|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Lesbs wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
But you still have to know what you're doing. And, by the way - I'll be glad to take your challenge - the following images were all ISO 3200. Are they as good as my images taken at lower ISOs ? No they're not. But, are they better than photos without using ISO 3200? You bet - using faster than 2.8 primes for field sports is very difficult - especially if you have only 1 camera body. So, I'd rather shoot at 3200 and get the shots than not use it. And, the important thing to remember - all these images were SOLD. So, in my book that makes them good enough (still not as good as lower ISO but certainly good enough): ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() So, even if it's a cheap magician's trick - it's the mark of inexperience to discount this cheap trick so easily. Again, it's the difference between having the image and NOT having it. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Lesbs wrote:
Quote:
Actually the trick to good photos is photographer knowledge and skills. Good glass certainly plays a part - but if you're not skilled it won't help much. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
![]()
I wont call the olympus models bad, but if your looking for top high-iso performance they have more inherent limitations than any other brand. Ten megapixel models also have more technological hurdles than 6mp (regarding low-light use), but thats not to say some of them havent overcome this.
Truthfully, you'll probably be happy with ANY dslr, provided of course that you buy a correct lens for your purpose. That would be an f/2.8 zoom, or brighter prime(s). Dont put too much emphasis on the camera, its maybe 10% of the equation. The lens is going to be 40% or more (other forms of photography beside low-light would put MUCH less emphasis on equipment). You should shop for a 28/35/50/85mm f/1.4 lens, but I suspect you will find these cost prohibitive as the wider ones are what you really want. The 50mm is the cheapest, but not the most convienent focal length. The rest vary significantly in cost between brands, and could make or break your decision. If you have to compromise on the lens you buy, go for it but just understand that these are the ideal lenses and you ARE making that compromise. I dont know if you know about depth-of-field, but it will be extremely shallow when taking natural light pictures in the availible dark with a bright lens. Pentax has the cheapest body that is suited to your uses, but maybe not the best lens selection (when considering automation, cost, and model availibility). Several of Canons brightest primes are L series, which doubles thier cost. I have 28mm and 50mm prime lenses and find this to be a good flexible combination. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
|
![]()
The biggest difference with these cameras will be at ISO 1600. Most won't often be used at ISO 3200, but the worst of these, such as the Sony A100 and the Olympus models, aren't good at ISO 1600. They're all pretty good below that.
For me though, unless it's for indoor sports or action, IS is more important than high ISO performance (at least as far as the differences here go) for low light shooting. Also, if you are willing to take more noise if it means more details, then more MP is very much the way to go. I would be very interested in seeing how the Pentax K10D does when it comes out, but for now I would look at the K100D (despite only 6MP - it's low in noise at ISO 1600 and has IS). And I would also consider the Sony A-100 because it has both IS and dust reduction (even if it's not great at ISO 1600). The Olympus E500 is a very nice value entry level DSLR, with good kit lenses, but the combination of no IS, poor ISO 1600, and a lack of selection of currently available bright prime lenses makes it not a good choice for this type of shooting. If I had one I might have to get the adaptor to be able to use Nikon F mount lenses (with manual focus only supported). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
John, I pixel peep high ISOimages at 100% without post processing to determine a great high ISO performance!
![]() ![]() BTW in my opinion, I would try to avoid the ISO 3200in my shooting styles. (I would be usinggood ISO 1600 instead) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 20
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 61
|
![]()
[align=left]Real men don't shoot at 3200 ISO! LOL[/align]
[align=center] ![]() [align=left]What ISO did you guys shoot at beforebefore digital cameras were invented where you were limited to the ISO speed of the roll unless you had more than onecamera body? For most non-professionals, it meant using up the roll just to change speeds or using higher ISO than required for a lot of shots just so you could take pictures at night.[/align] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
|
![]()
Lesbs wrote:
Quote:
Even moving to something like 4/3 sensor is not that good. They still noisy IMHO at higher ISOs. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|