 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2008ISO 100 and Nikons
Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation cameras do. Why is that? > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation > cameras do. Why is that? On the D300 & 700 you certainly can set the ISO lower by using the "L" settings.  SignaturePeter > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation > cameras do. Why is that? 1) The natural, least sensitive ISO of most Sony CCD sensors seems to lie somewhere in the 100 - 200 ISO region. (Nikon uses Sony sensors in many of its cameras, though it's harder to tell what they use these days...). 2) The noise difference between ISO 100 and 200 is negligible in lab testing and for most purposes zero, so why give up the speed? (Though for some shots it might be harder to get sufficiently low shutter speeds). In newer releases it is probably as much customer requirements (desires) for at least ISO 100 (whether it is a benefit or not) but may be due to better (less sensitive) sensors as well. Could also be a marketing ploy to force 'purists' to higher price bodies... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation > cameras do. Why is that? What are the second generation cameras, Bryon? SignatureBlinky >> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation >> cameras do. Why is that? > >What are the second generation cameras, Bryon? Nikon, Jr., Canon, Jr., and Pentax, Jr. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >>> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nikon, Jr., Canon, Jr., and Pentax, Jr. I am enlightened! Endarkened. One of the two! SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation >> cameras do. Why is that? > > What are the second generation cameras, Bryon? Nikon's new line: D3, D300, D700, D90 >>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >>> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nikon's new line: D3, D300, D700, D90 Thanks, Bryon. What generation are the D40/D40x/D60? SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation > cameras do. Why is that? You may as well ask why there is no ISO 25 to emulate classic Kodachrome. I'd speculate that Nikon believes that the few who wish long shutter speeds or wide open apatures have ND filters a plenty. >> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd speculate that Nikon believes that the few who wish long shutter > speeds or wide open apatures have ND filters a plenty. I dream of photographing with an ND400 filter, bloody marvelous effects. >>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in >>> their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I dream of photographing with an ND400 filter, bloody marvelous > effects. What is that?? About 12 stops? >>>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in >>>> their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What is that?? About 12 stops? 9, I think. I should know, I have one, just haven't used it for some time and am too lazy to get it out and check. It's day *will* come... > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in > their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second > generation > cameras do. Why is that? Probably because it is not neccessary. If there is no benefit of optimum noise level by reducing the ISO number, why do it? In the case of film a lower ISO number usually meant finer grain images. The finest grain film may have been about ISO 25. >> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lower ISO number usually meant finer grain images. The finest grain film > may have been about ISO 25. Are you a total nong? Have you never actually taken a photograph that needed slow shutter speeds? >>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in >>> their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have you never actually taken a photograph that needed slow shutter > speeds? Agreed. There are many times I wish I could go lower than my D80's 100 ASA... I mean ISO... :-) : > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in : > their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : In the case of film a lower ISO number usually meant finer : grain images. The finest grain film may have been about ISO 25. IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. Bob > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. Why? Why not just use Plus X? : > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. : > : Why? Why not just use Plus X? Because Panatomic-X had finer grain. Bob > : > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. > : > > : Why? Why not just use Plus X? > > Because Panatomic-X had finer grain. I've been gonna ask; this is a good place: Even when pushed to 100? SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html : > : > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. : > : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Even when pushed to 100? We didn't really push it; we developed it normally. This resulted in thinner negatives, but it didn't matter: if you exposed it as Kodak advocated (ASA 50? I forget exactly), the resulting negatives were nearly opaque. Kodak's rating of the film was absurdly conservative, and everybody knew it. Bob > : > : > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. > : > : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We didn't really push it; we developed it normally. This resulted in thinner > negatives, but it didn't matter: if you exposed it as Kodak advocated (ASA 50? I must have been in a retarded area; it was all marked 25 when we got it. :) > I forget exactly), the resulting negatives were nearly opaque. Kodak's > rating of the film was absurdly conservative, and everybody knew it. Okay. I didn't realize you just meant underexposing the film (with respect to its rating). Thanks. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >> We didn't really push it; we developed it normally. This resulted in thinner >> negatives, but it didn't matter: if you exposed it as Kodak advocated (ASA 50? > > I must have been in a retarded area; it was all marked 25 when we got it. :) ? While I never used pan-x much, *I* thought it was 32.. >> I forget exactly), the resulting negatives were nearly opaque. Kodak's >> rating of the film was absurdly conservative, and everybody knew it. > > Okay. I didn't realize you just meant underexposing the film (with > respect to its rating). Thanks. Again, not from personal experience, but istr that most was (successfully) shot at 40-ish, so Bob's 'absurdly conservative' claim may be a little harsh. Plus, even back in those days, weren't the ratings derived mathematically from the film curves? You can't blame the manufacturer unless they lied about their curves, and I don't think Kodak was known for that. >>> We didn't really push it; we developed it normally. This resulted in >>> thinner negatives, but it didn't matter: if you exposed it as Kodak [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the manufacturer unless they lied about their curves, and I don't think > Kodak was known for that. Note that until the last snip, someone was talking about shooting it at 100. Just for the record; I am not arguing with anyone. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >> We didn't really push it; we developed it normally. This resulted in thinner >> negatives, but it didn't matter: if you exposed it as Kodak advocated (ASA 50? > > I must have been in a retarded area; it was all marked 25 when we got it. :) I shot it at 32. I can't see developing normally when shot at 100 and it just works out ok due to all that latitude. > : > IIRC, we used to shoot even Panatomic-X at 100. > : > > : Why? Why not just use Plus X? > > Because Panatomic-X had finer grain. Not when pushed. Pushing Panatomic X to 100 would make it coarser than Plus X. > Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their > sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation > cameras do. Why is that? Newer models are optimized for high ISO. The D500 has a faked ISO 100. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation >> cameras do. Why is that? > > Newer models are optimized for high ISO. The D500 has a faked ISO 100. At first I thought your reference was a typo. Didn't know the D500 was released. SignaturePeter >>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in >>> their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > At first I thought your reference was a typo. Didn't know the D500 was > released. Oops, I meant D700,. Is there a D500 announcement? >>>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in their >>>> sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second generation [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oops, I meant D700,. > Is there a D500 announcement? I posted my answer because the same thing was repeated so I did a quick Google and came up with this: http://insidetheshutter.com/blog/?p=380 SignaturePeter >>>>> Nikon seems to have given up on the ISO 100 setting as native in >>>>> their sensors. The D80 has such a setting, but none of the second [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://insidetheshutter.com/blog/?p=380 Gee wiz. I'd just like an upgraded D80 with some of the better exposure features of the D90 and a 18+ megapixel sensor. Faster transfer speeds to the SDHC memory would be nice too. I don't really need my still camera to do video. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.