Why can't digital sensors allow .1 ISO?

In support of the prior posts, if the sensor sites full-well capacity was reduced to allow a 0.1 ISO, the performance at ISO 800 would be terrible.
Reduced? You'd have to increase it by a factor of 1000. It's not really possible with silicon to make full well capacity that large (as far as I know). You'd need an external capacitor for each pixel.
The way to do it would be continuous readout.
And I've done that by shooting 30fps video at 1/30th of a second and stacking the frames. And I can confirm that it works as-advertised.
The cameras for that would be the Nikon 1 series, which can capture 60FPS with a shutter speed of 1/60 (obviously minus a few milliseconds) - so a 6 exposure burst would give 10 ISO, and so on. The Aptina sensor they use also has a switchable FWC, it has a high FWC (and higher read noise) for low ISOs and a low FWC (and lower read noise) for high ISOs. It's achieved with a capacitor in the pixel which can be switched in and out.
 
In support of the prior posts, if the sensor sites full-well capacity was reduced to allow a 0.1 ISO, the performance at ISO 800 would be terrible.
Reduced? You'd have to increase it by a factor of 1000. It's not really possible with silicon to make full well capacity that large (as far as I know). You'd need an external capacitor for each pixel.
The way to do it would be continuous readout.
And I've done that by shooting 30fps video at 1/30th of a second and stacking the frames. And I can confirm that it works as-advertised.
The cameras for that would be the Nikon 1 series, which can capture 60FPS with a shutter speed of 1/60 (obviously minus a few milliseconds) - so a 6 exposure burst would give 10 ISO, and so on. The Aptina sensor they use also has a switchable FWC, it has a high FWC (and higher read noise) for low ISOs and a low FWC (and lower read noise) for high ISOs. It's achieved with a capacitor in the pixel which can be switched in and out.
Wouldn't you need 10 exposures for ISO 10?
 
I'm a photojournalist and shoot with two 5D III cameras. I love the heck out of the low light sensitivity of modern DSLR cameras. But why can't sensors allow landscape photographers to eliminate the 9-10 stop filter when desired?

The lowest speed my old 5DII cameras or new 5DIII cameras can handle is ISO 50--why not ISO .1 for flowing water, moving clouds, etc.? I'm sure there is some good reason.
It doesn't seem important to implement it, given that the base ISO is higher. Rather than actually implement Heath Robinson solutions, you can simply take multiple long exposures yourself and stack them for fundamentally the same effect.
 
In support of the prior posts, if the sensor sites full-well capacity was reduced to allow a 0.1 ISO, the performance at ISO 800 would be terrible.
Reduced? You'd have to increase it by a factor of 1000. It's not really possible with silicon to make full well capacity that large (as far as I know). You'd need an external capacitor for each pixel.
The way to do it would be continuous readout.
And I've done that by shooting 30fps video at 1/30th of a second and stacking the frames. And I can confirm that it works as-advertised.
The cameras for that would be the Nikon 1 series, which can capture 60FPS with a shutter speed of 1/60 (obviously minus a few milliseconds) - so a 6 exposure burst would give 10 ISO, and so on. The Aptina sensor they use also has a switchable FWC, it has a high FWC (and higher read noise) for low ISOs and a low FWC (and lower read noise) for high ISOs. It's achieved with a capacitor in the pixel which can be switched in and out.
Wouldn't you need 10 exposures for ISO 10?
Of course, brain fart on my part.
 
I'm a photojournalist and shoot with two 5D III cameras. I love the heck out of the low light sensitivity of modern DSLR cameras. But why can't sensors allow landscape photographers to eliminate the 9-10 stop filter when desired?

The lowest speed my old 5DII cameras or new 5DIII cameras can handle is ISO 50--why not ISO .1 for flowing water, moving clouds, etc.? I'm sure there is some good reason.

Nice photograph .

I like that :)
--
With kind regards

Derek.
 
Thanks! I was trying to find the deepest shade I could find that day so I could shoot this with just a polarizer. I don't own a ND yet--hardly ever need the critters. But I would have liked to have one (or our hypothetical .1 ISO camera! ;) ) on this trip.
 
Last edited:
A better question might be why don't we have built-in selectable ND filters.
We used to have them, my Canon G3 came with one. I didn't use it really, except to figure out how it worked with the camera, and after that never again. As to why they disappeared, have you priced decent ND filters lately? If you were a manufacturer, would you voluntarily give up that income?
Used to? My Nikon P7700, and its replacement, the P7800, both have a 3-stop ND filter built-in. It's a useful thing when trying to shoot wide open (f/2 at wide angle) outdoors on a sunny day with a max shutterspeed of 1/4000". They can also be useful for staying within the max sync shutter speed for flash, or at least minimizing the power loss when you can't get quite that slow.
 
I'm a photojournalist and shoot with two 5D III cameras. I love the heck out of the low light sensitivity of modern DSLR cameras. But why can't sensors allow landscape photographers to eliminate the 9-10 stop filter when desired?

The lowest speed my old 5DII cameras or new 5DIII cameras can handle is ISO 50--why not ISO .1 for flowing water, moving clouds, etc.? I'm sure there is some good reason.
Current sensors saturate one time for an exposure, so the more sensitive sensors are made, the higher the lowest practical ISO becomes. Manufacturers could make cameras so that they read and zero every line in an image in order, and add the results over time, for unlimited exposure time, but they don't seem to be interested in doing this. Kodak's Canon- and Nikon-mount DSLRs from a decade or so ago did something like this to get down to ISO 6, but that idea seemed to die with the camera.

Some newer cameras will take multiple exposures in rapid succession and add them together, some even re-aligning them. You won't know it from the EXIF data, but a camera that does this with 6 shots at ISO 100 will actually be an ISO 16 shot.

The only disadvantages of you doing this yourself with multiple exposures are:
  1. There will be a blackout between the exposures, so there may be breaks in motion blur. Probably not as much of an issue with waterfalls and wind-blown foliage as it is with star trails.
  2. If the camera has a hard mirror slap, which also oscillates the tripod, then a larger percentage of the total exposure time will be spent in the dampening process (not as much of an issue with live view).
  3. The work of assembling the stack in software. This does, however, allow you to weed out unhelpful frames.
You actually get better SNR with these multiple exposures, than you would if the camera took a low ISO shot in a single exposure, and you can get a better bit depth which the camera itself could not give.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top