Why no more ISO 100?

Started May 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,068
Like?
Re: Why no more ISO 100?
In reply to Aleo Veuliah, May 5, 2012

Aleo Veuliah wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

ulfie wrote:

Several m4/3's and smaller sensor manufacturers no longer have cameras with a base ISO of 100 or even less. (Heck, my teeny LX3 has 80!) It's usually 200 or 160. Why is this?

Good observation, and a bit silly on behalf of the Four Thirds manufacturers. Really they should be aiming for a base ISO of 1/4 that of FF (25 or 50) if they want to match FF SNR with FT. That would bring the photographic capability with the compactness advantage.
--
Bob

I don't go so further (25 ISO) but 50 ISO will be great to have

25 ISO would give a micro four thirds camera the same light collecting ability as a full size camera at 100 ISO. It would remove almost all of the absolute IQ advantages of the larger format (it's unlikely that there will ever be f/0.6 mFT lenses). So long as there are lenses with large enough apertures, it offers no operational disadvantage against FS. As I suggested, f/2 lenses with 25 ISO will do exactly the same job in terms of image quality at a given shutter speed as f/4 lenses on FS, and f/4 lenses are very popular.

Anyway cameras with this 50 ISO have almost all 100 ISO as a base setting

Yes, I'm talking two stops reduction in ISO, like for like, so 100 exposable to 50 if the scene's flat would correspond to 25 exposable to 12.5.
Think of it as the rebirth of Kodachrome.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow