I've found with the D that ISO 1600 a half stop over is generally better for noise that ISO 800 at the meter reading. So I pick up a half stop and the noise is reduced. Works for me. Paul On Oct 30, 2006, at 8:57 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> I haven't seen too much of your work, Joe, that looked like you > really needed ISO 1600. What did you do when you only had a film > camera? > > G > > ----- > > There are a few high ISO shots here: > > http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/535671 > > After unsatisfactory experiences early on, I try not to shoot my D at > higher than 800. ISO 1600 would have made some of these shots > easier, or > I could have used a smaller aperture. Low light shots are why I > worry so > much about how lenses perform wide open. I often seem to wind up > shooting at ISO 800, 1/30 (or even less), wide open (or close to it). > > I think there are also some in the PUG archives, but I'm not going to > search them out. > > When in Europe I used to carry two PZ-1p bodies. One usually had > Provia > 100F, the other usually had something at either 400 or 800 -- 800 if I > knew I would be shooting indoors. Whenever I get the opportunity I > like > to shoot inside cathedrals and other buildings. Often tripods aren't > possible or allowed in such places, which is one of the reasons why I > have been looking forward to shake reduction. One of the nice things > about my DSLR has been getting away from having to carry two bodies. > > If the K10D will perform at ISO 800 I will be satisfied. And if my > concerns about the camera are unfounded, I'll be happy to be wrong. > > Joe > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
