davesit Loc: Media, PA

My point is not that fast lenses are obsolete, but rather if F1.8 today is the new F1.4 because of improvements in sensor technology, signal processing etc...

Gronka

The 3million + image reminds me of a Seurat night scene.

davesit Loc: Media, PA

A good "point!"

User ID

Has anyone here lost a client or been dropped from staff for shooting noisy grainy lo-rezo hi-iso pix ?

How about someone you know ... did it happen to a peer or coworker ?

Or maybe you’re higher on the food chain ... have you fired anyone for the above “offense” ?

All those who answered “No” have no business declaring what’s useless, unusable, etc etc.

User ID

Nope. 1/500 is the speed. Lowering it would not be the same. Speculating about “maybe what if ... woulda coulda shoulda” when you were not on the job is pointless.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

ISOs in that range are also useful for wildlife photography where you want high shutter speeds.

For wildlife I usually use M mode, minimum fstop, and auto ISO w minimum shutter speed at least twice the lens mm...usually 1/1000.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

From the tests I've seen, ISO 3,280,000 looks pretty awful. There's very little color, lots of noise, and an extremely limited tonal range.

Whether such high ISO images are usable depends upon your application. Spy work? Probably. Portraits? Extremely unlikely to hell no! Photojournalism? Only in dire circumstances. Some reviewers say they would tolerate ISO 102,400 for photojournalism, but I think that is pushing the envelope unrealistically.

I take these camera sensitivity claims with a grain of salt. Image technical quality is usually best at base ISO. As you raise the ISO, the dynamic range is lowered. Color reproduction is muted. Noise intrudes. Latitude for post-processing adjustment is narrowed until it goes away. There is a point at which every stop of higher ISO takes away a full stop of dynamic range that could have been printed on paper from an image made at a lower ISO. That's the point of zero latitude as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to go that low.

My experience with 16 to 20 MP sensors is that I find my personal quality degradation tolerance stops at:

ISO 6400 for Micro 4/3
ISO 12,800 for APS-C/DX
ISO 25,600 for Full Frame

I try to limit this to

ISO 3200 for Micro 4/3
ISO 6400 for APS-C/DX
ISO 12,800 for Full Frame

... and a full stop below those when possible! I like to start thinking about auxiliary lighting when ISO gets above 800 on Micro 4/3, 1600 on APS-C/DX, and 3200 on full frame. I don't necessarily use it, and can't always add it, but I think about it.

These personal guidelines are based upon reviewing tests of Nikon D5, Nikon D500, and Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 and DC-GH5 cameras, including prints and dxomark.com scores. The dxomark scores correlate quite well to my own observations.

My personal guidelines may not relate at all to the D6, because I've only seen promotional/review images from that camera. HOWEVER, the sensor is so similar to that in the D5 that I doubt the high ISO performance will be very different. Most of the improvements in the D6 seem to be related to the viewfinder, AF, and other usability features. It will take a jump to newer technology to make any huge strides in sensor performance at this point.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Not handheld with long lens.

Ralanco19

Only if the cat’s name is “Flash”! 🤣 😂

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Actually, it's more like f4 today is the new 1.8.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Much software is out there to ameliorate the vicissitudes of super high ISOs but the end results have to be weighed against your standards of quality vs. not getting the shot at all.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Whether or not some ultra high ISO is usable depends a lot upon how the image will be used, post-processing and the photographer's or client's opinion about noise. For example, if planning to or willing to convert an image to black & white, a much higher ISO might be usable.

I appreciate what Nikon does... even if it's purely for "bragging rights" and marketing purposes... by making ultra high ISOs available and leaving it to the photographer to decide for themselves, what's usable and what is not. Canon isn't so generous, with an ISO range of 100 to 102400 (extendable to 50 and 819200) in the 1DX Mark III. I see from the press releases and initial online reports that the D6 will offer 100 to 102400 (extendable to 50 and 3280000). Two stops higher than the Canon, even if those add'l stops are never used.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Perhaps because Canon has a 4,000,000 ISO camera with very good and usable images.
If you need to go that high get the right tool that actually produces excellent photos at 4,000,000 ISO.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

As far as the ISO numbers are concerned, they are usually increasing by factors of 2 (with some numbers in between steps) so you have 100, 125, 160, 200...400...800...1600 and so forth. When you get to higher numbers they are still labelled by powers of two, so you get to 3200...6400...12800...25600...51200...102400

There is no real reason to specify these numbers to more than 1 or 2 significant figures. I think that above 6400 you could call them 12K, 25K, 50K, 100K, without any real confusion. The numbers represent an amplification of the signal from the sensor, and I would bee surprised if the accuracy of the amplification is better than maybe 5-10%. After all, these are pretty much mass produced items.

If you refer to the Hi-5 level on the D6 as 3 million, it's not going to be significantly different from 3,276,800 practically speaking.

sigi1

Do you guys do this all the time? I’d be afraid to ask a question!