FP ISO 64000

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Roger Senior Member • Posts: 2,890
FP ISO 64000
1

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Ceistinne Senior Member • Posts: 2,741
Re: FP ISO 64000

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Roger,

Not bad at 64,000 ISO.

S

 Ceistinne's gear list:Ceistinne's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sigma SD15 Sigma SD14 Sigma SD10 +5 more
SigmaTog
SigmaTog Senior Member • Posts: 1,059
Re: FP ISO 64000

Yes I find it a pleasant still camera all round.

xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 20,112
Re: FP ISO 64000

Ceistinne wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Roger,

Not bad at 64,000 ISO.

S

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

-- hide signature --

Pedantry is hard work, but someone has to do it ...

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma SD9 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +14 more
allineedislight Contributing Member • Posts: 954
Re: FP ISO 64000

xpatUSA wrote:

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

well, just add 1/3 stop:

100, 125, 160
200, 250, 320
etc

52100 = 100*2^9     # 9 stops more than ISO 100

64000 is approx 64507 = 100*2^(9 +1/3) # 9 1/3 stops more than ISO 100

 allineedislight's gear list:allineedislight's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill +1 more
xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 20,112
Re: FP ISO 64000

allineedislight wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

well, just add 1/3 stop:

100, 125, 160
200, 250, 320
etc

52100 = 100*2^9 # 9 stops more than ISO 100

64000 is approx 64507 = 100*2^(9 +1/3) # 9 1/3 stops more than ISO 100

Good one.

Did occur to me and, yes, I already looked at 64000 versus 51200 - came to 0.32 steps but not a whole 1/3 to any self-respecting pendant.

... did I just say "whole 1/3" ?!!

-- hide signature --

Pedantry is hard work, but someone has to do it ...

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma SD9 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +14 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 16,336
Re: FP ISO 64000

xpatUSA wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Roger,

Not bad at 64,000 ISO.

S

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

I don't understand Isn't 800 twice 400, and isn't 1600 twice 800? I mean it does double. Did you say, ". . . the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time . . ." . . . ?

You proceeded with a series that doubled, including 3200 to 6400 to 12800 to 25600 to 51200. I don't know what the ??? means, but then you finished the series with 102400, which is double the previous number of 51200. I don't unerstand why you made this post Ted. Sorry. What do you mean?

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma sd Quattro H Nikon D810 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +26 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 16,336
Re: FP ISO 64000

Amazing Roger. At first I thought it said 6400. I just realized it says 64,000 . . . but it looks as "good" as my ISO 3,200 shots from years ago, which I made with my Canon 5 D. At 6,400 this image quality would be acceptable from a sensor with such small photosites, in my opinion, but at 64,000 . . . well, I can't even believe the camera can do that ISO. I would figure it'd max out at the next step above 6,400, which would be 12,800, and more than ten times the sensitivity of ISO 1000, which back in the film days was super grainy. I do shoot at ISO 1600 sometimes with my Nikon D810, though I try to stick to ISO 800 or slower. I can't even imagine shooting at iso 3200, let alone ISO 6400 . . . but ISO 64,000?!? HOLY COW!!!

Interesting post Roger. I just wish you would post an OOC jpeg series right in here, shot at ISO levels ranging from ISO 1600 up to and including that crazy high-ISO setting of 64,000.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma sd Quattro H Nikon D810 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +26 more
xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 20,112
Re: FP ISO 64000

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Roger,

Not bad at 64,000 ISO.

S

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

I don't understand Isn't 800 twice 400, and isn't 1600 twice 800?

They are.

I mean it does double.

It does - up to a point ...

Did you say, ". . . the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time . . ." . . . ?

I did.

You proceeded with a series that doubled, including 3200 to 6400 to 12800 to 25600 to 51200. I don't know what the ??? means, but then you finished the series with 102400, which is double the previous number of 51200.

That I did.

I don't unerstand why you made this post Ted. Sorry. What do you mean?

I meant that 64000 is not part of the aforesaid well-established series.

-- hide signature --

Pedantry is hard work, but someone has to do it ...

