Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Interesting article today about Canon's new sensors here
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Makes me wonder how Nikon is going to respond.
I mostly use flash to improve the quality of the light rather than to compensate for lack of it so I find these extremes of sensitivity of little use. ISO 3200 on my GH3 gives perfectly acceptable results but the nature of the light that forces use of such sensitivities tends to be very flat or very contrasty. Flash, especially syncro flash, looks better usually.
I'm not an astronomer, scientist or documentary maker mind you, in which case, this like those amazing starlight cameras the BBC used in Africa recently, might be just the job.
With a higher sensitivity sensor you can still light your subject with additional lights but it needn't be a blinding flash, you have the option of using lower power continuous lighting or simple reflectors to redirect the moonlight. Nice to have the option of both in my opinion.
Its also in the news here - http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-develops-high-sensitivity-full-frame-sensor-21498
Its big pixels and low resolution (for still cameras) - But wow, still very nice.
I think this is Canon's response to Nikon's high resolution small pixel camera.
I see that one of the suggested uses for it mentioned by Canon is that you can take pictures of your friends in the dark. I must start saving!
Remember this is a sensor principally for video recording - you can't use flash for that!
Having said that the three megapixels of HD resolution is not much less than Nikon's first DSLR - the 2.7mp D1. As long as you have fairly modest size/print needs [you'd get a bigger than A4 print at 150ppi for example], it could fill a gap. What's the gap? I'm old enough to remember films of the sixties that had scenes shot in daylight filtered to look [well, not really] as if they were night time. The point is you don't need to carry lights and you don't need to work out how to direct the light and you're not recording artificial light - you have a chance to capture the scene and its atmosphere as it actually is.
Let's also not forget that sometimes you are asked to capture images in the black hole of Calcutta with a 'no flash' restriction on the locale. [That means dingy churches, usually]. Although the size is a bit restricting I'd happily sacrifice a fair amount of resolution [and a mere 6mp probably compares to what you could usefully get out of typical 35mm film] for a good dollop of sensitivity.
I don't think it's all that surprising that we're seeing the correlation between photosite size and high sensitivity capture illustrated by such developments - perhaps it will lead to more realistic expectations in the race for greater resolution?
It all points to more sensitive sensors for mainstream DSLRs which (despite the lack of imagination by some ) makes possible things that you couldn't do before like capturing precious moments in a dingy church without a flash, like shooting sports at whatever shutter speed and aperture takes your fancy.
Quote: I must start saving
The new tech might not suit you Lemmy, lighting people with continuous light seeing the results live would baffle you - best stick with the old sensor and flash and the ways you know best.
For photographing churches, just use a tripod. I could also use the multi-exposure addiction facility in my GH3 and don't forget you can do quite amazing noise reduction on ultra-high speed by down-sampling from 24/16mp to this devices's resolution.
All I'm saying is that throwing money and technology at a problem (in so far as there is one) rather than maximizing the use of what you have or using the imagination seems an awfully retrograde approach.
Given that we have cameras with ISOs of over 100,000 now, what advances have we seen in non-professional low light photography?
Like I said, I can see professional uses for this but amateur/ hobby, no, not really. But if you have the money, why not? I'm not against it in any way.
Quote: lighting people with continuous light seeing the results live would baffle you - best stick with the old sensor and flash and the ways you know best.
You don't know me and have no reason to say that - I find it patronising, unpleasant and unnecessary.
Take a look at my YouTube tutorials on tethering and operating my GH3 on my Android phone and iPad, ask the opinions of the almost 250,000 people who have accessed my tutorials and my 500 subscribers, growing daily.
Take a look at my portfolio on Rex Features with the continuous light over Tel Aviv as I was photographing incoming missiles. I have always kept up with (and lectured on, occasionally) the latest technology and developments. Indeed, I and 2 others were using some of the earliest Canon digital cameras when they wanted professional input into their development.
Lemmy when you make a patronising remark like "you can take pictures of your friends in the dark. I must start saving!" expect some back. If you think a tripod solves the problem of taking pictures of people in dark churches you need to learn that people move and multiple exposures or long shutter speeds will only produce blurry photos
Quote: ask the opinions of the almost 250,000 people who have accessed my tutorials and my 500 subscribers
Wow didn't realise you were such a big shot on YouTube, you obviously know everything already and are never wrong. That's more views than some of those cat piano videos.
Quote: And you?
I've got a Panasonic as well, it's a combi, so not just microwave, also has oven and grill. Any tips?
Quote: Lemmy when you make a patronising remark like "you can take pictures of your friends in the dark. I must start saving!" expect some back
My apologies, but I assumed you had read the Canon article. I was obviously wrong. The 'patronizing' remark you attribute to me was directly from the article, paragraph 3.
"It can even be used to 'see in the dark' and take pictures of friends at night without the need for any lighting."
I think a remark like 'stick with the old sensor and flash and the ways you know the best' was unpleasant in response to a remark I did not make.
I'm not a big shot anywhere - but neither am I unpleasant to others without checking whether I have my facts right. And people complain about journalists!
Quote: The 'patronizing' remark you attribute to me was directly from the article, paragraph 3.
Spot the difference
I think you are clutching at straws. You jumped to offence at something I did not say. Now you try to justify it.
You needn't bother to reply for my benefit as I have no time for people who aren't big enough to acknowledge when they have made a mistake and have hidden further contributions from you.
First time I've ever done that, I hope it works!
LMAO People can see what you said Lemmy and what you claimed you said they can also see who took offence and took a huff and who didn't
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st October 2014 - 31st October 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View October's Photo Month Calendar