Really nice shot. Is there a reason for shooting at ISO 360 instead of 100? I ask because the 1/8000 shutter speed does not seem necessary for the image.
Desmolicious wrote:
Really nice shot. Is there a reason for shooting at ISO 360 instead of 100? I ask because the 1/8000 shutter speed does not seem necessary for the image.
Maybe he set auto iso on and just used manual. I tend to do that and the let the iso roam about, may not be the best idea and sometimes as the iso creeps a bit too high but i think with the new sensors I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between iso100 to 400 in situations that don't require detailed observation.
I've been checking this thread out regularly. Absolutely love this lens but can't justify it in my lineup at the moment.
No reason at all. Even I looked at the exif and said what the hell. 360 definitely says auto ISO, but if auto was on, it should have dropped to ISO 100. Not sure what happened.
This thread has me wanting this lens, then I can get rid of my manual focus Voit 58 1.4 and Sigma 50mm. This is definitely one of Nikon's more artistic style lenses, I too find most of their stuff is clinical/sterile and needs help in post to really make them appealling. It's why I'm starting to look more into Zeiss primes. I never believe the "the lens has a look" fluff but after owning some that are regarded as such, I can pick them out easily when downloading my card and has me wanting more.
m.sommers00 wrote:
This thread has me wanting this lens, then I can get rid of my manual focus Voit 58 1.4 and Sigma 50mm. This is definitely one of Nikon's more artistic style lenses, I too find most of their stuff is clinical/sterile and needs help in post to really make them appealling. It's why I'm starting to look more into Zeiss primes. I never believe the "the lens has a look" fluff but after owning some that are regarded as such, I can pick them out easily when downloading my card and has me wanting more.
