AlanG Posted March 2, 2007 Share #201 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you think when Kodachrome II came out there were photographers saying, "Why would I need ASA 25? ASA 10 is fine for me." Â Why do you need f1.4? Why 1/1000 second shutter speed? You can go on this way about everything but new cameras are supposed to show progress over the old ones or what's the point? Â Once I was photographing the steering wheel and the instrument panel of a Lamborghini. I wanted to get both in focus and I couldn't turn up my lights as I needed to record the instrument panel's own illumination. I wanted to shoot handheld as there isn't much space for a tripod in there and you have to be very careful when working with expensive cars. So what did I do... I turned up the ISO and stopped way down. It was a little noisy but was fine for use on the web. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Product Watch: EOS-1D Mark III dSLR. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted March 2, 2007 Share #202 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Alan, LOL!! Â No of course no one likes "slow..." Â Well, except there were those of us who liked Tech Pan--ASA 6 pushed to 12--for its grain structure, so I'm sure there were ASA 10 Kodachrome holdouts. Â I'm just not sure ISO 6400 is all that useful, but I think it's a rather stunning technical acheivement and more a side-effect of Canon's available DR and noise reduction technology than anything else. Â What it probably means is a *really useful* 3200--which I hope we can all agree is also pretty spectacular. Â I'd love to have that on the M8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltoid1 Posted March 2, 2007 Share #203 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Alan, LOL!! Â No of course no one likes "slow..." Â Well, except there were those of us who liked Tech Pan--ASA 6 pushed to 12--for its grain structure, so I'm sure there were ASA 10 Kodachrome holdouts. Â I'm just not sure ISO 6400 is all that useful, but I think it's a rather stunning technical acheivement and more a side-effect of Canon's available DR and noise reduction technology than anything else. Â What it probably means is a *really useful* 3200--which I hope we can all agree is also pretty spectacular. Â I'd love to have that on the M8 Â ISO 6400? It means an extra 45 minutes of shooting critters at twilight with long lenses. Or using slower, lighter, less conspicuous lenses in situations that required fast heavy cumbersome lenses at ISO 3200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 2, 2007 Share #204 Â Posted March 2, 2007 ISO 6400? It means an extra 45 minutes of shooting critters at twilight with long lenses. Or using slower, lighter, less conspicuous lenses in situations that required fast heavy cumbersome lenses at ISO 3200. Â Hey Carmen, that's basically what I said when I mentioned the smaller "f4" IS Canon lenses. Â As for shooting critters "at night" well, let's hope the shadow noise won't kill the detail. As I said, if I was a betting man (since I don't have a 1d3) I'd bet they've brought 3200 into the realm of normal use (colour, clarity etc...) and 6400 is the 'push' (weak colour, lots of noise, shadow banding, etc...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltoid1 Posted March 2, 2007 Share #205 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Hey Carmen, that's basically what I said when I mentioned the smaller "f4" IS Canon lenses. Â As for shooting critters "at night" well, let's hope the shadow noise won't kill the detail. As I said, if I was a betting man (since I don't have a 1d3) I'd bet they've brought 3200 into the realm of normal use (colour, clarity etc...) and 6400 is the 'push' (weak colour, lots of noise, shadow banding, etc...) Â I get pretty good ISO 3200 now. Just don't underexpose it, and C1 gives me amazing detail, very little noise, and no banding. Â Another use for IS0 6400 would be highschool sports. I was using a 70-200 f2.8 last year, but I could have really used a longer lens at times. ISO 6400 would have given me the shutter speeds I needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 2, 2007 Share #206 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Carmen--don't get me wrong--I agree with you ISO 3200 is pretty good on the Canons now, but not compared to lower ISOs on the Canon equally well exposed. So it's a trade-off, and I'm just hoping the new model keeps the quality up to 3200. Â Hey, with auto-ISO shift you won't need to worry anyway! Â Now there's a feature I wish the M8 had Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltoid1 Posted March 2, 2007 Share #207  Posted March 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Carmen--don't get me wrong--I agree with you ISO 3200 is pretty good on the Canons now, but not compared to lower ISOs on the Canon equally well exposed. So it's a trade-off, and I'm just hoping the new model keeps the quality up to 3200.  Hey, with auto-ISO shift you won't need to worry anyway!  Now there's a feature I wish the M8 had  Lately I've been shooting indoor flash at ISO 1600on the 5D. Lets the flash fill every nook and cranny, and the detail is simply stellar.  I was eyeing the M8 noise alot today. If you expose properly, the noise isn't too bad, amazingly fine, sharp edged, but really loaded with color noise. The saving grace is just how really fine and filmilke the noise is, at least using C1. I found that I like converting in C1 using no noise reduction at all. Keeps the noise really sharp-edged and fine. The I used the noise reduction in PS CS2 to reduce only the color noise, the luminance slider I keep at zero. The end result is a very usable ISO 1250, even 2500 as long as you don't underexpose. The noise is very filmlike, but it does hurt the detail rendering I find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.