Adam. What on earth does this have to do with film?? I just want low noise at high ISO speeds. Other manufacturers makes digital cameras with less noise at 1600-3200 ISO. I have had quite a few complaints about the noise. Take a look for your self, this is not acceptable for a pro level camera: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Bedste-dag-album/index.html
You see - somtimes it's not acceptable to use a flash - and sometimes it's impossible (concert shots, rooms with a dark cieling - or very tall rooms) - and I don't even like the angle of direct flash. Furthermore a flash is a PITA for the persons getting photographed. Nice and natural looking pix is what I want: Making the best of the available light should be the objective for any camera manufacturer. Cetainly for Pentax. This calls for very high sensitivity at very low noice levels. I do know that film used to be even worse. But that was yesterday. Talking about the new high end Pentax DSLR is now! Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. februar 2006 01:44 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: New High End DSLR Speculation Jens, I've found that in decent light the *istD has about as much noise at 3200 as NPZ800 has grain, in low light it gets worse, but it never exceeds ISO3200 speed films (which are noticably worse). Because of that, I have come to the conclusion that 'high noise issues' are mostly an irrelevant complaint. Even the worst DSLR's on the amrket today display less noise than the equivalent film has grain at ISO 800 and up. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: >Shel Wrote: >I find it sad that you prefer, or choose, to limit your >photographic expression... > >I don't. I can choose to use shallow DOF any time I want - as long as I have >fast shutterspeeds, slow film/low ISO Speed, sharp lenses or long focal >lengths. > >What I can't choose, anytime I want, is DOF. And I happen to want that >pretty often. For the reasons previously described. So, I wish for better >quaility sensors - with very low noice at high speeds. This will give me - >and everybody else - more choises. More freedom of expression. How can that >be limiting myself. I just don't get it - I'm sorry. > >I am not the only one who have been concerned about the relativly high noice >levels, rendereed by the SONY sensor in the *ist D. Many reviews and Pentax >DSLR users have too. I wish for this issue to be addressed. This is what i >expect form a future high end Pentax DSLR. > >If the noice levels are not improved (and the speed issues), I'll probably >be looking elsewhere for future investments. >I guess I have said the same thing many times by now: I expect better image >quality (more MP, lower noice levels) and faster speeds (SF, FPS and - >especially - write speed) from a future high end Pentax DSLR. >Is this really too much to ask? > >Regards >Jens Bladt >http://www.jensbladt.dk > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 11. februar 2006 22:58 >Til: [email protected] >Emne: RE: New High End DSLR Speculation > > >OK, we have very different opinions about what's required in the way of DOF >to make a "good" photograph. There are literally 23, 987, 645 >photographers who believe that good photographs can be made using shallow >DOF. Portraits are but one example that such a technique often benefits. >That said, the softening or blurring of backgrounds (and, perhaps to a >lesser degree, foregrounds), has been considered a very viable and helpful >technique almost since the dawn of photography. > >Capturing "reality," as you suggest, isn't always desirable, or indicative >of a good photograph. Many people, both on this list and off, myself >included, can give numerous examples of this. A photograph isn't, never >was, and never will be, reality. > >Personally, I find it sad that you prefer, or choose, to limit your >photographic expression, although, based on the photos of yours that I've >seen, a somewhat greater DOF to achieve some additional sharpness may serve >you well. But to make so broad a statement as you have is, perhaps, >disrespectful, and certainly it discounts, the vision and sensibilities of >others. > >I now stand by my pre-caffeined thought that your statement is inane. > >Shel > > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Jens Bladt >> >> > > > >>Shel, I believe you might need another cup of coffee. >>Having enjoyed such a drink you may want to give it a second thought, >> >> >after > > >>which I'm sure you'll agree that:( >> >>(Here I wanted to make a long speach about why they invented lenses (in >>stead of just using pin hole cameras) and why they - at the same time - >>invented adjustable apertures - in order to allow stopping down the used >>lenses (to a small hole - pretty much like the pi hole camera, which by >> >> >the > > >>eay will render very sharp images - without using a lens) - in order to >>achieve better sharpness than the big lenses could provide fully "open"). >> >>But I won't. >>In stead of starting with the basic history of photography, I'll just >> >> >remind > > >>you, that the world is three dimentional - it's round - not flat like at >>lens test target. This means, that in order to make photographs, that by >>most people can be recogniosed as a good photograph (which BTW means that >> >> >it > > >>looks at least a little like the real subject) has at least some >> >> >resemblence > > >>with the world we know and see, a certain amount of Dept Of Field is >>required. >> >>This is why I want better image quality/less noice at high ISO speeds. I >>want to use my lenses stoped down - not fully opened. That is why I don't >>want "faster glas", Faster glas means LESS DOF - provided, naturally, I'm >>actually using this speed (read: large apertueres) to render pictures. >>That's what i DON'T want. - most of the time. >>I would shoot 90% of all photographs at F.8- F. 11 if I my gear would >> >> >allow > > >>me to. >> >>Regards >>Jens >> >>Jens Bladt >>http://www.jensbladt.dk >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 11. februar 2006 15:22 >>Til: [email protected] >>Emne: RE: New High End DSLR Speculation >> >> >>At first read, that seems to be a most inane statement, but maybe there's >>more to it than my pre morning coffee brain can understand. Perhaps you >>can elaborate upon it, specifically, why is a certain range of DOF >>important for "good" photographs, what is a good photograph, and what does >>sensor or film size have to do with anything? Thank you for your >>indulgence. >> >>Shel >> >> >> >> >> >>>[Original Message] >>>From: Jens Bladt < >>> >>> >>>Most good photographs will require at least some DOF (F.4 - F.8) for >>>APS-sized sensors. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > >
