the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Nikon D5 — The ISO knob goes to eleven

Nikon D5 — The ISO knob goes to eleven

April 7, 2016 JimK 6 Comments

This is part of a series of posts about the Nikon D5. The series starts here:

Nikon D5 — read noise vs ISO setting

Do you remember the movie This is Spinal Tap? In one memorable scene, a band member rhapsodizes over a amp whose knobs go to eleven, instead of the usual ten, as evidence that the amp is more powerful than most.  The phrase “up to eleven” has even shown up in dictionaries.

That’s just silly, right? That kind of magical thinking has no place in camera purchasing. We’re too smart for that. We’d no more buy a camera based on some meaningless number than we’d buy a car because the speedometer numbers went to some insane speed.

Maybe not all of us.

More than a few people have remarked that it is significant that Nikon make the maximum setting of its ISO control that merits a number ISO 102400, whereas its predecessor, the D4s, only had a knob that went to 25160.

Four times the number, gotta be four times as light sensitive, right?

Wrong.

There are very few rules for what a camera manufacturer can call the base ISO of the camera. It’s not like the days of film where there was a detailed procedure that limited development trickery to eke out a higher number than the chemists designed in there.

Near as I can tell, there are no rules at all on what a camera manufacturer can call the highest ISO setting on a camera. I’ll bet that, at the meeting where that number is determined, the engineers are politely shooed out of the room so that they don’t cramp the style of the product managers who are going to make that decision.

You’d think there would be some consistency within a given company, or, failing that, within a certain line of cameras. You’d be wrong.

Here’s an interesting table that I constructed this morning with the aid of Bill Claff’s excellent web site:

dx ISOmax vs PDR

Here are the last five generations of Nikon’s flagship DSLR, with the maximum numeric ISO (No HI-1, or Hi-5 allowed) for each shown. Also shown is the Claff photographic dynamic range (PDR) for each camera at its ISOmax.

You can see that Nikon was pretty consistent when they decided what image quality they’d allow at the ISOmax for the D3, the D3s, and the D4. They let their standards slip a bit with the D4s.

For the D5, they abandoned any sense of their previous standards, and, in my opinion, any sense of shame. If the D5 had used D3, D3s, or D4  standards for ISOmax, it would be about 20000.

 

The Last Word

← Nikon D5 — what’s going on with the sensor? Nikon D5 — the start of a static AF testing protocol →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    April 7, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Good one, Jim.

    Reply
  2. David Braddon-Mitchell says

    April 7, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Oh dear this is really disappointing.
    Not of course that there’s such little quality at stratospheric ISO. If the breakthrough required to make that happen had occurred we would know. But that Nikon would be in the business of trying to manipulate photographers who aren’t technically savvy this way.

    Reply
  3. Chris Livsey says

    April 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven#/media/File:Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg

    Reply
  4. Eric says

    April 7, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    Select the “Ideal FX” in that chart. Its 102400 PDR is just 2.82
    Maybe its physics that has no shame, not Nikon.

    Reply
  5. CarVac says

    April 8, 2016 at 7:33 am

    What if you evaluate jpegs? From what I’ve seen, the noise reduction has improved much more dramatically than raw performance and that might be their reasoning for increasing the limit.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      April 8, 2016 at 1:03 pm

      An interesting point. I don’t think I want to start looking at JPEGs, though. That’s a lot of work and I never use them.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.