Jeepers, unless you’re printing *really* big, I doubt there’ll be meaningful image quality difference at anything south of 1600, maybe 3200.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > I doubt that you could see any difference in image quality between ISO 100 > and ISO 200, even at pixel peeping levels. The advantage of having ISO 100 > lies in being able to get a slower shutter speed when needed, as when panning > or shooting moving water for example. > > Paul > On Oct 19, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Glen Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm in the habit of shooting at the lowest ISO possible, to get the best >> image quality. Lately, I was having second thoughts about shooting my K-30 >> at ISO 100. Since ISO 100 is an "extended" ISO, and ISO 200 seems to be the >> camera's base ISO, would there be any advantages in image quality when >> shooting at 200 ISO? >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- > 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. -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray) -- 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.
