Shutter speed, sensors, tripods - question

Seems that one of the things that's progressing with each new DSLR is higher ISO ability.

When you increase your ISO you are making your sensor more sensitive to light so - I asume this is because sensors are becoming better ?

I know for things like milky waterfalls you need a certain shutter speed but If sensors become more and more sensitive will we ever reach a day when we can shoot (for still pictures like landscapes) really really fast shutter speeds even in low light ?

I guess tripods will be needed less and less ??

Sensors are still a relitivley new technology and still in its infancy as far as digital photography is concerned. Although, there has been breakthroughs in designs, the LBCAST sensor (2003?) for example, the problem still remains that there is still a trade off with image quality. Increasing the ISO simply electronically amplifies the light and doesnt truely register more in the same way as increasing the apature. Until manufactures can increase the sensaitivity without the "false" amplification i believe its going to be a long way off before we really see some amazing sensors that are capable of fast shutter speed in low light.

Tripods will always be needed, its got nothing to do with shutter speed, there are many occassions where an absolutely stable platform will be needed for a camera. Just as an example taking a picture on a windy day. As Nikon already produce cameras with shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 sec I cannot see any reason to go faster unless you get into the realms of extreme speed, such as a bullet fired from a gun, and there are special high speed cameras already on the market for that.

Bazza

Yes yor right Bazza - Tripods will always be needed as there are times (as you say) when an absolutely stable platform will be needed - I'm thinking - anything that requires movement & no movement during a slow shutter speed.

1/8000 sec is fab but if you set your camera to 1/8000 to photograph a dog running at full speed at dusk - what happens ?

You get a black photo.

Your camera may need an aperture the size of a bin lid to allow that much light in so you go off and buy a 'faster lens'

Whilst faster lenses will always be better - If (and I hate this) sensors get more and more sensitive - I can see sensor development reducing the need to buy 'faster' lenses for all but the pro's.

I am not allowed out at dusk, the moon starts rising and the madness starts.

Bazza

I cut my teeth on photography in the late 70's and throughout the 80's etc. The 80's saw the emergence of faster film emulsions and pushing film past it's rated ISO commonly in sports and news photography (often working at a grainy 1600/3200 ISO). However I also took a lot of slide pictures and wanted the best quality I could (on 35mm film). We were using film like Kodachrome 25/64, or Fuji 50 (ISO's). A standard lens on a camera was often f1.8, and my short or mid-range zooms f2.8-f3.5, or fixed at f4 throughout (70-210mm). So in those days slower film and slightly faster lenses than seems to be the 'norm' now. Often now we see digital cameras at 100 or 200 ISO but slower max. aperture lenses on many consumer models. I'm just wondering if things have actually got any better as a base level 25 years later?

Faster shutter speeds do stop the action dead but as Bazza said not sure how many times we would use it.

Incidentally, the besides the obvious stability of a good, heavy tripod, the biggest factor for me is taking time to address the composition (particularly with primes) and various exposures of the same picture.

From what I understand, increasing the ISO on a digital camera does not make the sensor 'more' sensitive, the sensor has a fixed charachteristic to light. What happens is the amplifiers behind the sensor increase in gain and amplify the levels before they go to the A/D convertor.

What is improving in sensors in their ability to capture light, couple that with the improved noise reducing algorithms within the camera and now we are seeing bodies that can work up to ISO 12,800.

For effects such as silky water at a waterfall you are after a longer shutter speed, so really having the ability to go down to ISO 50 or 25 would be better.

I guess Phil you could be right, tripods may be required less if you can use faster shutter speeds, but consider this. If my camera can shoot at say ISO 50, then I want to use ISO 50 becasue it will produce the absolute best quality image. Also, taking photos at a shutter speed of 1/8000 sounds great, but for action shots, you will suck the life out of any shot, as often you need some background blur to relay to the view that feeling of movement, if you freeze a car on a racetrack so perfectly, it will look like it is just parked there and will have no impact at all.

Alan.

As long as the person hand holding a camera has a pulse there will be the need for tripods. In most cases going below 1/60th of a second with a close up photo will create jitter just because we live & breathe. Still photography, time-lapse photography, macro-photography and photos taken of panoramic scenery all require tripods or stable platforms. Extend the focal length of the lens on your camera & movement is amplified exponentially. We've come a long way with camera resolution but I'll put a Kodachrome 25 slide shot with a good lens with the camera mounted on a tripod against any digital camera.