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma SD9 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +14 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 16,336
Re: FP ISO 64000

xpatUSA wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Enjoy

Roger J.

Roger,

Not bad at 64,000 ISO.

S

Curious how the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time, e.g. 100, 200, 400 ... and now have values like 64000 where the digits "64" are no doubt there for some reason - perhaps aimed at making some shooters feel comfortable - a bit like "ISO" itself!

... 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 2560, 51200, ???, 102400 ...

I don't understand Isn't 800 twice 400, and isn't 1600 twice 800?

They are.

I mean it does double.

It does - up to a point ...

Did you say, ". . . the ISO steps have departed from doubling up each time . . ." . . . ?

I did.

You proceeded with a series that doubled, including 3200 to 6400 to 12800 to 25600 to 51200. I don't know what the ??? means, but then you finished the series with 102400, which is double the previous number of 51200.

That I did.

I don't unerstand why you made this post Ted. Sorry. What do you mean?

I meant that 64000 is not part of the aforesaid well-established series.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I wonder why, if they just wanted to make things easier by using "round" numbers, why they didn't just step up to 50,000 from 25600. At that point they could then continue to double with simple numbers, like 100,000, 200,000, and 400,000. In the future they could add 1 Million, 2 Million, and 4 Million.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma sd Quattro H Nikon D810 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +26 more
Tom Schum
Tom Schum Forum Pro • Posts: 11,870
Re: FP ISO 64000
1

Superb image quality for that high ISO, and I love the colors too!

I wonder how the fp L would fare at this same ISO.

-- hide signature --

Tom Schum
Cooper: a person who makes wooden containers from timber.

 Tom Schum's gear list:Tom Schum's gear list
Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X30 Panasonic ZS100 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm X-E4 +12 more
Johan Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,234
Re: FP ISO 64000
3

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

 Johan Borg's gear list:Johan Borg's gear list
Sigma dp2 Quattro Sigma fp Sigma 45mm F2.8 DG DN
xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 20,112
Re: FP ISO 64000

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

This is not intended as a rebuttal, Johan.

I just don't understand the apparent fetish for seriously under-exposing a sensor and getting away with it.

May I ask what the "native ISO" is for an fp, assuming the SOS method?

-- hide signature --

Pedantry is hard work, but someone has to do it ...

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma SD9 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM +14 more
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 29,595
Re: FP ISO 64000

xpatUSA wrote:

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

This is not intended as a rebuttal, Johan.

I just don't understand the apparent fetish for seriously under-exposing a sensor and getting away with it.

Acceptable results in available light are a big step forward. I've lost so many shots because there wasn't enough light. You press the button anyway, hoping to get something, and the result is vanishingly thin negatives or hopelessly dark digital images, even at dangerously slow shutter speeds.

May I ask what the "native ISO" is for an fp, assuming the SOS method?

There are two "base ISO" numbers, depending on which of the analog amp gains is in use.

Don

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
Johan Borg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,234
Re: FP ISO 64000

D Cox wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

This is not intended as a rebuttal, Johan.

I just don't understand the apparent fetish for seriously under-exposing a sensor and getting away with it.

Acceptable results in available light are a big step forward. I've lost so many shots because there wasn't enough light. You press the button anyway, hoping to get something, and the result is vanishingly thin negatives or hopelessly dark digital images, even at dangerously slow shutter speeds.

Yet I have to agree with Ted that there's a limit to the benefit, which is why I shared the alternative exposure settings above.

May I ask what the "native ISO" is for an fp, assuming the SOS method?

There are two "base ISO" numbers, depending on which of the analog amp gains is in use.

Yes, but it's a bit of a trick question from Ted because he doesn't accept Sigma's method of defining ISO (REI) for an answer.

For the rest of us, the answer is dual base ISO of 100 and 640 as well as 3200 for CinemaDNG in 12 bit.

