What will be the standard high ISO levels 6 to 8 years from now?

[pedro]

@CharlieB: I used to shoot the Tri-X Pan back in 1982 with my contax 139 Quartz. And it was awesome. Always was in the low light-high ISO camp. That's why I went 5D3 now. And that is plenty of camera for me! Yes, we are spoiled, therefore looking back to the filmdays gets things in relation to real world situations...Good point

I didn't even hold a camera in 1982 let alone own one ... back in 1982 if someone were to ask me "what is an f stop?", I would've thought it is some new bus top ... I actually touched a camera for the first time in 1985 and fell in love. But coming to the point of spoiled, yes we are ... I've seen some of the SLR cameras of 70s & 80s they were small but I haven't heard anyone complain about their size ... now people hold a 650D & D3200 DSLRs and complain that they are "tiny", as if these people are the size of Hagrid of Hogwarts.

LOL...Just realized after posting this, that the shutter of my first DSLR finally ceased to work after 18-19 years (!). But by then by 2001, I didn't realize what the cause for it was... : So by 2002/03 I went digital buying a Sony DSC-P 30 (?), a 3.2 MP cam. I took about 50.000 pictures before it retired. By 2005 I bought a Sony DSC-F 828. Only to break it within a year while slipping off on ice. About a year later I went back to DSLRs via 30D and so, here we are again, going FF after 30 years...Awesome.

 

[canon816]

Spoiled we are, indeed......

We've got ten stops (or more) of digital ISO range, and we're not satisfied.

Am I spoiled? Maybe
Am I not satisfied? Quite the contrary... I'm extremely satisfied
Am Looking forward to whats next? Definately

For me... more features + better technology = more fun. ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Spoiled we are, indeed......

We've got ten stops (or more) of digital ISO range, and we're not satisfied.

Am I spoiled? Maybe
Am I not satisfied? Quite the contrary... I'm extremely satisfied
Am Looking forward to whats next? Definately

For me... more features + better technology = more fun. ;D

Yup ... fun it surely is!

 

[pakosouthpark]

I would much rather see ISO 25 and less, without any loss in highlight range.

I wish we had better acess to very low ISO's as well. I would have a lot of use for ISO 10 for creatuve shooting on brighter days. Even with my ND and polarizing filter on I want a lower ISO often

indeed that would be really cool! long exposures during the day!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would much rather see ISO 25 and less, without any loss in highlight range.

Thats easy to do with a ND filter. Unfortunately, there is no filter to increase light sensitivity.

 

[keithfullermusic]

For low ISOs I would assume that cameras might start having built in nd filters like the canon video cameras instead of lowering the ISO.

For high ISO I wouldn't be shocked if stuff started look amazing all the way up to 25,000 and still useable up to 200,000+

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Getting the quantum efficience much higher is going to be difficult. The big issue with the high ISO's is the noise. Removing it also removes detail, and at very high ISO's, noise drownds out much of the detail.
There are many tricks that can work around noise but require a lot of processor power. As processors get more powerful, we will see reduced noise and some of the other tricks being used. However, short of a technical breakthru, sensors are onl going to improve in small increments.

 

[TAF]

Therefore:
b) What will be the standard high ISO level after the 2 next bodycycles of the 1 and 5 series?
Is it likely, that my extended ISO 102.4k will be the ISO 12.800 or 25600 6-8 years from now, then we would talk about extended ISOs on a 5Dwhatever up to H1 204.8 (like 1Dx now) and H2 409.6k
A 1Dwhatever would even break the million mark by then going up as high as ISO 1.638.400!
Whoever will benefit from such a high ISO...


We are approaching the point where the camera records more than the eye can see.

If you follow the link (I can't seem to get the actual imagine to imbed), you'll find a section from a shot I took with my new 5D3 out the living room window in the dark of night, handheld, at 102K. Nothing terribly interesting (and rather noisy, although as someone who used 2475 Recording film for years, I don't find it objectionable) unless I tell you that the gap between the tree and bush seen on the left side of the photo was not visible to the naked eye.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34970367@N03/7909554934#

I hope they put more effort put into improvement in noise and IQ than ISO for a while before continuing to ever more sensitive sensors (which I also look forward to...we're almost to night vision; I look forward to full daylight regardless of the available light level).

More realistically, DxOMark shows the 5DIII as about 2 stops better than the 30D. The 5DIII gets an extra 4/3 of a stop because of the larger full frame sensor, so technology has only moved by about 2/3 of a stop.

That doesn't seem right; if that's really what DxOMark shows, then it isn't as credible a tool as it is given credit for.

