Yeah, its very good for 3200. In colour I don't like the colour speccling you get on the grain though. I found changing it to B&W makes it far more acceptable.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 16 October 2003 13:40 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > > > I did a couple of shots when I handled a pre-production > model. I never posted since I was asked not to. > > But from those shots I was quite pleased. I use 3200 quite > often when I shoot wedding ceremonies (b&w prints) and as > such am quite used to the grain. I can understand why it is > a custom function to use it as most people would shrink away > from it and think the camera was broken. > > Just my two cents, and still trying to catch up, > > César > Panama City, Florida > > -- -----Original Message----- > -- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:23 AM > -- > -- I've done a few test shots at ISO 3200 in the *istD. As you > -- say, if you > -- need the speed, the noise is not that objectionable, and > -- really no worse > -- than grain in film. > -- > -- Bill > -- > -- ----- Original Message ----- > -- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:01 AM > -- Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel > -- > -- > -- > > -- > > -- > Rob Brigham wrote: > -- > > > -- > [. . .] > -- > > -- > > BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics > -- for this test - > -- > > it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure > -- in the RAW > -- > > software actually made the noise a lot better too, > -- something that again > -- > > the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. > -- > > -- > Seems to me, anytime you feel you have to or want to > -- resort to an ISO of > -- > 1600, a little noise is a very minor price to pay, > -- especially if there's > -- > a relatively simple way to reduce it. > -- > 1600 ISP with a digital... marvelous! <g> > -- > > -- > keith > -- > >
