I don't think I knew that. I suppose the amount of lower quality would be a determining factor. istD users are always saying how good the quality is at higher ISO ratings, so how bad could things get if the rating was lower? Don't other cameras besides Minolta offer lower ISO speeds? Maybe a trip through DPreview is in order.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton > 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.
