sblitz Posted February 10, 2012 Share #61 Posted February 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) that is really impressive thanks so much for sharing ... great kid too:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Hi sblitz, Take a look here In praise of 1600 ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
maxofrome Posted February 10, 2012 Share #62 Posted February 10, 2012 Ralf, you are right, no miracles, dslr beasts are better, but M9 can be used at 2500 too 1/25 f2 iso2500, lightroom4 http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x322/alliluca/high%20iso/2500lr4.jpg crop 100% http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x322/alliluca/high%20iso/2500lr4crop.jpg Kids are doing the same :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anasebi Posted February 11, 2012 Share #63 Posted February 11, 2012 I have found that the laments over our M9's ISO performance seems as hyped ramble over the complete lack of noise reduction. When compared to older fullframe SLRs such as the A900, or newer APS-C such as my Next 5N, on a strictly ISO to ISO basis the M9 is not so bad. Its the same whining as all those trolls constantly attacking the X10 as useless just from the orbs that appear in certain situations, or the Nex 5N over audio clicks in video on the onboard mike with vigorous shaking.. Pathetic no life OCD cases seem to latch on to minor flaws like leeches to try and suck out all the drama. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #64 Posted February 11, 2012 I'm delighted if this thread has encouraged people to start using the M9 to full potential. My experience with both the M8 and M9 is that you to work to get the results you hope for, but that you CAN get those results with practice and the application of some basic principles (expose to the right, meter for highlights, don't assume that A is always the best mode...). A correctly exposed M9 file gives a very good starting point for making a photography. And as we all know, but sometimes forget, the image is everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxofrome Posted February 11, 2012 Share #65 Posted February 11, 2012 I'm delighted if this thread has encouraged people to start using the M9 to full potential. My experience with both the M8 and M9 is that you to work to get the results you hope for, but that you CAN get those results with practice and the application of some basic principles (expose to the right, meter for highlights, don't assume that A is always the best mode...). A correctly exposed M9 file gives a very good starting point for making a photography. And as we all know, but sometimes forget, the image is everything. I thank you for your post,thanks to that I enhance my M9 potential. I have to tell that is a great camera that more than any other needs time to be correctly managed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 11, 2012 Share #66 Posted February 11, 2012 Chris- Thanks for this thread since it as given me the will to try other than my 160. I read a another thread about 1250 or a comment by a Lars that he regularly uses 1250. I tired that in some Bistrot situations and it allowed me to make the M9 shots which otherwise would have ended up being "memory shots". I might have missed in all the comments, but how did you settle on 1600 in the first place. Was it that ISO 1600 afforded you the freedom to do for your stage work? Or did you work up to that level from lower ISO settings? Thanks for your comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #67 Posted February 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Chris- Thanks for this thread since it as given me the will to try other than my 160. I read a another thread about 1250 or a comment by a Lars that he regularly uses 1250. I tired that in some Bistrot situations and it allowed me to make the M9 shots which otherwise would have ended up being "memory shots". I might have missed in all the comments, but how did you settle on 1600 in the first place. Was it that ISO 1600 afforded you the freedom to do for your stage work? Or did you work up to that level from lower ISO settings? Thanks for your comments. The reason for 1600 for stage is that it still gives me the flexibility to shoot when lighting values are high - I simply increase shutter speed. As light drops, I can still handhold 28 or 50 at 1/12th and keep things fairly steady - and this is usually enough. 2400 isn't needed. I do use this also though - it's just not necessary to go that far for this kind of work. Hope this is clear. Best C: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.