cwphoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
brainiac wrote:
24Peter wrote:
Now I suppose if you're purposely underexposing by two stops to get a faster shutter speed so your subject isn't blurry, you don't have much of a choice.
That's exactly it. Set iso 3200 and -2 exp comp, and you are now really shooting at 12800. Images will look very underexposed on the camera, but push two stops in your raw developer, and you have a nicely exposed shot like the one I showed above. It really is exactly the same thing as shooting at iso 12800, as your shutter speed and aperture are what they would be with that iso.
>But why not just get a camera that does what you want natively?
In my case, looking at the 5D and 1D3, and Canon's long-standing lead in sensors if not in noise-reduction, I decided that the 1Ds3 would very likely match the D3's famous high iso performance, so I went ahead and bought one instead of waiting for a D3. I figured Nikon's full-frame chip had probably caught up with the 2005 5D, and the rest is noise reduction. Luckily, it worked out for me, and I don't need to get a Nikon for high iso performance.
There is also the small matter of (full-frame 14 bit) 21 megapixel, which makes it the current king of everything image quality related, unless low iso clunky medium format appeals. It has 9 million more pixels than a D3, which, apart from anything else, makes cropping a pleasure. Although it narrowly beats the D3 at iso 12800, at iso 200 it stomps all over it.
The EOS-1D Mark III would be even better - by about 1-stop.
|
