Posts: 2,356
Threads: 349
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Maybe if we could dial in ISO 25, then this would be a little more true. Look at ISTD users though, 200 ISO is their minimum! :o
Cave canem
Posts: 1,199
Threads: 78
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I guess its true if you can dial down that low but its not very accurate for a statement considering how most folks use their ND filters. They're great for getting a shallow DOF on a bright day.
Posts: 9,731
Threads: 1,965
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
6
I suppose there's the argument regarding sensor noise as well, but I guess if you're decreasing ISO then you're decreasing noise as well, which is usually seen as a good thing?
Posts: 1,138
Threads: 31
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
hahah if ur using a Kodak DCS Pro SLR then the lowest is ISO 7 haha
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
The Kodak has a "longer exposure" mode that combines a series of short exposures to create one longer-exposure image, at an effective ISO of 6.
Ironically, that camera is infamous for poor noise handling at higher ISOs.
On topic: I've tried taking slow exposures of moving water on sunny days, and even at f/22, ISO 100, with a polarizer, I couldn't get an exposure longer than 1/4s. A +2 or +4 ND filter would have come in very handy.
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 1,138
Threads: 31
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
well it was 7 or 12 somewhere round there .. i have a bad memory .. but they showed us a photo at the kodak seminar of a photo at low iso .. such high detail even when u magnify in ..
Posts: 9,731
Threads: 1,965
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
6
Yeah peter, I recall hearing it as well at the Kodak seminar...
Amazing what they can achieve eh?
Posts: 1,138
Threads: 31
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
yeah ...
my preferance is still canon though ..
