Why do you really care about high ISO?

[squirl033]

i seldom if ever use ISO settings higher than 100 with my FZ20, and although i do have to clean up some noise on occasion, it's pretty minimal, and easily managed. i've used my FZ for over a year, and only once had to use ISO 400 for some indoor family gathering snaps (those shots were VERY noisy!). for most of my purposes (99% outdoor), the f2.8 lens does its job and the camera almost never selects anything above ISO80 or 100. if i'm shooting low light, i set it for ISO100 and use a tripod and a longer exposure, just like i would've done with my old ME Super...

Bmccoy's comments about higher expectations were dead on, IMHO. we've all become so accustomed to the excellence of digital photos, especially from the FZ's, that we demand a lot more than we ever did of film cameras. but then, isn't that the point? if all this technology didn't offer us that kind of improvement, would we ever have embraced it in the first place? sure, i expect more of my FZ20 than i did of my old Pentax SLR - and the FZ consistently delivers.

[bmccoy]

fmoore wrote:

bmccoy wrote:

You got that right! Once you see the possibilities up ahead you tend to forget the impossiblities you left behind. Speaking of which, how's that FZ7 doing? Among other things, I'm curious as to how the dcr6600 works with it, but I don't think you have that wa lens.

It should be waiting for me when I get home from work. I'll try to get some impressions posted asap. No I don't have the dcr6600. If any of the stores carried it I'd go give it a try just to post some pics. I have high hopes that the stock 52mm adapter will work well with it. Maybe someone has it and they can comment. I may start shopping for one, now that I have two 52mm telecons a 52mm wa would be nice.

-Brett

[Robb]

Higher expectations, certainly. Unreasonable expectations, probably. It's very simple: I want it all, and while I realize that I will not get it all in a compact package, I still want as much as possible.

In other words, I appreciate the long zoom of my FZ20, and the advantages of image stabilization, and even though it is something we take for granted now, I appreciate its color capability.

But I also want to be able to get the available light shots I used to take with Tri-X and a f/1.7 prime lens.

One reason for the obsession with high ISO is that there have never been many fixed-lens digicams with lenses faster than f/2.8 at any focal length, and the ones that were available have mostly disappeared. Anybody remember the DMC-LC5/Digilux 1?

[JimC]

Robb wrote:

One reason for the obsession with high ISO is that there have never been many fixed-lens digicams with lenses faster than f/2.8 at any focal length, and the ones that were available have mostly disappeared.

I can remember about 20 off the top of my head.

There have been a number of models with lenses starting out at f/2 or brighter on their wide end from most of the major maufacturers (Canon, Olympus, Sony, Epson, Casio, Toshiba and even Panasonic and Leica)

I think the "sweet spot" for lens brightness, resolution and noise was probably the 3 Megapixel models with f/2 or brighter lenses on their wide end using a Sony 3MP 1/1.8" CCD.

Some of them even shared the identical lens design (Epson 3000z, 3100z; Toshiba PDR-M70, Sony DSC-S70, Casio QV-3000EX), with the lenses probably coming from the same factory.

A few of the 5MP models with Sony 2/3" CCDs weren't too bad either (Sony DSC-F707, DSC-F717; Olympus E-20).

Yes, with current production models it's pretty slim pickings (for example: the Canon G6 and Sony DSC-F828 )

But, there are plenty of cameras on the used market with brighter lenses than you 'll find in most of the current production cameras (2MP, 3MP, 4MP and 5MP models).

[kenmck15]

i have to say, if my pana fz30 could do something crazy like iso1600 with really really lo noise i would use it heaps.

[sportster64]

The original poster asked why most never used high ISO films back then- keep in mind the light sensor on older "film" type cameras was the size of the 35mm slide which is why a lot of the times you could get by with 200-400 iso film. WIth most of the PS digitals today- the sensors are a lot smaller than the old 35mm film cameras - which starves the camera of light when needed in dark situations. This is why everbody is clammering over the newer DSLR 's - the sensors are approaching the 35mm slide size again- like the older film cameras.

[JimC]

sportster64 wrote:

The original poster asked why most never used high ISO films back then- keep in mind the light sensor on older "film" type cameras was the size of the 35mm slide which is why a lot of the times you could get by with 200-400 iso film.

B&W was a more popular way to go for higher ISO speed needs. Films like Tri-X have a finer grain pattern and can be pushed to higher ISO speeds much easier than color negative film.

But, newer color films have improved a lot. As I previously mentioned, give Fuji Superia X-TRA a try if you really need higher ISO speed color images and don't want to buy a DSLR.

It's available in speeds up to ISO 1600 (but it won't stand much underexposure without unacceptable degradation if you need much more than this provides).

[Robb]

JimC wrote:

Robb wrote:

I can remember about 20 off the top of my head.

There have been a number of models with lenses starting out at f/2 or brighter on their wide end from most of the major maufacturers (Canon, Olympus, Sony, Epson, Casio, Toshiba and even Panasonic and Leica)....

Agreed. Jim, you are correct, and I obviously didn't make my point well. Does the following work better?

At any given time, fixed-lens digicams with lenses faster than f/2.8 have represented a small segment of the marketplace, and that segment is now smaller than ever.

[nzmacro]

Phew, makes sense Brett :-). As a macro only shooter I alwaysused slow film, K25 to be exact. My digital Sony's were never off ISO 80 and my FZ10 hasn't been off ISO 50 :-), so darn good point Brett. I can see why many want it, but I can also see why some don't.

Danny.

[bmccoy]

nzmacro wrote:

Phew, makes sense Brett :-). As a macro only shooter I alwaysused slow film, K25 to be exact. My digital Sony's were never off ISO 80 and my FZ10 hasn't been off ISO 50 :-), so darn good point Brett. I can see why many want it, but I can also see why some don't.

Danny.

Good to see you again NZ, any new work to share? It's not that I don't want higher ISO performance. I just don't know that I would require it, or find it as a major stumbling point. Thanks for your comment.

-Brett