*ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked)
I raised the question twice, I believe, in the days before you joined. I do a lot of shooting at ISO 800 to 1250. It would be a pity if the *ist D could not be used to shoot indoor school plays. There is no secret method for "goosing" the ISO speed. Whatever Pentax delivers, we'll be stuck with. Mike J asks us to stay calm; the ISO range may not yet be "fixed." "Tony Gieske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: New to the list and a little surprised that no one seems to want to know the ISO specs on the *ist D. Are they like the D100 or are they like the 10D? I'd sure like them to be ISO 100 to ISO 6400. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps if no one cares it's because there's some secret method of goosing the speed of the chip in post. Could this be? Has anyone tried it with those earlier models?
Re: *ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked)
One of the things I've noticed is that digital cameras handle under exposure much better than they do over exposure. I've been able to get very good prints from exposures that were three stops under exposed using most digital photo editors. and better yet using PhotoShop. Under those circumstances, ISO 400 equates to a pretty high ISO. Have other digital shooters noticed this or is it just me? Len --- From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Pentax-Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: *ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:16:21 -0500 I raised the question twice, I believe, in the days before you joined. I do a lot of shooting at ISO 800 to 1250. It would be a pity if the *ist D could not be used to shoot indoor school plays. There is no secret method for "goosing" the ISO speed. Whatever Pentax delivers, we'll be stuck with. Mike J asks us to stay calm; the ISO range may not yet be "fixed." "Tony Gieske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: New to the list and a little surprised that no one seems to want to know the ISO specs on the *ist D. Are they like the D100 or are they like the 10D? I'd sure like them to be ISO 100 to ISO 6400. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps if no one cares it's because there's some secret method of goosing the speed of the chip in post. Could this be? Has anyone tried it with those earlier models? _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: *ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked)
that is why i consider digital cameras just like slide film with slightly wider exposure latitude. it works if you are careful with your subject and technique. Herb. - Original Message - From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 13:17 Subject: Re: *ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked) > One of the things I've noticed is that digital cameras handle under exposure > much better than they do over exposure. I've been able to get very good > prints from exposures that were three stops under exposed using most digital > photo editors. and better yet using PhotoShop. Under those circumstances, > ISO 400 equates to a pretty high ISO. Have other digital shooters noticed > this or is it just me?
Re: *ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked)
>> One of the things I've noticed is that digital cameras handle under exposure >> much better than they do over exposure. I've been able to get very good >> prints from exposures that were three stops under exposed using most digital >> photo editors. and better yet using PhotoShop. Under those circumstances, >> ISO 400 equates to a pretty high ISO. Have other digital shooters noticed >> this or is it just me? In my experience, it isn't so good. Problem is with digital noise, which (unlike film) manifests itself in dark tones (in film, most "noise" = grain - is in the light tones). If you extract the dark tones to get a decent print from underexposed digital photo, you get most of the noise. Digital is just slide film, only worse - it has smooth light tones (unlike film), but very easy to blow the highlights. And if you underexpose, you only enhance the noise. Fortunately modern CCD and CMOS sensors of around 6MP have pretty good signal to noise ratios, so far I think 1600 is usable (but needs postprocessing) in the short experience I had with D100. That's why I would never buy small sensor digital, because its iso 400 is worse than iso 1600 of a DSLR. I think with the rumored Sony 6MP ccd, the IstD could do pretty usable 1600, and if they enhance the electronics, they could do quite better than the D100 (which is pretty old by digital standards) Frantisek
