The Digital Love/Hate Thread (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

Same here, but for different reasons. I shoot wildlife shots in the evening. I need to keep a fairly fast shutter speed to freeze movement, which sometimes means increasing the ISO setting to 800 or 1600. An f/2.8 telephoto zoom with IS isn't in my budget (and quite often I would want more depth of focus than f2.8 would provide anyway).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I shoot in low light a lot too, rarely opting for flash, and frequently go to ISO 1600 on my Nikon's -- and I just bought a Fuji F20 p&s in large part for that reason -- but photos do not have to be completely grain-free to be good. And IMHO, there are other factors to consider besides the modest diff in noise performance that is usually only noticeable when you've got your nose pressed against a reasonable size print or staring intently at 100% crops on the monitor. Some of the matter-of-fact attitudes I see regarding this issue is just insane, IMHO, as if nothing else matters and that one should be derided for holding a differing opinion/perspective on this.

_Man_

 

[Terri Chu]

you are absolutely correct. I go ape crazy on high ISO only AFTER the optics, colour rendition, etc have been fulfilled properly. High ISO performance alone, just like MP count, means absolutely nothing in itself.