4 ms·
> I'd have probably shot it wide open at f/2.8 rather than cranking the ISO up to 51200. One of the reasons the D5 supposedly was chosen was because of its hig
by throw0101d 6mo ago
> I'd have probably shot it wide open at f/2.8 rather than cranking the ISO up to 51200.
One of the reasons the D5 supposedly was chosen was because of its high dynamic and good low light performance. It can go up to ISO 3,280,000:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D5
The D5 has been used on the ISS, including EVAs, since 2017, so is a known quantity:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_Interna...
- porphyra 6mo agoThe good low light performance was amazing for its time (10 years ago), and it still holds up decently today. But let's not kid ourselves -- it has been clearly surpassed by modern backside illuminated CMOS sensors like the one on the Z9. EDIT: sorry, it seems I'm wrong. I just checked https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and while the Z9 has the clear edge with 2 more stops of dynamic range at low ISO, the D5 actually pulls ahead at high ISO. Perhaps the technological improvements haven't been that much for the shot-noise dominated regime.
- nelox 6mo agoWas hoping to hear from the person at NASA who made the choice and why.
- throw0101c 6mo agoSure, but D5s were also doing EVAs for many years and much more of a know quantity in space.