Bob Talbot wrote: > There comes a point when capturing the image becomes - almost a waste > of time - film or digital. ISO 1600 film pushed to 3200 produces crap > results: so does a digital camera at 1600. The only time it would be > worth taking would be as a nature record of some previously unrecorded > behavior. Not as a pictorial shot. > > Oh, you can get medium format digital backs - not in EOS - now they > are expensive!
I occasionally shoot 1600 or 3200 at an indoor sports event with a 1D where flash is not allowed. For newspaper work, it works. However, I agree that the image suffers. At 3200, the contrast is extreme (better than no picture at all, though). Of course, medium format backs can be had in the 30 to 60 megapixel range. They are typically limited to ISO 400 or so. For work that doesn't quite require such extreme detail (almost all), I recommend the 1Ds. I have found it to be a remarkable camera for such. I am so impressed with each camera, I can't fathom what Canon will come out with now that the 1D is discontinued! Dave Buyens * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
