On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote: > On Feb 14, 2013, at 13:56 , Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013, Walt wrote: >>> >>> Here's another that was a bit noisier, so I softened it a bit to >>> give it a little glow: >>> >>> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/walt_gilbert/8473322049/ >>> f/3.2, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 >>> >>> (I'm really impressed with ISO 6400, BTW!) >> >> One thing I appreciate about you posting these photos is that they're >> definitely pushing me away from taking Larry's advice to bring the >> 50/1.4 on my trip. (I'm already bringing the 16-50/2.8 and 35/2.8 >> macro, and one of my goals is to minimize kit size. I'm not expecting >> to take many low-light photos, and your photos are persuasive that 2.8 >> should handle the situations I might run into.) > > I've been very impressed with ISO 6400 as well. I've got no qualms > about shooting right up to that level (my auto-iso is set for that) > even when I could open up the lens a little bit and notch it down. > Depth-of-field, MTF, whatever tends to win over needing a lower ISO. > It's that good. > > I don't think, however, that 12800 and/or higher are worth it.
Actually, Larry's the one who convinced me that you're wrong: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/8366084507/in/set-72157632485855236 There's surely noise but ya gotta ask yourself: would I rather give up that shot? -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
