Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 1, 2006, 1:08 PM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It depends on the amount of light (freeway with overhead lights versus dark road in the country, etc.).

Yes, there are some workarounds like ND filters.

But, a lower ISO speed is preferrable (which is what I've been saying all along), due to a variety of drawbacks to filters.

Even if they had no other drawback but the need to install and remove them (and they do have other drawbacks), the need to install and remove them is a downside by itself. ;-)

The ability to set a lower ISO speed would be a better way to go.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 1:20 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I agreed already behind!

Anyway, we still need to see ISO 25 on a large image sensor. :-)

For all those large CCDs having ISO 200 as the min ISO, I think the N.D. filtersor smaller apertures will be the onlyhelp in very bright conditions (withor without shallow D.O.F. requirements). Generally, a faster shutter will also help cut off the excess light rays to prevent overexposures. For any flowing effects, the N.D. filters or smaller aperture settingscan always still be used for cameras having too sensitive ISOs.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 1:34 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

i dont think we have seen truly full frame 35mm sensors yet
remember the canon is a cmos, and cmos necessarily waste a lot of the available area
cmos are also inherrently noisier

the other part to the story, and the most intrigueing, can the 4/3 consortium solve the noise issues. because frankly, if they can do that there is less division between 4/3 and FF and other cropped sensors.

with the coming of the rumoured nikon FF sensor, which if history has its way will be a CCD, its going to get interesting with the 'artillery' set

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 6:07 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

You obviously have stepped way past your own expiriences here.

Image quality is very poor at f/22 (and even diminished at f/11-f/16) with any lens due to physical optical limitations, and neutral density filters are something to be avoided unless you really need them. They are inconvienent and bring various problems of thier own, plus its yet another thing you have to carry in the bag.

Imagine if lenses didnt focus, you had to add or remove extension tubes to get the right focus distance. Not good. Instead, lenses focus through the most useful range, and extension tubes are used only when you have to do something unusual.

Neutral density filters are the same, but whats being said here is that the "useful range" for some of us continues to iso50 and iso25. I had to use a .6ND filter this morning when I topped out at 1/4000 shutter speed at f/2, trying to get good select focus in the morning sun. It would have been a lot more convienent to just change the iso setting. Luckily I had plenty of light so the dimer viewfinder didnt hurt, and my hood kept the sun from causing any trouble with flare, so it was a perfectly good if inconvienent solution.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2006, 3:07 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Image quality is very poor at f/22 (and even diminished at f/11-f/16) with any lens due to physical optical limitations
The situation might not even require you to set you lens to F/22 if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps ifa F/2.8 aperturewastoo bright foran ISO 200 (lowest ISO)CCD in a certain lighting condition,isn'tit possibleto stopdown the lensto F/8 or F/9? (Where most lens are sharpest at?)I meant, not all situations may demand you to stop down the lens to F/16 or higher.

Maybe you were trying to suggest that using a lower ISO is always a better solution than using a smaller aperture? I agree with that. (I never disagreed in the first place)

BTW, my compact digital camera still capture very sharp images at F/8 (On a small 1/1.8" CCD with a smallhigh angledlens) That should equate to a muchlarger aperture value (large F numbers) on a dSLR with a larger lens and image sensor.

Anyway;

I just wanted to say that the only way for an image sensor, with a lowest ISO of 200, to control light rays in a very bright situation; is to resolve to N.D. filters, faster shutter speeds, and (or) smaller apertures. (I am just trying to say that there is always a way around it all)
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:14 PM.