On Feb 14, 2013, at 13:56 , Aahz Maruch <a...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Walt wrote: >> >> Here's another that was a bit noisier, so I softened it a bit to >> give it a little glow: >> >> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/walt_gilbert/8473322049/ >> f/3.2, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 >> >> (I'm really impressed with ISO 6400, BTW!) > > One thing I appreciate about you posting these photos is that they're > definitely pushing me away from taking Larry's advice to bring the > 50/1.4 on my trip. (I'm already bringing the 16-50/2.8 and 35/2.8 > macro, and one of my goals is to minimize kit size. I'm not expecting > to take many low-light photos, and your photos are persuasive that 2.8 > should handle the situations I might run into.)
I've been very impressed with ISO 6400 as well. I've got no qualms about shooting right up to that level (my auto-iso is set for that) even when I could open up the lens a little bit and notch it down. Depth-of-field, MTF, whatever tends to win over needing a lower ISO. It's that good. I don't think, however, that 12800 and/or higher are worth it. (I liked the B&W image better btw) She sorta has "Amy Pohler Eyes" if you ask me. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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.
