Quote:
Originally Posted by Mik3ymomo
I disagree whole heartedly. ISO performance should be a last resort. As the ISO increases you lose dynamic range in the file.
What's the point of paying all that money for a D810 if you purposely compromise that image quality?
Increasing ISO is the last thing I do when I run out of options. My advice is buy the best you can afford and then do what you HAVE to do from there.
If you are serious about your photos never have a game plan that starts by compromising the quality of your images.
|
I hear this a lot from the Nikon guys. I personally think they're living in the 20th century and following "rules" that applied to sensors five-generations ago and even going back to film. I think that the Nikons have every bit as good dynamic range as the Canons.
I'm mainly a wildlife photographer and use ISO 800 as my default to get needed shutter speed and a bit of DOF. I shoot hand held, even at 1,000mm and beyond.
If I'm shooting only landscape, then I might use the tripod, lock the mirror up and use remote release, but the f-stop is still going to be f/8 to f/11 to optimize lens optics. I'd never shoot the Grand Canyon at f/4, much less f/2.8 or, heaven forbid, below f/2. What's the point of paying all that money for an 810 if you'll purposely compromise the image quality?
Here's a hand held shot, taken before sunrise this morning at ISO 400, +2/3EV, f/8.0 and 1/50-sec. with my 70-200mm f/4 IS lens. I dare say that opening the shutter a couple of stops would have hurt image quality, all other things being equal.
All you guys and gals, work with higher ISOs and a good Raw converter. We're no longer shooting Kodachrome, Velvia and Ilford. Come into the 21st century and use the full capacities of you cameras. When you need bokeh, then pull out a large aperture lens, but don't carry around a heavy, big lens so that you can get a poor tradeoff between ISO and lens speed.
Park Office Before Sunrise by
dcstep, on Flickr
Dave