 

[cpsico]

"Despite all our "oh I wish I had that feature" comments, the current technology itself is already awesome ... imagine what an Ansel Adams would have done with the current cameras/lenses ... who knows 6 - 8 years from now there could be some very revolutionary advancements that could very well surprise us."[/quote]
Yes. And as I stated: I am absolutely crazy, about the capacity of this cam. Due to rain over here, I cannot go out to do nightskyphotography. This is the next step at ISO 6400 and 12800. 8)

If memory serves me correct, angel Adams didn't even use the top tech of his hey day. You dont need to spend tens of thousands to take a creative picture

 

[bdunbar79]

"Despite all our "oh I wish I had that feature" comments, the current technology itself is already awesome ... imagine what an Ansel Adams would have done with the current cameras/lenses ... who knows 6 - 8 years from now there could be some very revolutionary advancements that could very well surprise us."[/quote]
Yes. And as I stated: I am absolutely crazy, about the capacity of this cam. Due to rain over here, I cannot go out to do nightskyphotography. This is the next step at ISO 6400 and 12800. 8)

If memory serves me correct, angel Adams didn't even use the top tech of his hey day. You dont need to spend tens of thousands to take a creative picture

No, but I'm taking pictures now that I couldn't have taken just 3 months ago. So nice to be able to leave your shutter speed at 1/2000 at night at a football game and not have to open up wide. So nice.

 

[Policar]

"Despite all our "oh I wish I had that feature" comments, the current technology itself is already awesome ... imagine what an Ansel Adams would have done with the current cameras/lenses ... who knows 6 - 8 years from now there could be some very revolutionary advancements that could very well surprise us."[/quote]
Yes. And as I stated: I am absolutely crazy, about the capacity of this cam. Due to rain over here, I cannot go out to do nightskyphotography. This is the next step at ISO 6400 and 12800. 8)

If memory serves me correct, angel Adams didn't even use the top tech of his hey day. You dont need to spend tens of thousands to take a creative picture

No, but I'm taking pictures now that I couldn't have taken just 3 months ago. So nice to be able to leave your shutter speed at 1/2000 at night at a football game and not have to open up wide. So nice.

I think that's exactly the trajectory we're following. 8x10 still beats any digital capture; if Adams were shooting today (who am I to speculate? whatever...) I think he'd still be shooting 8x10 or with a tech camera and MFDB, but would be using photoshop and possibly stitching, hdr, etc.

Cameras aren't getting better at taking pictures under controlled circumstances...view cameras are still better at super high quality landscape and studio stuff. But in terms of shooting photos under bad circumstances (low light, fast fps, etc.) progress is incredible.

I think we'll be seeing more of a shift toward photography and video coming together. Super high speed with pixel binning, 24fps full frame, pellicle mirrors, etc. I would like to see lower read noise on Canon sensors and a better body for tilt/shift work to replace a view camera...but that's unlikely. The shift from strong bayer filter arrays with RGB to some sort of orange/green/blue thing that's more light sensitive but less color accurate explicates the trend pretty clearly: IQ isn't what's getting better, flexibility is where we're going.

I don't think high ISO will improve that much since we're reaching the limits, but read noise and highlight rendering are huge. After working with Alexa footage I can't believe how bad the clippy 5D III seems, particularly in video but also for stills--rough highlights and bad noise patterns.

 

[87vr6]

ISO? Where we're going we don't need ISO...

 

[pwp]

Wouldn't it be nice if "Moore's Law" applied to iso performance? It sort of does up to a point already...

The marketing departments at Canon & Nikon and the rest would be putting pressure on their respective R&D departments to give them a "bigger number" iso setting to trump the opposition. I think the high end will keep pushing out a few more stops. Wouldn't the marketing dudes love to pitch a million iso Rebel? Just a few years ago 102,400iso seemed just as ludicrous as a million looks today.

On my 1D Mk2n 3200iso was reaching into degraded and professionally compromising territory, for emergency use only. Compare that to a 1DX where 6400iso is the "new" 400iso. Up at the stratospheric level, I'd expect to see the six figure iso settings become entirely usable for day to day work with acceptable noise levels and useful DR.

At some point it's going to plateau out, but we're in the middle of a high iso revolution, so expect developments that would have been science fiction just a few short years ago.

