Good point. I used the *istD at 3200 only once or twice. It was shit. The D10 is better at 1600 than was the D. It's enough for me. If I really HAD to shoot at 3200, I'd just underexpose a stop. And I bet the results would at least be the equal of the D. Don't get me wrong: I was very fond of the D, and it will remain my backup. but whining about the high speed capability of the new camera is simply misplaced. Paul On Nov 26, 2006, at 7:12 PM, John Forbes wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:38:26 -0000, Digital Image Studio > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 26/11/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> DPReview is the Domain of Pixel-peepers. How many people are >>> reporting >>> these problems? How many know what they are talking about? How >>> many >>> actually need 1600 ISO, given that the camera has shake-reduction >>> built-in. >>> >>> I haven't yet got my K10D, but I suspect this is all a load of >>> rubbish >>> from the usual suspects. >> >> It sure is John, and maybe you should have a little think about >> why SR >> can't compensate for lost sensitivity in many shooting >> situations. :-/ > > Many? I wonder how photographers survived all those years with 25 ASA > Kodachrome and 160 ASA Ektachrome. Poor suckers presumably didn't > know > that what they really needed was 1600 ISO. Of course, they > produced crap > pictures, as we all know. > > John > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > -- > 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
