Bruce Sawle wrote:
In studio or for landscapes ISO 100 will work. But in real world applications out in the filed ISO 400 and above seem to be the norm for my shooting. Plus with Canons line of fast primes I am able to keep my ISO to a minimum and still retain the propper shutter speed.
64 ISO / ASA was the norm for many many years, or has my memory failed me
thedigitalbean wrote:
So according to Thom Thogan, when the D3x is set to 14-bit the FPS drops to 1.8. I think this is true with the D300 as well. Anyone have an idea of why? Doesn't happen with the D3 or any of Canon's 14-bit cameras.
Because Nikon doesn't use the twin DiG!C IV processor to keep 14-bit images from bogging down the system! Yeah, 1.8FPS ain't too impressive except to landscaper shooters.
64 ISO / ASA was the norm for many many years, or has my memory failed me
Back in the 1970s Kodachrome 64 was the standard for magazines. But then you actually wrote "ASA" so you must remember the 70s. I've never seen a DSLR with ISO64.
thedigitalbean wrote:
So according to Thom Thogan, when the D3x is set to 14-bit the FPS drops to 1.8. I think this is true with the D300 as well. Anyone have an idea of why? Doesn't happen with the D3 or any of Canon's 14-bit cameras.
So what?
What would you rather have though?
14bits at full fps all the time that only deliver 12bits of DR
OR
14bits at 2fps that give you 13bits of DR and 12bits at full fps that give 12bits DR
seems like canon is just wasting your storage space
Andi Dietrich wrote:
More DR is very useful and there were already posts which suggest that the Sony 24mp has more DR than a 1ds3. What I wonder is why does the Sony have less DR than the Nikon and why does the Canon have less DR but the same signal to noise ratio?
the DR is based upon read noise
the SNR mostly on photon capture efficiency with a little read noise tossed in