-PW

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi,
Just picked up the 5D3 this week and got some time to fiddle with it last night.
Upgrading from a 30D I am overwhelmed by the results as I went for the high ISOs 6.4k-102.4k!

a) My first impression:
The 5d3 vs the 30D delievers about 4 stops better high ISOs in RAW, which to me is a huge step!
51.2k without NR still seems to look better than ISO 3200 on a 30D, both exposed to the right.
ISO 12800 is a no brainer now! Even without NR, if well exposed.
Even a 102.4k image is kind of "doable", although with some heavy NR, but I am geared toward Robert Capa and Robert Frank Style photography, so there is no problem with some noise for me. I do everything in DPP and convert b/ws using an old CS2.
The 5D3 is absolutely worth its money from my point of view and a tremendous camera!

Therefore:
b) What will be the standard high ISO level after the 2 next bodycycles of the 1 and 5 series?
Is it likely, that my extended ISO 102.4k will be the ISO 12.800 or 25600 6-8 years from now, then we would talk about extended ISOs on a 5Dwhatever up to H1 204.8 (like 1Dx now) and H2 409.6k
A 1Dwhatever would even break the million mark by then going up as high as ISO 1.638.400!
Whoever will benefit from such a high ISO...
Does all that seem likely according to porbable upcoming sensor tech improvements or is that too much of wishful thinking?

I am not too much into tech. So, what do you think? Any corrections and contrary/more realistic input is highly appreciated.

Anyway, the 5D3 rocks! 8)
Cheers, Pedro

I think you may be slightly overdoing the progress that has been made since 30D but yeah 5D3 is surely better absolutely no doubt.

Sadly, they are pretty close to the theoretical limit for any sort of tech close to what they are using and even with some crazy tech there actually isn't that much farther to go. So I wouldn't at all expect what you are hoping for.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Don't know what will be the standard for high ISO levels in 6 to 8 years from now ... 8 years from now if we can get ISO 52100 to give the same results as ISO 100 than that wold be AWESOME ... wishful thinking? or possibility? only time will tell.

wishful thinking, not possible even with best possible technology

don't forget that light itself is noisy, even if you captured 100% of all of it 100% perfectly with no losses for color filters or anything at all you'd still not get ISO51200 anything like ISO100 of today because the cameras are already so good at this point, something like 50% basic efficiency already.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Where canon does have room to improve many stops is actually at low ISO for dynamic range. They have room to become many stops better in that regard. Nikon/SONY have already largely accomplished that. But at high ISO, as I said, Canon/Nikon are already doing amazingly well, just not too much room for them to get all that much better, basically a single reasonably noticeable nice jump better and that is likely it forever in that regard (unless they go even larger than FF).

 

[agierke]

i shoot alot of weddings and events so you would think that i would be in favor of even higher ISOs but i am actually not....

noise aside, bad light is bad light....higher ISOs will let you get good exposures in very low light but more often than not the quality of light is horrendous. because of this, i always use a Speedlight bounced behind or to the side WITH a radioed strobe head bouncing to bring up the room light. that way i can dial in the quality of light i want and i typically dont go past ISO 2000 with this method. usually i am running between 800 and 1600 and dragging shutter to bleed in any ambient.

i can foresee a High ISO frenzy developing where quality of light considerations are abandoned simply due to the novelty of being able to shoot a ridiculously high ISO. just because you can doesnt always mean you should kinda thing.

dynamic range (only to a slight degree) and better quality ISOs in their current range are much more interesting notions to me than simply "How high can we go?"

 

[kaihp]

Wouldn't it be nice if "Moore's Law" applied to iso performance? It sort of does up to a point already...

When it comes to sensor/ISO performance, it's rather Amdahl's Law than Moore's Law that applies.

Essentially Amdahl's law is the law of diminishing returns applied to parallel computer performance, while Moore's Law dictates exponential grow (of number of transistors on a single integrated circuit).

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Don't know what will be the standard for high ISO levels in 6 to 8 years from now ... 8 years from now if we can get ISO 52100 to give the same results as ISO 100 than that wold be AWESOME ... wishful thinking? or possibility? only time will tell.

wishful thinking, not possible even with best possible technology

don't forget that light itself is noisy, even if you captured 100% of all of it 100% perfectly with no losses for color filters or anything at all you'd still not get ISO51200 anything like ISO100 of today because the cameras are already so good at this point, something like 50% basic efficiency already.

You just murdered my dream ;D

 

[Marsu42]

Whoever will benefit from such a high ISO...

I think there will be a significant iso gain in the future, that's because Canon cut IS from their new 24-70ii - and that lens is designed to be sold for a long time to come as it's their new "standard" zoom. And the Canon techs will have more knowledge of future possibilities than us mere mortals.