Join Date: Dec 2003
well...depends on the shutter you need on the low light,
i've taken macros with 8 second shutters on my (getting old) Canon Powershot G2
on ISO 50, and had NO problem with noise...
i mean, it's great that there is no noise at ISO1600, but i don't think it's necessary for macro...unless of course, it's of movie objects
btw...a couple posts up...monza posted....and i agree....lol..read it...or go back up and read it...but, i agree with him..
Cameras are wonderful toys, and many of us are, or have been, camera junkies. We long for new cameras, we constantly play with those we own, sometimes we even take pictures with them. All jokes aside folks, this is a technology in its boom time, rapidly changing to meet demands (or sometimes just to create them). You buy a camera today and find it is obsolete by the time you get it home from the store. That, in itself is a problem, but remember that the camera you purchased for its image quality still takes great pictures, moreover camera envy, and camera snobbery, is one of the biggest challenges faced by digital photography hobbyists. Camera types and brand names can often become more important than the images they were meant to capture. First of all lets set some limits so that I am not immediately dismissed as delusional: 1) It is the photographer who creates the image, the camera is just a tool. 2) Obviously not every camera is well suited for every photographer. 3) Image quality is an issue, so we will summarily dismiss the novelty cameras, or those with resolution too small for even photo-album prints. (Although 1.3MP or 2MP cameras can produce acceptable 4" X 6" prints I believe that in today's marketplace 3MP should be considered a practical lower limit for the typical hobbiest) 4) Creative control is also an issue so we will also dismiss cameras which do not offer any real control, (example: if it has only AE program, then it must have some form of exposure compensation) though this does not imply that a camera must have a complete set of manual controls. 5) All established camera companies make good cameras (and most also make a few bad ones). Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Leica, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, all make some excellent cameras, so do electronics companies such as Sony, Panasonic, Casio, Samsung, Toshiba and HP. 6) DSLRs are the top of the heap in terms of overall flexibility, but they are not the only answer to every digital photographic question. The costs involved in building a DSLR system are restrictive, and if you purchase that DSLR body and then stick bargain store lenses on it you will not achieve the image quality of a good digicam. 7) High end digicams can provide for 90% of all photographic situations for the average amateur user (and as a back up camera for most pros). Sometimes the question of why someone does not use a DSLR comes down to simple economics, a talented amateur photographer may be hard pressed to find $1000 for what amounts to a starter into a DSLR system, however that same $1000 can provide a very capable high end compact which will fulfill the photographers needs well into the future. Yes there are limitations to the compacts, but you will quickly spend twice as much money on a DSLR system in order to match the compacts capabilities. I am not arguing against DSLRs, as a matter of fact I want one, my problem is purely economic. For now I will use my film SLR when I need the capabilities that the digital compact cannot provide. There are many great pictures that did not require a DSLR to produce. Zal has shown us a few of them, great work. Ira