> > I've very rarely been in a shooting situation where I NEED a low ISO > for technical reasons. If it happened a lot, I could always carry > neutral density filters. One only wants low ISO film because it produces > higher quality. If someone produced an 800 ISO film with the grain, > latitude, resolution, etc of ISO 50 films we'd all use it.
No we wouldn't. There *are* other reasons for using slower-speed films. One of my issues with the *ist-D is nothing slower than ISO 200. On a bright, sunny, California day I can't get a nice pan shot of a car (at, say, 1/125) without getting more depth of field than I want. (If I'm shooting a three-quarter head-on shot with two cars in frame, then I only want the leading car to be in focus). If I'm shooting cars at a slower part of the course, with a slower shutter speed, it gets worse. I need 2x and 4x ND filters, at least. That's 77mm filters for the 200mm or the 80-200. Fortunately the 300mm has internal filters, so I only need a 49mm filter for that. More expense, and more things to carry around.
