10-31-2017, 09:19 AM
I think Nikon choose wisely not to talk about ISO 50, 32, 25 but instead of Lo 0.3, 0.7 and 1 (EV). The manual also very clearly states about higher contrast (page 120) and I do think, amongst the users who need regularly low ISO the downsides are known - and the others are the people who think they can treat a DSLR like they uised to do with film cameras and never look into manuals.
Now I still don't got a proof that pictures of this fantastic Kodak ISO 6 machine would be superior in any way to contemporary cameras. The samples are just poor IQ compared to today's standards. toni-a, thanks for digging very deep in digital dust, but I would be very amazed if a machine from 2004 (!) could compete in any way with a modern camera.
What I saw in the samples, each of my also historical Sigma Merrills would eat for breakfast.
Not all old machines are better than modern ones. But on eBay they might be quite cheap these days. Age itself is not a quality per se.
Now I still don't got a proof that pictures of this fantastic Kodak ISO 6 machine would be superior in any way to contemporary cameras. The samples are just poor IQ compared to today's standards. toni-a, thanks for digging very deep in digital dust, but I would be very amazed if a machine from 2004 (!) could compete in any way with a modern camera.
What I saw in the samples, each of my also historical Sigma Merrills would eat for breakfast.
Not all old machines are better than modern ones. But on eBay they might be quite cheap these days. Age itself is not a quality per se.