From: David J. Littleboy on

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b(a)dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
> certainly generous.

Yep. Here's what it will look like at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600.

Note that only at 25,600 is the noise really out of control.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

(Do I need to rub it in that (a) Canon users have had this for two years
already and that (b) Canon users get it for less than 1/2 the price?)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: David J Taylor on
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b(a)dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> But the low-light performance may well be superb; the pixel pitch is
>> certainly generous.
>
> Yep. Here's what it will look like at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600.
>
> Note that only at 25,600 is the noise really out of control.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original
>
> (Do I need to rub it in that (a) Canon users have had this for two
> years already and that (b) Canon users get it for less than 1/2 the
> price?)
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

So with the benefit of an extra two years development in sensors, signal
capture, and processing, it's likely that Nikon will provide a more usable
high-ISO than Canon.

David


From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on
crownfield <crownfield(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <3yByi.1078$vq6.185(a)textfe.usenetserver.com>, veldy71
> @yahoo.com says...
> -RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> -> All depends on the task. I just read an article by a sports photog
> -> who said he has no choice but to shoot a 3200 ISO f2.8 at many indoor
> -> venues because of the lighting.
> ->
> -
> -I very very rarely shoot above ISO400. In fact, I rarely shoot higher than
> -ISO100.
>
> in a studio with strobes, right. available light is different.
>
> so you are unlikely to shoot moving children in dimmer light.
>
> either less than bright light
> or fast action are not of interest to you.

I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

From: ASAAR on
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:01 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> I shoot mostly outdoors. I do do candid shots of friends and family or some
> indoor events, but mostly, I survive on ISO400 or better with use of my
> SB-600. As I move towards bird shots, I may revise my opinion on this a
> little, but currently, the best I can do is use an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with a
> 1.4x teleconverter, which isn't really sufficient for most birds.

Because the focal length is too short? If it's because the flash
isn't powerful enough at your bird distances, check out the Better
Beamer.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/tdg0502-1.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml

From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on
ASAAR <caught(a)22.com> wrote:
>
> Because the focal length is too short? If it's because the flash
> isn't powerful enough at your bird distances, check out the Better
> Beamer.
>
> http://www.naturephotographers.net/tdg0502-1.html
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
>

Focal length. I naturally frighten birds away and don't have the patience to
sit in a blind all day ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.