will camera makers not supply super-high ISOs so we have to buy fast lenses?

[Urbanaphotographer]

Something has occurred to me, will camera manufacturers not develop super-high ISOs (I'm thinking 6400 or 12800) to force people to buy fast lenses? Think about it, if manufacturers give us really high ISOs then we will not need to have super fast lenses (unless we want the smaller DOF), nor need IS or VR on fast lenses (in most cases). But I would think that manufacturers want people to buy their fast lenses and the only way to get people to do that would be to not eliminate the need by giving super-high ISOs.

I can only think of one manufacturer that makes SLRs but not lenses too, and that's Fuji-Film with their S series, although I don't think they make their own sensors so I'd be a little surprised if they start to offer super-high ISOs.

[badpickev]

i think the opposite will happen. I also think it is happening. I think we will see a huge push toward camera functionality once the pixel density gets to high. Fuji makes its own sensors and the S3 sensor was the first real attempt at extending dynamic range. Canons %d is reputed to have really great ISO 3200 results. I am guessing in the next year or so we will start to see ISO 6400 and better DR with less noise. I also think the noise suppression will be come a thing of the past as we get a new generation of photo diode.

as for rumors, Fuji is rumored to have a new 9-12mp native with the same niumber of DR pixels. so we are looking at a 18-24mp sesor with 9-12 resolution. but so far its rumor or vapor-ware.

[scoundrel1728]

Anybody here remember the Kodak DCS-620x? Introduced in May 2000, it had only 2 megapixels (1728 x 1152 pixel images) but it boasted a minimum ISO rating of 400 and a fully-calibrated setting of ISO 4000 and a semi-official maximum rating of 6400, and Kodak's site mentioned photographers taking shots at an effective rating of 12500.

[Urbanaphotographer]

Hmmm, but in both of these cases it's manufacturers that don't make lenses, so they don't risk losing lens sales by providing super-high ISOs, rather they'd gain DSLR market share. Kodak pulled out of DSLRS earlier this year which leaves only Fuji-film to offer super-high ISOs. I don't know a lot about Fuji-film or the sensor making business, I think I read they don't make their own sensors, but I'd think they'd design them, so maybe they will provide a super-high ISO sensor.

If they did then I think that would resemble what happened to when Google started gmail, gmail offered a gig of room free, forcing the other free email providers (which were offering like 4 megs) to give more free to stay competitive. In this case Fuji-film is Google and Canon and Nikon are the other email providers, and instead of room we're talking about ISOs. The analogy isn't perfect (few are), but it's the idea.

-Nick

[JohnC]

Very high ISO doesn't get around some of the main reasons for fast lenses: easier/faster focusing, brighter viewfinder, shallow depth of field in bright conditions. Low light is one of the last things I think about when considering lens speed. Even if I had a camera that had an ISO of 6400 I'd still want a 2.8 or faster lens. High ISO, to me, would help when needing to shoot stopped down (f8, f11, etc.). But it wouldn't matter so much at the wide-open end of the lens.

John

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by JohnC

Very high ISO doesn't get around some of the main reasons for fast lenses: easier/faster focusing, brighter viewfinder, shallow depth of field in bright conditions. Low light is one of the last things I think about when considering lens speed. Even if I had a camera that had an ISO of 6400 I'd still want a 2.8 or faster lens. High ISO, to me, would help when needing to shoot stopped down (f8, f11, etc.). But it wouldn't matter so much at the wide-open end of the lens.

That is one of the reasons that very high ISO ratings aren't offered so much: there is a tradeoff between dynamic range/freedom from pixel noise and ISO rating. It is still possible to effectively increase the ISO rating by deliberately underexposing the image, but you will take a hit in your image quality by doing so. Most cameras today top out at an ISO rating above which the image quality would be rejected by most photographers and wouldn't be used anyway.

I have also noticed in the casual photographer market in the past decade or two that the trend seems to be toward fast film and excruciatingly slow lenses.

[Marc Kurth]

Very high ISO doesn't get around some of the main reasons for fast lenses: easier/faster focusing, brighter viewfinder, shallow depth of field in bright conditions. Low light is one of the last things I think about when considering lens speed.

Yup