|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | ||||
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
romphotog wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 647
|
![]()
Though since the OP does not have a dslr, just a digicam, that does not have a f2 lens and does not have ISO 3200 then the discussion is a little pointless.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Sintares wrote:
Quote:
One aspect of the question is: why should I use a higher ISO. Even if the OP only has ISO 800, the points remain the same - you increase ISO so you can still keep a faster shutter speed. As for what aperture and ISO values are required if you want to photograph moving subjects - the discussion is still on point. it brings home the fact that a digicam just may not be capable of meeting your needs. You get to a point where there is nothing more YOU as the photographer can do - you've reached the limits of your equipment. So I disagree that it is pointless. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
romphotog wrote:
Quote:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=2 Exposure compensation is not designed to let you control shutter speeds. It's designed to make your images darker or brighter than the camera would normally take them. That's why your images were coming out underexposed or overexposed when you used it. ![]() Exposure Compensation is not a substitute for ISO speed settings. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 91
|
![]()
>>> Why not use a strong flash instead?
Excellent, that is, the best, idea for action shots in low light. If you have one. >>> Exposure compensation is not a substitute for ISO Correct. You use exposure compensation when the overall scene is light but you want to emphasize a dark subject, or if the overall scene is dark but you want to emphasize a light subject. ISO, when adjustable, is always a choice you can make because higher ISO (for both film and digital cameras) generally means more grainy pictures. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
|
![]()
> about 2 seconds to close, what is that for?
Night-time fireworks and city lights, basically. Most cameras use this notation: 4" = four seconds 2" = 2 seconds 1" = 1 second Below one second, it probably says "250" for 1/250 of a second and so forth. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8
|
![]()
Hello, don't feel bad. I still call it ASA.:idea:
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
|
![]()
kshapero wrote:
Quote:
ISO=International Standards Org. ASA=American Standards Assoc. Or as a manufacturer just label things just one way worldwide.... why ISO has likely won out. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
|
![]()
JohnG wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|