>Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my >experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 >with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my >camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a >bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45...
Sure, sometimes I get blur, but usually I get pretty sharp pictures even when I'm taking slow pictures, as long as the subject isn't moving ;) and if I do get it a bit blurry most of the time it's in a picture where I don't mind. My camera only takes pictures down to 1s, but I usually don't go that slow. Here's a picture taken at ½s that isn't too bad. http://picasaweb.google.com/rg2pdml/PESO/photo?authkey=W1C-i05p28o#5116002907034854178 For me, it's hard not to shift my hands when I press the shutter button. It probably goes back to that "you should use a tripod" argument. I used to use 800 speed kodak exclusively but I guess I was never quite satisfied with the sharpness so I ended up trying to take my pictures slower. I haven't tried 800 Fuji of any type, but your approval of it makes me curious. Do you have a steady hand? Or do you have a fast lens? I hope your bath picture comes out well :) rg2 On 9/29/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my > experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 > with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my > camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a > bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: > > > BTW Glen - > > > > I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji > > or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak > > in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm > > taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much > > better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by > > it when the light isn't perfect. > > > > rg2 > > > > On 9/29/07, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Bill Owens wrote: > >>> When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji > >>> Superia 200, > >>> though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa > >>> because it > >>> seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't > >> look like > >> they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( > >> > >> http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ > >> lang,en/ > >> > >> D > >> > >> -- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > -- > > "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its > > composition" > > > > -- > > 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. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- 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.
