Why no digital ISO50 ?

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
freediverx Regular Member • Posts: 229
Re: Variable ND Filter

Gordon W wrote:

Mark_A wrote:

Digital has been very impressive in getting clean high ISO sensitivities but in some parts of the world there is no shortage of light. In those parts it may be impossible to get wide open narrow aperture pics without the use of multiple filters and the like.

So, why no ISO50 on dslrs?

And then in another posting, you wrote...

In Spain at Christmas I wanted to get a one second exposure, so I went to ISO100 (my lowest) and then f32 I think, (my smallest aperture on that lens), even then I was way too fast so I fitted a couple of grad filters then a thick polariser and even then I was not quite as slow as I wanted to be.

So even ISO50 wouldn't have gotten you the slow speed you were wanting. As others have said in this thread, neutral density filters are the best option to get long exposures during daylight.

That said, not long ago I bought a Variable ND Filter (a.k.a. a Fader Filter). These are continuously variable from 2 to 8 stops, so I now only have to carry one ND filter.


-- hide signature --

Regards, Gordon
Photography since 1950 • Digital since 1999
My online photo galleries

I wasn't even aware of variable ND filters. As expected, they work by combining two polarizers. While these can come in handy, they're not without drawbacks, which include significant and uneven vignetting which seems like a pain to correct in post processing.

This effect can also affect the camera's metering accuracy.


Also, pricing for the better quality filters is quite high:


 freediverx's gear list:freediverx's gear list
Canon G3 X
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow