Tom C wrote: > With the caveat regarding who knows about Pentax?... > > I'd take a full frame sensor that did very well between 200 - 400 ISO any > day (ISO 800) w/b nice, over any sensor that had marginal high ISO > performance at 1600 and above. I find any photo I take at 1600 or higher > with the *ist D to be, while documentary, not worth a heck of alot > otherwise. I am loathe to set ISO over 800. > > Thinking back to film, I rarely shot anything over 400, and many times I was > pushing 100 two stops to get 400. When I needed more light gathering > ability the camera was on a tripod and I used longer shutter speeds. > > I wouldn't mind that at all because I find the high ISO performance of > DSLR's to be no more desirable than the performance of high ISO films. > > Who *seriously* shoots at ISO1600+ and gets results they would rave about? > For my kind of photgraphy it doesn't work near as well as a lower ISO and a > tripod. > > Tom C. >
I get results at ISO1600+ on film that I would rave about, digital less so, but I'm not unhappy with 3200 on any of the Pentax's I've owned. And there's no 35mm form-factor digital SLR today that isn't superb at ISO400 and good at 800 (And most are superb at 800). If you care only about ISO800 and below, you have absolutely no need for FF 35mm sensors(unless you also want 20+MP, but then you'd be better off buying a Mamiya 645ZD kit than a 1DsmIII IMHO, less lens limitations) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
