I've shot plenty of low-light, high ISO film, but certainly not color at 3200. Even BW 35mm at 3200 was marginal. No matter how it was processed, the grain was pretty damn big. Not bad, necessarily, but pretty damn big. On the other hand, 6x7 BW at 3200 was very cool. I might even try some of that again:-). I haven't used the DA at 3200. But it's great at 1600. Far better than film. I'm sure the K10D will be at least as good as film. And with an extra stop from shake reduction, I can probably get away with ISO 800 for almost everything. 135 Kodak TMZ 3200: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=800895 120 Delta 3200: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=644914 Pentax *istD @1600: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4704528 Paul On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 01/11/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I found the response from Joe Tainter to Godfrey's question quite >> illuminating. When asked how he managed back in the film days, he >> seemed to state that basically he rarely if ever used ISO 1600. > > Well in my case I shot at ISO3200 in my 35mm film days quite a bit and > the results that I could obtain from my *ist D under similar > conditions were far superior to film for my requirements. What I'm not > looking forward to is having now to take a step back again and lose > potentially a stop or more of sensitivity vs image quality. How much > of a step back will determine how useful the K10D is going to be for > me, the lack of a decent high ISO test images at the moment is > frustrating to say the least. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
