let's see: say, iso 800 at dslr would have the same noise as 100 at digicam. that's 3 stops difference. the digicam's lens is 2 stops faster. IS would give you another stop or two (don't forget the lack of the mirrir slap too). so in the end, you are either doing just as well or have lost one stop with a dslr. that's not what i understand is "much better overall". otoh, the AF speed (and responsiveness in general) is indeed something dslr is going to have an edge over digicam, i suppose. then again, there is the weight and bulk of dslr (and at least 2 lenses) vs. digicam (and a lighter tripod to support it). so it's not that obvious after all, is it?
best, mishka On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:53:00 -0400, Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Problem is that unless you're after some pointillistic effects, you > don't want to shoot the digicam at higher ISO than 100. > With the dslr just get an 100-300/5.6 zoomie, set the ISO dial at > 400-800 and you're doing much better overall. > > > > Mishka wrote: > > with a f2.8 450mm equivalent lens? good luck. > > last time i checked, 300mm/2.8 alone was in the kilo$ realm. > > now, where exactly can I buy a 25-300 f2.8 IS pentax zoom for istD? > > > > mishka > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:45:49 -0400, Paul Stenquist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Hmmm. Amazing deal? I don't know. You can buy an SLR -- Pentax or Canon > >>-- for less than $900. That itty bitty sensor is quite limiting. > >>Paul > > > > > > > >
