>> 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
