On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:49:06AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > CheekyGeek wrote: > > >On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>OK. Let's look at it on your terms: > >>>In a digital camera, I would argue that lower ISOs are *primarily* > >>>important for the maximum Dynamic Range that they provide. > >> > >> Not to me. > > > >OK. Can you expand on that? What is it about lower ISOs that make them > >primarily better to you? > > Longer shutter speeds.
Yep. I used to shoot Provia 100F because it gave me the combination of motion blur and depth of field that I wanted on sunlit days. When there was less light I used a faster film. Shooting with ND filters isn't as convenient. For one thing the cost of a complete set of ND filters for the lenses I was using added up to a sum comparable to the price of a DSLR body. There's also the loss of brightness in the viewfinder; while the human eye compensates for that on overcast days, it's harder to use a dim viewfinder when your eye is adapted to bright sunlight. -- 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.
