John Francis wrote: >On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:49:06AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: >> CheekyGeek wrote: >> >> >On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>OK. Let's look at it on your terms: >> >>>In a digital camera, I would argue that lower ISOs are *primarily* >> >>>important for the maximum Dynamic Range that they provide. >> >> >> >> Not to me. >> > >> >OK. Can you expand on that? What is it about lower ISOs that make them >> >primarily better to you? >> >> Longer shutter speeds. > >Yep. I used to shoot Provia 100F because it gave me the combination >of motion blur and depth of field that I wanted on sunlit days. When >there was less light I used a faster film. > >Shooting with ND filters isn't as convenient. For one thing the cost >of a complete set of ND filters for the lenses I was using added up >to a sum comparable to the price of a DSLR body. There's also the >loss of brightness in the viewfinder; while the human eye compensates >for that on overcast days, it's harder to use a dim viewfinder when >your eye is adapted to bright sunlight.
It's also possible to use lower ISO (or slower film) to get the same shutter speed but a wider aperture - a significant consideration when you're in the diffraction-limited territory around f/22. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
