Printable View
I think I know where you're coming from. If the sky light is all you have going for you the as you ramp down your exposure by either lowering your ISO or upping your shutter speed, your going to start to lose detail in the shadow areas. So I'm thinking by the time you get the effect of the evening as your eye sees it your camera may not pick out the detail you desire. I don't have a lot of experience in that type of light, but that's what my experience in general tells me.
Guess it all depends on the shot and if you need that faster shutter speed/light to make it a good image without the blur or if you have time to use the tripod and take your time.
That's the other part yes...Blur, I was kinda thinking every one would stay still for as long as the shot takes...Sometimes I think tooo hard:headslap:
Here's a fliker image of a d700 shot at 6400 ISO. Sure there's a bit of noise but I could easily deal with it in post If I needed to. No banding and the noise looks more filmic
LINK
I guess a camera like the D3/D700 is the best way currently to be able to shoot high ISO/low noise. But I have a D300 and although Raiven's folkfest shot proves that camera is also very good at high-ish ISOs, I still find that I can only expect so much. There are times I'm shooting in low light with say a f1.8 prime and even jacking ISO up to 1600 doesn't give me enough shutter speed to get a good shot. I'm always fighting off blur from subject movement or camera shake, and if you ever rely on the camera's light meter and it underexposes, or if you just have a lot of shadows in the shot- let me tell you the noise gets pretty bad even on these newer Nikons. The kind of difference that is significant IMO is technology that doesn't exist yet. So we just need to utilize tripods, camera or lens stabilization, fast lenses, and post processing to squeeze what we can out our cameras ISO performance unless we want to invest a huge chunk of money on the marginal improvement offered by the latest/greatest
Truth be told, when I bought the E-3 I really wanted the d700 but I was to much in debt to afford it so I settled for the next best thing in my book. I've decided to keep the E-3 for a back up alternate system as there are so many things I like about it for wildlife work especially when the Zuiko 70-300mm is strapped on it, that's a match made in heaven :) If you look at some of the low light , high ISO stuff the d700 can do, it is not a marginal improvement over my present gear, it's in a class of its own.
I guess I'm looking down the road to when we have the successor of CMOS technology that will give us usable shots at ISO 25600+, hehe. But until that day comes I keep hearing the Image Doctors (Nikonians podcasters) raving about the D3, and I guess the D700 is about the same, or close to it (trying to remember whether it's the same sensor)... They talk about surprisingly clean shots at 6400...that's pretty amazing. Combine that with a fast VR lens like the 70-200/2.8 and wow.... In fact one of their recent podcasts they were noting how the megapixel race between camera manufacturers has slowed down and that ISO performance are becoming more important.
From what I've read, the D700 is 95% the same as the D3 but is smaller and lighter. here's a shot from the D3 @ 25,600 ISO. I downloaded it and payed in PS and I can all but eliminate the noise. There's even some, what appears to be banding but at 25,600, the outside limit for the camera, I'd expect Some grief. Meanwhile, I've seen shots at 10,000 ISO that are with very little visible noise, and more importantly, it is noise that looks more like what you'd expect to see on film.
LINK 25,600 ISO
The D700 is an AWESOME camera, and I'm considering one for myself.
I tested one about a month ago. I only tested ISO to 1600 with excellent results.
I'm NOT at all sure this will solve your original dilemma though Maw.
Have you been PRINTING the images Maw, maybe that will get you more inspired. Digital images are great but they are not tangible. You can't "Just" look at one;you need a device.
I've said this many times and for me, printing an image (in darkroom or inkjet) is a jillion times more satisfying than posting it online......and these days, I rarely do it anymore.....
I have to agree! I try to get photos printed everytime I run out of town and the excitment to see them is wonderful! I just can't wait to have them presented to me. Sometimes I am a little sad because they didn't turn out how I thought (just didn't impact me like on the puter) and other times I'm in shock at how it comes out!Quote:
Originally Posted by marko
Printing definately brings another level to it.
The original problem was one of direction and no camera made could solve it. Though I still have not solved the problem, I'm gaining a lot of ground through introspective study. I'll always enjoy wildlife photography but it isn't fulfilling to me on a creative level. Somehow, I feel a need to use my craft to bring concepts, ideas and social issues to light. I think it's all part of my needing to find my niche in the world of image making. The D700 won't find this answer for me but it will allow for a more flexible creative process. Printing is another matter and someday I'll throw some cash at a large format printer. I do print occasionally but usually it's just what I see as my best stuff. The printer I have is quite good but can't do large prints and when it comes to printing 8.5 x 11 0r 13 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Photography is pretty much my life though lately I've been working so hard at my day job I'm not getting much time to shoot. Couple that with our recent heat wave.... Still sometimes a little pause for reflection helps clarify things I find:)Quote:
Originally Posted by marko