Canon EOS-1D IV ( 1.3x crop, 16 Mpix, ISO to 102400)

Not to worry, RS. There are a couple of guys that'll post outrageous to
mere hyperbolic statements just to get a rise out of someone, or to beg
correction from well meaning folk who may not know their little trolling
techniques.

--
john mcwilliams

Thanks John, I'll bear that in mind! ;-)

"The Truth" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:22 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:

"The Truth" wrote in message
. ..


The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's
have
gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I
find
a
need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds
on
the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with
talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they
don't
know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one more
setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's
arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for
their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.


I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater
racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200.
You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else
will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.

Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my
aperture
down.

What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get
the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow
DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have
your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.




Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem was
to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat then the
best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is clearly
something you don't have any experience of as better people than you or I
are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:15 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:


"The Truth" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:22 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:

"The Truth" wrote in message
...


The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's
have
gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I
find
a
need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds
on
the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with
talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they
don't
know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one more
setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's
arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for
their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.


I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater
racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200.
You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else
will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.

Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my
aperture
down.

What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get
the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow
DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have
your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.




Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem was
to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat then the
best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is clearly
something you don't have any experience of as better people than you or I
are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.

You mean prophotography.org is a real domain? HAH. I'll try to invent a
better one next time.

And yes, I have often taken some spectacular photographs of birds in flight
during dusk (sun below horizon), morning or evening. Still no need for high
ISOs.

Keep practicing, amateurs.

"The Truth" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:15 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:


"The Truth" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:22 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:

"The Truth" wrote in message
m...


The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's
have
gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I
find
a
need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing
birds
on
the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone
with
talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they
don't
know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one
more
setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's
arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for
their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.


I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater
racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO
200.
You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything
else
will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.

Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my
aperture
down.

What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to get
the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow
DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have
your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.




Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem
was
to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat then the
best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is clearly
something you don't have any experience of as better people than you or I
are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.

You mean prophotography.org is a real domain? HAH. I'll try to invent a
better one next time.

And yes, I have often taken some spectacular photographs of birds in
flight
during dusk (sun below horizon), morning or evening. Still no need for
high
ISOs.

Keep practicing, amateurs.


Yes, well with a fast enough lens that's not exactly going to be a problem
is it, it's not like birds are the size of cars or horses....

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Ray Fischer wrote:

Idiot troll or smartass joker.

It's just the P&S troll again.

Yup. Just kick the **** then ignore him.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Also sports 1/300 sync, WB bracketing (dear lord!)...

Cheap plastic body, no EVF. What a horrible camera. Sheesh.

grin

Yeah, and how many more will be whoosed.......?

Or whooshed......


I whoosh you guys would stick to photography

--
Peter

"Richard Sloman" wrote in message
...
"The Truth" wrote in message
...


The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's have
gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I find
a
need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing birds
on
the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone with
talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they
don't
know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one more
setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's
arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate for
their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.


I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single seater
racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO 200.
You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything else
will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.

Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my
aperture down.

Your post is quite right.
I wonder why you even responded to such an obvious troll.



--
Peter

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Also sports 1/300 sync,

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102001canon1d4.asp

WB bracketing (dear lord!)...

Talk about a pointless feature!

Yeah, just shoot RAW. I am guessing it takes one exposure and then
converts it into several JPEGs with different color temps? Anyone know?

That'd be my guess too. Most likely auto, plus/minus a couple of hundred
degrees K.



Assuming there is a good reason to shoot jpeg, and there will be few
artifacts on the save, why not open the file in Adobe Raw and adjust the
color temp.


--
Peter

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
The Truth wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:15 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:

"The Truth" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:22 +0100, "Richard Sloman"
wrote:

"The Truth" wrote in message
...

The desire for very high ISOs is the desire of a pure amateur. Pro's
have
gotten by just fine on ASA25 to ASA64 all their lives. Rarely will I
find
a
need for ISO200. Even in fast-action sports settings or capturing
birds on
the wing. Nothing more than that is needed in the hands of someone
with
talent and expertise. Only base amateurs need high ISOs because they
don't
know how to use a camera properly in the first place. It's just one
more
setting they can add to their auto-everything Point and Shoot DSLR's
arsenal of mediocrity so that the camera will hopefully compensate
for
their lack of skill and talent. That's all it is and will ever be.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that. Try shooting a single
seater
racing car through dark tree covered track on an overcast day at ISO
200.
You'll have the drivers eyes in focus if you're lucky but everything
else
will be out of focus, or the shot will be full of lateral blur.

Personally I welcome higher, useable ISO's that will let me get my
aperture
down.
What a shame that you have to suffer with such shallow DOF to try to
get
the shot properly. First they pride themselves on their useless shallow
DOF, now they condemn it. What hypocrites. I'm SO glad I no longer have
your limitations and problems with my chosen camera gear.



Well, judging by your website the only solution you found to the problem
was to shoot things that barely move. If that's what floats your boat
then the best of luck to you. Shooting moving subjects in poor light is
clearly something you don't have any experience of as better people than
you or I are afflicted by the issues I've already mentioned.

You mean prophotography.org is a real domain? HAH. I'll try to invent a
better one next time.

And yes, I have often taken some spectacular photographs of birds in
flight
during dusk (sun below horizon), morning or evening. Still no need for
high
ISOs.

*Sure* you have.





LOL.



Be kind.
He looks like a very low ISO quotient and who seems to have flights of
imagination.



--
Peter

My, what a nice line-up of some of the resident-trolls' names.


On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:57:06 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Also sports 1/300 sync, WB bracketing (dear lord!)...

Cheap plastic body, no EVF. What a horrible camera. Sheesh.

grin

Yeah, and how many more will be whoosed.......?

Or whooshed......


I whoosh you guys would stick to photography

You're asking this of well-known trolls? You're either silly or stupid, or
more likely, just another troll. Difficult to tell which.