The real trick here is that there is a single native speed of the CCD. If you lower it or raise it, you introduce noise/quality problems. Minolta offers a 100 ISO setting for their D7D which uses the same basic chip as the Pentax and Nikon. However, image quality is lower at ISO 100 than 200, which is the native speed. Unlike film, which gets better quality the slower you go, digital doesn't get any better once you go below the native speed.
So I guess a follow on question would be - would you accept lower quality for slower speed or prefer ND's and better quality? I suppose it could always be an option. Perhaps the Minolta choice is a good one. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, June 12, 2005, 8:29:14 AM, you wrote: SB> I'd agree with John here in terms of using a filter. Adding and removing SB> filters throughout a day of shooting can be a bit of a PITA, and digi is SB> supposed to make things easier for the photog. It would be great to have a SB> 50 ISO setting - even 100 would be an improvement. As I've said about film, SB> lower speeds means wider apertures and more creative opportunities. SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: John Forbes >> As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to? >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" >> > Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ? >> > >> > >> >> Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually >> >> unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter speeds are >> >> required. >> > >> > I can understand it. I like limited DOF, but tossing an ND filter on SB> can >> > really bugger up AF, and these things don't have the best viewfinders >> > for manual focus. >> > It's not high on my list of wants, but it would be nice to have. >> > >> > William Robb
