I do understand that sometimes we can visualize phenomena that does not exist. It's good to see real verification, real world evidence.
High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses
- Thread starter Whiskeyman
- Start date
I do understand that sometimes we can visualize phenomena that does not exist. It's good to see real verification, real world evidence.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Already here. https://www.lytro.com/illum/
I do still have photos from the 70s that I shot and preocessed that are hanging on my walls. Gear is fun and I really do like new toys to play with BUT photography is still about 75% about the person controlling the camera.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Even with my relatively new D750 (4/15) and it's awesome ISO capability, I still find myself shooting wide open on all of my lenses (except macro) at some point and wish there was more room to open up. Not for bokeh's sake, but to get the exposure (without flash). I'm sure I could get used to the f/4 trinity (assuming Nikon would come out with a 24-70 variant: maybe it's the 24-120), but toting around a heavy kit is one of the only things that keeps me in semi-decent shape. 
And, I guess I could always go third party and get VR, IS or whatever to pick up a few stops at the 14-70 end.
And, I guess I could always go third party and get VR, IS or whatever to pick up a few stops at the 14-70 end.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'll take some shots this week. D750 vs D7200 both 24Mpix. Same lens and you'll see how the image of the D7200 will decompose faster while the aperture gets smaller.
Maybe I'll use the D810 too since it has no low pass filter.
Edit: maybe it isn't needed after this video.
Check this vid about the effects of aperture on one cam. At the end he mentions different lenses/cams(sensors) will be affected differently. It's easy to understand the effects of sensor pixels in relation to diffraction if you watch this. DoF is besides the point for now since we're talking purely about the decomposition of an image.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGJjf_qO9M
If you keep in mind a photon is and a particle, and a wave, and that different wavelengths (colors) have different diffraction patterns, it is obvious how those patterns affects sensor pixels and thus our final result.
Last edited:
If you do this (and I hope you do) make sure to keep image sizes the same size for comparison. I'll be interested to see your results.
Sorry for a delay, I took a day off.
Arguably a real beauty after all.
A very pleasant reminder of yesterday. The C3 certainly was a popular classic, and was actually made in the USA back in the day. It ought be a collectors item, but I think not rare, too popular to carry a price now. Wikipedia says 2 million C3 cameras over about 25 years. Not expensive relatively, but better than cheap ones. Many better cameras then were German, until Japan started to come on strong with some quality by about 1960. Not sure who won the war, our US manufacturing capability is gone now. I bet the youngsters really don't have much idea about using cameras of that era. First of course we had to individually set both aperture and shutter speed (true manual mode
), either by Sunny 16 or by guess, or affordable hand held selenium meters were ultimately being introduced towards the end. We didn't see results for at least hours, or probably days or weeks. Flash bulbs had guide numbers, with only one level. Most people just used the flash bulb and hoped the lab could correct it. Then we had to adjust the lens focus by aligning the two superimposed rangefinder images. I suppose it was accurate, I never heard much complaint otherwise, but the linkage certainly had to be built right. C3 lenses were interchangeable, but few people bothered, because rangefinders were a framing problem except with the normal lens - lens and viewfinder saw very different size images, which were also slightly offset due to parallax. SLR cameras had that strong advantage (interchangeable lenses), with the split image finders which we again aligned manually, but which relied on the viewfinder and film paths being identical path distance.The good old days back then, in many respects.