How important is low light performance really?

[WhoDo]

Although I don't venture past ISO1600 usually, improvements in the very high ISO ranges usually helps lower down too.
Afterall we're talking amplification in digital so if u can get cleaner 12800, u can usually also get cleaner 1600. Not always the case of course since it depends how the high ISO results are achieved.

Ok, swifty, I get that may well be the case but my point is IF you're getting perfect or near perfect results @ 1600 on a DSLR capable of ISO 6400, why would you want to upgrade to one that was capable of 25,600? After all, at ISO 1600 (max) the difference in noise control between the two sensors is unlikely to be "vast", or is it?

It seems that Leica may have decided that ISO 1600 is plenty for the results achieved. I can accept ISO 6400 (Nikon D7000 et al) or even ISO 12800 (Pentax K5 et al) on more commercial equipment (read built to a lower price) but beyond that, unless you are shooting sports indoors or outdoors in poor light, or you're shooting events in near darkness, what's the point? IOW, how many photographers actually USE the extra ISO range of which the camera's of today are capable?

[fess67]

IOW, how many photographers actually USE the extra ISO range of which the camera's of today are capable?

Dunno - Off to Africa in 3 weeks, will let you know when I get back if I get any useful images at the higher ISOs.

[pixy]

I don`t like shooting at high ISO,if needed it is there, but AFAIK the increased ISO reduces dynamic range.

ps the Pentax k5 has ISO 6400.

Jack

[Film Street]

I've been using a film camera more often than a digital camera over the past year with a film speed of ISO 400, one 40mm f2 lens and a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second. It is simple way to photograph in that I have less to deal with, but more limiting in how I set the camera. This setup is almost always limited in aperture and shutter speed at one end or the other in any given lighting.

So when I see what comes out of new digital camera at 6400 ISO I am always amazed. I see no reason why they should stop there though. The main benefit I can see of higher ISO's is the users ability to set aperture and shutter speed while the camera meters correctly with auto ISO. I wouldn't be suprised to see one million ISO soon.

I think they should also put effort into making lower ISO speeds as well, all the way down to 6.

[swifty]

Well u wouldn't. Certainly I wouldn't if my shooting needs were already met.
My comments were fairly general about successive improvements to high ISO performance that may translate to other gains not limited to just high ISO. I think in digital a lot of issues are interrelated eg. Improvements in read noise from the recent Sony's have a massive impact on DR in the shadows.
And remember not everyone upgrade every generation so the gains may be much more substantial even if the original camera may be serving the photographer's needs perfectly fine.

But I did say I think the issue of noise will become increasingly irrelevant. The gains are plateauing so successive generation of cameras won't see the x stops jump that most ppl hope for. There really hasn't been that much gains since the D3s.

As for Leica, I have no idea what their attitude is towards noise or whether 1600 is enough for them. Maybe it's a throw-back to film era where ISO 3200 film was probably as high as it got so they don't feel the need to throw bigger numbers into the mix.
But I suspect if Leica did get an exclusive Sony sensor made only for an M, with fantastic low light performance, their marketing message may include loads of examples shot with their 50mm 0.95, touting its shoot in the dark abilities.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll also add that all bets are off moving away from Bayer sensors. There may be significant gains still to be made with disruptive technology. Black silicon perhaps.
And software will also become increasingly important.

[WhoDo]

ps the Pentax k5 has ISO 6400.

That's only native, Jack. It can be extended to 12,800 by selecting the option from the menu's.

[I @ M]

The three basics of photography. Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO.

It isn't in the "basics" of photography but one item I feel is relevant to mention in conjunction with high iso discussion is VR, IS, OS, VC or whatever term applies to image stabilisation in whatever brand of camera / lens that is being used.
Image stabilisation in conjunction with good high iso performance is another part of the technological arsenal available that allows images to be produced that were basically unheard of 15 years ago.

In the following pictures having a higher shutter speed would have been great because the 50+ year old lady was so violent in her dance routine that she would have put many 20 year olds to shame and required ( I estimate ) around 1/250 to freeze the motion.

A fast aperture lens with VR + high iso levels ( relevant to the age of the camera ) when hand held as in these shots is about the only way they would have been taken.

Exif details are the same for both images.

Nikon D3, Nikkor 70-200 VR1 @ 120mm, 1/60 and F/2.8 iso 3200 and -1 EV
Photographed under UV lights, auto white balance, batch processed through Nikon Capture NX2 with D2X mode 1 picture control @ level 4 sharpening and NO noise reduction.

The first image is a fairly static capture, the second is a screen sized crop of #1 and the 3rd image shows the rapid movement of the dancer.

A helluva lot of iso would be needed to get the shutter speed up to freeze that one.

[arthurking83]

.......

Has anyone else notice a spate of astro photography with perfect replications of the milky way recently? I tried this once on my k10 at ISO 1600 .... well, that was a noisy affair.

Todays high ISO capabilities make this entirely possible now without super expensive equitratorial tracking equipment.

I don`t like shooting at high ISO,if needed it is there, but AFAIK the increased ISO reduces dynamic range.

......

Even us landscapers may occasionally use super high ISO settings(I know I would if I could, for a given situation of course!)

The use of a super expensive EQ mount is all well and good, but only if your scene involves only the sky in the frame.
An Eq mount is useless if you are capturing any terrestrial based subject matter in the frame as well.

So the reasoning behind better high ISO performance comes down to better dynamic range and colour reproduction.

As high ISO performance in camera increases, so do the possibilities .. simple as that.

For me(at the moment) I've found that I want super clean ISO6400 images that don't require noise reduction software intervention.
There appear to be a few cameras that can do that quite easily now in Nikon circles.

Ideally tho, I want the same image quality level at ISO204K too .. ie. night time sky photography at fast shutter speeds(1/500s) with fast moving ancillary objects captured clearly within the frame too!

Why limit your imagination?

High ISO is definitely a good thing .. more pixels I'm not convinced about(yet).

As for the issue of medium format and the low max ISO thresholds .. I'm sure it's a development vs return on investment issue.

There simply isn't the demand in that sector to warrant the associated high level of costs in pushing the (ISO)envelope.
I guess that MF operators don't really care for high ISO performance due to their workflow style.

[Rattus79]

The use of a super expensive EQ mount is all well and good, but only if your scene involves only the sky in the frame.
An Eq mount is useless if you are capturing any terrestrial based subject matter in the frame as well.

I have seen cases where the eq mount has been used for the sky, and a seperate shot for the land. I'm sure you've never used seperate exposures for sky and land though