Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 87 of 87
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    Booooo! You guys are no fun.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Quote Originally Posted by cdifoto View Post
    Best post* in the whole damned thread!











    *other than my nonsense ones!
    Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    Thank goodness that this isn't 2004 anymore when ISO1600 was a last resort.
    Most DSLRs out there offer exceptionally clean images at IS01600 and higher.
    This is the reason I don't understand the nitpicking; all have high clarity and detail retention.

    Now raise the standard to ISO 6400 and we have a different issue.
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObiJuan View Post
    Thank goodness that this isn't 2004 anymore when ISO1600 was a last resort.
    Most DSLRs out there offer exceptionally clean images at IS01600 and higher.
    This is the reason I don't understand the nitpicking; all have high clarity and detail retention.

    Now raise the standard to ISO 6400 and we have a different issue.
    Funny thing is, Canon's digital has been beating 35mm film at high ISO ever since 2003-2004 if not before (I've never used a D30 or D60). Can't say I've ever used digital Nikon either though to know if it too beat film in those days. Which, incidentally, wasn't that long ago!
    Ouch.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    Very true. ISO 800 MAX was known as max for a reason!
    It was grainy and horrible. We've become spoiled with a high standard of quality.
    The bar is only getting raised.
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    I hate to carry on the wars, but the reason I say coldrain's got it completely wrong is that a camera bumping up the light in its pixels to equate with increased sensitivity is different from doing the same thing in a software program. The two have different algorithms and different results. So no matter what we want to pretend, an ISO 1600 photo at -2 EV is an ISO 1600 photo, not an ISO 6400 photo. We're talking about camera capabilities after all, not camera + after-the-fact user-input editing software results.
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    I experimented with this many times with multiple DSLR's-albeit all Canon since it's all I had avail- and found similar results at ISO 3200 when an IS0 1600 shot was underexposed 1 stop and then pushed in post.

    This was my experience but I am far from a DSLR ISO performance expert.
    Last edited by TheObiJuan; 01-30-2008 at 05:28 PM.
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •