineer and have a PhD in applied sciences but I am not a EE or a sensor expert. All that said it seems that pixel binning is also an important issue of how well a camera's sensor will operate in low light and or high ISO settings. You can google "pixel binning" on google. My understanding is that binning is the electrical communication between pixels. The advantage seems to be that by binning small pixels they can act as a single larger pixel and retain significantly more information so the picture is usable. This binning process is being used to great advantage on smaller sensors especially these new 64 MP sensors for mobile phones. As the binning process is still a work in progress I think we can expect to see even more pixels on a sensor in the future thus eliminating noise at higher ISO settings. Aside from phones having a big head start in this area I think micro 4/3 sensors like those on newer Olympus and Panasonic cameras are also employing this technology. BTW if you are interested I was an aeronautical engineer, studied meteorology and did my PhD in applied physical sciences. I am now retired. The subject I studied that most relates to binning was Modern Physics. But when I took the course Binning probably was not even an issue. In conclusion I think that modern cameras with high pixel count sensors should be superior then older sensors.

Bill P

yssirk123 wrote:

Since you're looking into switching camera systems, also check out the Nikon D3 / D4 series cameras. Built like tanks, they have amazing low light performance and are a bargain on the used camera marketplace. After years of missing the D3S I previously owned, I bought one with a low shutter count for ~ $1000.

Well ,well! This Bill just kept his D3 and has remained happy. I have shots that were made under a bit low light conditions, poorly lit interiors and the like, that I have blown up to 17x25, and if I had the printer, I would take the even higher.

All that on 12 MP? Oh the humanity.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

I am sure your D3 is admirable as was my first digital Nikon a D90. I think this high pixel count is driven by consumer pressure that more pixels are better. So seeing a market new technologies where created that in the long run may or may not be better.
I have slides (kodachrome 64) from long exposures that I have digitized and have made large prints with no effective noise. The amount of information on film still is superior to digital in my estimation. That said, keep making those images on your D3 and enjoy them. The D3 was and still is a great camera.

Bill P

High megapixel cameras are like the unrelenting search for ultimate sharpness. At some point Picasso/Rembrandt/DaVinvi et al had to accept the paints and brushes and canvas that were available. If they had continued to try to get the very very best, they wouldn't have painted as many great things as they did.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

Agree

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Bill P wrote:

Well ,well! This Bill just kept his D3 and has remained happy. I have shots that were made under a bit low light conditions, poorly lit interiors and the like, that I have blown up to 17x25, and if I had the printer, I would take the even higher.

All that on 12 MP? Oh the humanity.

I purchased my original D3S for wedding work where bad lighting can be an issue. But I really came to love the image quality and color of that particular sensor, and had no issues with 20x30 enlargements as long as the exposure was okay. BTW, my oldest daughter still shoots weddings with that camera.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

That's a great legacy. Keep it going.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

yssirk123 wrote:

I purchased my original D3S for wedding work where bad lighting can be an issue. But I really came to love the image quality and color of that particular sensor, and had no issues with 20x30 enlargements as long as the exposure was okay. BTW, my oldest daughter still shoots weddings with that camera.

The D3S is a great camera - if I was going to change systems to Nikon, it would be at or near the top of my list

krashdragon

Why not just buy an inexpensive video camera?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

krashdragon wrote:

Why not just buy an inexpensive video camera?

User ID

rehess wrote:

Actually high ISO is becoming a thing. Maybe 10% of photos
I take with my Pentax KP are at ISO between 6400 and 12800,
partly because I photograph by ambient light instead of flash
and partly because I choose to put my power into camera body
instead of into heavy and expensive lenses. I have learned by
looking at the work of professionals that I can show
context instead of doing everything ‘isolated’.

Well, you are the rare bird around here ! [Thaz a compliment].

My gear choices and working conditions are not very different
from what you posted. So I bought a couple open-box special
deals on the a7S-II. They are just a bit over $1000 now, and
can adapt to almost any legacy SLR lenses that one may have.

If the a7S-II were alive, it would look like this:

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Modern cameras are like modern cars, remember manual chokes ... anyone? Modern cameras are great at low light but just what are you planning to shoot and will you use a off camera flash. Once you control the light everything changes and it turns to modern features on the camera that make the process easier, smarter and fast. I've used a fill flash to shoot high ISO's and hold the background but use the fill to expose my subject. I'm in control, of the subject and background. Much of this talk is useless without knowing what you plan to shoot. But any modern camera will give good results and on the contrary a old camera in the hands of a expert photographer will still work nicely. I've shot many beautiful images with a 12 mpx camera (but learned to tweak out everything it had to offer). Just get a good camera and learn all it's features and experiment. Not everything is on the web and when you discover new ways of capturing relish in it! You've earned it but test and learn. Get the camera of your choice and explore.

Daveed

CHG_CANON wrote:

Ask Chris T, he's the best UHH expert at topics li... (show quote)

I find myself using high, higher and H-high ISO speeds quite frequently when using my full spectrum converted Canon EOS 70D for UV photography. I am sure I am not alone in this regard!
Life would be much easier for those of us interested in tri- or tetrachromatic vision in species that detect UV wavelenghts if cameras with UV-specific, as well as RGB sensors. In the meantime, since the RGB sensors are somewhat UV sensitive, it would be a great compromise if one of the filter manufacturers would come up with a suitable filter blocking all IR while allowing perhaps 80% UV transmission, say from ~320nm to ~380nm, with approximately 1,000 fold suppression of light in the >380nm to ~700nm range. All the sites that talk endlessly about stacking various filters and declare the slightly more than gray tone images to be "what bees see" or "what birds see" are really missing the various points I hope to have kinda-sorta summarized herein.
What was this thread about? Oh, yes, ISO settings and sensor sensitivities and perhaps sensibilities!

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Bison Bud wrote:

I was reading the release data on Canon's new 90D ... (show quote)

I have 3 APS-C Nikons of 6,12 and 24 mp. The low light capabilities seem to double with each doubling of MP’s. In my limited expertise I have chosen to use f2.8 constant aperture lenses so that low light performance is maximized without cranking ISOs. Even with advertised higher capabilities, with AUTO ISO I try to limit the 6mp to 1600, the 12mp to 3200 and the 24mp to 6400 max and usually stay under these limits. Works for me. Don’t think I need more than 24mp.