Most of you guys are missing my point, or maybe I'm not acknowledging that I
get yours.
I'm just trying to say that high ISO quality seems to viewed as a holy grail
in digital photography, and my perception, right, wrong, or skewed, is that
with film photography it was generally accepted that you were going to
sacrifice image quality when shooting high ISO film to get the shot. Of
course the same happens with digital, the higher the ISO, the noisier the
image, or the heavier the noise reduction, losing detail.
My comments were that high ISO image quality suffers whether using film or
digital, so I wouldn't mind a FF DSLR with great low - mid ISO performance
and mediocre/poor high ISO performance, because... ta da! :-) I expect
mediocre/poor high ISO performance anyway. I have not shot one image on the
*ist D at 1600 ISO that I can say I'm really happy with. Even if it is a
nice shot, I can see that it would have better with a tripod and lower ISO.
I thoroughly understand that some kinds of photography and venues dictate
the use of high ISO.
Tom C.
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: hints about sensor for next camera(s)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:12:35 -0400
Tri-X heads shooting available light were always looking for more speed.
It was the content that counted not so much the quality. I find that
both the *ist-D and Ds give better results at 1600 than most any film
I've ever used. It's worth raving about.
Tom C wrote:
> With the caveat regarding who knows about Pentax?...
>
> I'd take a full frame sensor that did very well between 200 - 400 ISO
any
> day (ISO 800) w/b nice, over any sensor that had marginal high ISO
> performance at 1600 and above. I find any photo I take at 1600 or
higher
> with the *ist D to be, while documentary, not worth a heck of alot
> otherwise. I am loathe to set ISO over 800.
>
> Thinking back to film, I rarely shot anything over 400, and many times I
was
> pushing 100 two stops to get 400. When I needed more light gathering
> ability the camera was on a tripod and I used longer shutter speeds.
>
> I wouldn't mind that at all because I find the high ISO performance of
> DSLR's to be no more desirable than the performance of high ISO films.
>
> Who *seriously* shoots at ISO1600+ and gets results they would rave
about?
> For my kind of photgraphy it doesn't work near as well as a lower ISO
and a
> tripod.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: hints about sensor for next
camera(s)
>> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not only an old sensor, but one with extremely poor high ISO
>>>
>> performance
>>
>>> (it's the Sensor Kodak used in the DCS14n, DCS/n and DCS/c).
>>>
>> Well they may have improved it since then: The data sheet shows it's
>> been revised, January 2007 -- they've nearly doubled the frame rate
>>
> >from 1.7 fps to 3 fps, for example.
>
>> Not that it has any bearing on Pentax, AFAIK.
>>
>> BTW:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=25298198
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Remember, itÂ’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
