On 17 Nov 2003, at 10:36, Bob Marchant wrote:
No I haven't. If you put the kettle on I'll be round though!If the backs that you mentioned in your original reply have a nominal ISO of 50-100 there is no way you could move the curve enough to equate to 1250 ISO or worse so I still feel my original comment was correct that a MF back couldn't achieve what a D100 or similar could using it for ridiculously low light performing arts photography.
Hi Patrick ,
I feel that this would be a comment best made with experience of MF backs
rather than assumptions. Have you used a high end back ?
This isn't what I said. I meant that if you shot something at 50 or 100 ASA that really required 1250 ASA you wouldn't be able to compensate for that huge underexposure in the conversion software. Are you saying the D100 is doing this in the capture stage before presenting me with the RAW file?
If the D100 chip is truly more sensitive while maintaining the same dynamic range and noise in comparison to high end backs
, then I'll be
Er...I'm not sure but I didn't think it was purely by adjusting a curve.pleased to see the results and wonder why the manufacturers of high end systems haven't adopted this technology. How exactly does the D100 provide this change of ASA ?
What are the nominal ratings for the MF backs you mention? If they are very low wouldn't it increase their sales if they claimed 1250 if all it is is a curve adjustment.
Has that kettle boiled yet?
Yours, thirsty for tea and knowledge.
Patrick.
http://www.patrickbaldwin.com
020 8891 2516
07802 408 638
A member of The Association of Photographers
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
