ISO performance on new cameras.

ethan · 10 Aug 2016 at 13:59

I remember a time when there would be no problems blurring and slowing water without the need for ND filters or creating moving plants in fields. Were cameras then of such poor quality that today's advancements in low light photography have made previous models and the way we go about doing things a relic of the past?

ethan · 10 Aug 2016 at 17:00

I am trying to put low pixel count DSLRs and their seemingly lack of sophistication by today's standards down to the fact that when I was using a Sony DSLR from way back, I never had to reach for a ND filter to create milky flowing water scenes (in bright weather). Though it looks like I haven't explained it very well, maybe I was mistaken in blaming it on the ISO or inferior technolgy . On a Fuji XT1 and a Sony RX100 I have been unable to do this without a ND filter.Which I don't understand?

It's looking more like I'm the bad craftsman that always blames his tools.

ethan · 10 Aug 2016 at 17:36

I can see how that would be the case, I just couldn't understand how I , up until using the SonyRX100 and XT1, was able to get away with not having to use a ND filter?

ethan · 10 Aug 2016 at 17:49

D.P. said:
Pure luck, or a chnage int he weather. Maybe it is unnier when you go outside., or you know it is summertime and brighter compared to winter.

ISO 100 is ISO 100 on whatever camera you use.

Would low pixel count and quality of the lens also have any bearing along with what you have said?

ethan · 10 Aug 2016 at 18:13

D.P. said:
No

OK. Thanks.

ethan · 11 Aug 2016 at 11:43

Lots of interesting things to think about with many informative comments. Thanks for the responses.