Thread: High ISO, noise, megapixels and etc.

It would be nice if we could stop using the word 'quality' to refer to the objective measurements of lenses, sensors etc. and refer instead to 'output' or something similar. Not that this is ever going to happen.

Well this IS a hardware specific forum so I suppose it comes with the territory but I still maintain that focusing on objective measurements is a very superficial way of looking at photography (or any sort of creative endeavor for that matter). It leads to obsessing over it and you can see that readily on display on photography forums (even good ones). My uncle is a great example of this. He must have a dozen digital cameras. He is always buying new ones (even though he probably can't afford them) and each time he says its because they will allow him to take better pictures. What he needs is to take a class or maybe just practice more. He gets that far away stare when he starts talking megapixels, high ISO and so forth.

Originally Posted by dixeyk

... He gets that far away stare when he starts talking megapixels, high ISO and so forth.

LOL ... like the artillery officer hearing the outgoing.

Originally Posted by gary

lol ... Like the artillery officer hearing the outgoing.

exactly!!!

As a latecomer to this thread, I see plenty of value in technical advances. LOTS of value. For me it's less about megapixels and resolution and sharpness than high ISO capability. The pure horsepower of higher sensitivities to light gives me so many more options. It's most obvious advantage is in very low light, but it also gives me enormously more flexibility in marginal or just "OK" light and that's probably the most useful aspect of it to me. I love being able to shoot comfortably at 3200 and 6400 and I don't feel a burning need for more but when 25,600 is as good as 3200 is today, I know I'll love that even more. So count me as I'm favor of technical advances - I love em and always seem to find them useful in one way or another.

That said, I've been shooting a lot with my LX7 lately, which really isn't much good beyond 800 or 1600 in a real pinch. But it's got a fast enough lens at all focal lengths to get by pretty well even in pretty marginal light. And I have to say that shooting with more limited gear has its charms too. I love everything else about that little camera so much that the very limited sensor (by today's standards - two years ago I'd consider it quite good!) hasn't been bothering me. It's not my first choice as a low light camera, but it's surprisingly capable. And it's a pure blast to shoot with, partly despite its very real limits, and partly because of them, which forces me to think and approach things a little differently, which gives me a different type of creative juice than the "no limits" cameras we're happily evolving toward.

Hell, I like it all. If you enjoy the process, you'll find ways to enjoy and create with almost any gear put in front of you.

-Ray

I agree with Ray, well sorta, (don't have a LX7). What I like about all the super high ISO claims by manufacturers is that it makes all the lower ISO just that much better.

G

PS- Yes, I am the master of the obvious.

For me, it's sharpness and high iso as the "extra stuff" I look for in a camera/lens. I just personally like sharp photos and, being an amateur, I mostly take photos to please myself. I would love to not be concerned with high iso behavior but I keep finding myself is places with low light where flashes are not an option. This is not so much an idle opinion as my empirical observations about what I need in a camera to make me happy.