No I get your point. But Film quality has improved immensely in 100 years. High ISO, or ASA or DIN was once in the 100 range. and very grainy. The bar keeps being raised. What is now unacceptable was at one time the norm. It seems to me that you're making the mistake of believing that "things have always been this way". Look at cameras built in the 40's compared to cameras of the 70s. Look under the hood of a 60s or 70s car or truck, compared to what's under the hood of one today. Open up a 1950's transistor radio. Then look inside a modern one of the same type, (if you can even find one that you can open without a dremmel tool). All these things have changed, in some cases beyond recognition. Is digital always better? Not always, but getting high ISO results equal to what was yesterday the best you could get with a low speed fine grain film has always been a goal.
Tom C wrote: > Most of you guys are missing my point, or maybe I'm not acknowledging > that I get yours. > > I'm just trying to say that high ISO quality seems to viewed as a holy > grail in digital photography, and my perception, right, wrong, or > skewed, is that with film photography it was generally accepted that > you were going to sacrifice image quality when shooting high ISO film > to get the shot. Of course the same happens with digital, the higher > the ISO, the noisier the image, or the heavier the noise reduction, > losing detail. > > My comments were that high ISO image quality suffers whether using > film or digital, so I wouldn't mind a FF DSLR with great low - mid ISO > performance and mediocre/poor high ISO performance, because... ta da! > :-) I expect mediocre/poor high ISO performance anyway. I have not > shot one image on the *ist D at 1600 ISO that I can say I'm really > happy with. Even if it is a nice shot, I can see that it would have > better with a tripod and lower ISO. > > I thoroughly understand that some kinds of photography and venues > dictate the use of high ISO. > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: hints about sensor for next >> camera(s) >> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:12:35 -0400 >> >> Tri-X heads shooting available light were always looking for more speed. >> It was the content that counted not so much the quality. I find that >> both the *ist-D and Ds give better results at 1600 than most any film >> I've ever used. It's worth raving about. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> > With the caveat regarding who knows about Pentax?... >> > >> > I'd take a full frame sensor that did very well between 200 - 400 >> ISO any >> > day (ISO 800) w/b nice, over any sensor that had marginal high ISO >> > performance at 1600 and above. I find any photo I take at 1600 or >> higher >> > with the *ist D to be, while documentary, not worth a heck of alot >> > otherwise. I am loathe to set ISO over 800. >> > >> > Thinking back to film, I rarely shot anything over 400, and many >> times I was >> > pushing 100 two stops to get 400. When I needed more light gathering >> > ability the camera was on a tripod and I used longer shutter speeds. >> > >> > I wouldn't mind that at all because I find the high ISO performance of >> > DSLR's to be no more desirable than the performance of high ISO films. >> > >> > Who *seriously* shoots at ISO1600+ and gets results they would rave >> about? >> > For my kind of photgraphy it doesn't work near as well as a lower >> ISO and a >> > tripod. >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >> >> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: hints about sensor for next >> camera(s) >> >> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:47:22 -0400 (EDT) >> >> >> >> Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Not only an old sensor, but one with extremely poor high ISO >> >>> >> >> performance >> >> >> >>> (it's the Sensor Kodak used in the DCS14n, DCS/n and DCS/c). >> >>> >> >> Well they may have improved it since then: The data sheet shows it's >> >> been revised, January 2007 -- they've nearly doubled the frame rate >> >> >> > >from 1.7 fps to 3 fps, for example. >> > >> >> Not that it has any bearing on Pentax, AFAIK. >> >> >> >> BTW: >> >> >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=25298198 >> >> ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> PDML@pdml.net >> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and >> >> follow the directions. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Remember, it’s pillage then burn. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