 Johan Borg's gear list:Johan Borg's gear list
Sigma dp2 Quattro Sigma fp Sigma 45mm F2.8 DG DN
Jozef M Senior Member • Posts: 1,972
Re: FP ISO 64000
1

D Cox wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

Acceptable results in available light are a big step forward. I've lost so many shots because there wasn't enough light. You press the button anyway, hoping to get something, and the result is vanishingly thin negatives or hopelessly dark digital images, even at dangerously slow shutter speeds.

There are two "base ISO" numbers, depending on which of the analog amp gains is in use.

Don

Very little light used to be considered 'bad' light in the film days.
Colours and shapes fade when there is too low light, so give up then ..., you shouldn't strive for the impossible.

Jozef.

 Jozef M's gear list:Jozef M's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Canon EOS 30D Panasonic Lumix DC-G9
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 29,595
Re: FP ISO 64000

Johan Borg wrote:

D Cox wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

This is not intended as a rebuttal, Johan.

I just don't understand the apparent fetish for seriously under-exposing a sensor and getting away with it.

Acceptable results in available light are a big step forward. I've lost so many shots because there wasn't enough light. You press the button anyway, hoping to get something, and the result is vanishingly thin negatives or hopelessly dark digital images, even at dangerously slow shutter speeds.

Yet I have to agree with Ted that there's a limit to the benefit, which is why I shared the alternative exposure settings above.

I have zillions of negs on Tri-X shot at settings like that. The shutter speed is too slow for people who are a few feet away, and the DoF isn't enough to capture two people in focus.  Sometimes you get lucky, but a few stops would make all the difference.

May I ask what the "native ISO" is for an fp, assuming the SOS method?

There are two "base ISO" numbers, depending on which of the analog amp gains is in use.

Yes, but it's a bit of a trick question from Ted because he doesn't accept Sigma's method of defining ISO (REI) for an answer.

For the rest of us, the answer is dual base ISO of 100 and 640 as well as 3200 for CinemaDNG in 12 bit.

Don

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 29,595
Re: FP ISO 64000

Jozef M wrote:

D Cox wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Johan Borg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Hi gang how are you doing?? Well I hope. Here's the FP at ISO 64000

https://www.flickr.com/photos/157326682@N04/51122147663/in/album-72157719572189961/

Nice demonstration, although a dp2 Quattro would look better in the same light at f/2.8, 1/60 sec and ISO 400

The fp high ISO is amazing, 102,400 is quite usable in monochrome, although the in-camera JPEGs get a bit soft at that point.

Acceptable results in available light are a big step forward. I've lost so many shots because there wasn't enough light. You press the button anyway, hoping to get something, and the result is vanishingly thin negatives or hopelessly dark digital images, even at dangerously slow shutter speeds.

There are two "base ISO" numbers, depending on which of the analog amp gains is in use.

Don

Very little light used to be considered 'bad' light in the film days.
Colours and shapes fade when there is too low light, so give up then ..., you shouldn't strive for the impossible.

Why not ?

When the light gets tough, the tough get photographing.   

I'm wondering what the fpL is like at high ISO numbers.

Don

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
Jozef M Senior Member • Posts: 1,972
Re: FP ISO 64000

D Cox wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

Very little light used to be considered 'bad' light in the film days.
Colours and shapes fade when there is too low light, so give up then ..., you shouldn't strive for the impossible.

Why not ?

Because photography means writing with light, too little light and your handwriting becomes unclear.

When the light gets tough, the tough get photographing.

I'm wondering what the fpL is like at high ISO numbers.

Don

Jozef.

 Jozef M's gear list:Jozef M's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Canon EOS 30D Panasonic Lumix DC-G9
Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 16,336
Re: FP ISO 64000
1

Jozef M wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Jozef M wrote:

Very little light used to be considered 'bad' light in the film days.
Colours and shapes fade when there is too low light, so give up then ..., you shouldn't strive for the impossible.

Why not ?

Because photography means writing with light, too little light and your handwriting becomes unclear.

I agree . . . so get out your flash.

When the light gets tough, the tough get photographing.

I'm wondering what the fpL is like at high ISO numbers.

Don

Jozef.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma sd Quattro H Nikon D810 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +26 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads