That's my probem, too. I could of course spend a grand or two on super
new equipment, but if the camera had 50 ISO I wouldn't have to.
John
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:50:17 +0100, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I dont have that much control on my flashes, they are not real high end.
rg
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Can't you adjust your studio flashes? I can dial mine down to 1/16th
power if need be. And if that's not enough to get the aperture I want,
I add the ND filter. It's certainly not an inconvenience in the studio.
Paul
On Jun 13, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Gonz wrote:
Yes, this is especially true with a studio flash setup. I find that I
frequently have to stop down to f8 or f11 when using my studio flashes
@ ISO 200, and for portraits, that is unacceptable.
rg
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'd agree with John here in terms of using a filter. Adding and
removing
filters throughout a day of shooting can be a bit of a PITA, and digi
is
supposed to make things easier for the photog. It would be great to
have a
50 ISO setting - even 100 would be an improvement. As I've said about
film,
lower speeds means wider apertures and more creative opportunities.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Forbes
As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter speeds
are
required.
I can understand it. I like limited DOF, but tossing an ND filter on
can
really bugger up AF, and these things don't have the best
viewfinders for manual focus.
It's not high on my list of wants, but it would be nice to have.
William Robb
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 11/06/2005
