I dunno... I only know that my LX3 goes up to ISO 800 and looks like cr@p....! ;p
Bro... you talking double french... LX3 or the real LX3? :bsmilie:
I dunno... I only know that my LX3 goes up to ISO 800 and looks like cr@p....! ;p
Bro... you talking double french... LX3 or the real LX3? :bsmilie:
hahahah I'm talking about my real LX3... noise is pretty bad at anything > ISO400.
Haven't tried specialized noise removal software like noise ninja etc...
But on the LX3 that 'rox', I think the max in the normal range is 6400
You mean the LX3's 800 actually looks like crap???
How is 3200 then? Have you tried it?
tried to shoot SOOC JPGs @ ISO 3200 during testing time. Looked good provided exposure was biased to slight over-, and no real dark areas (like black sky, etc)
That means you shouldn't shoot it in places that requires a high dynamic range isit? (from super bright to super dark)
That means you shouldn't shoot it in places that requires a high dynamic range isit? (from super bright to super dark)
aiyoh, scared to answer this type of question... :sweat:
No la, not that you SHOULDN'T, just be prepared to accept a bit of noise in the shadow area la...
You want great dynamic range and no noise at all even in high ISO, is asking for a bit much with present technology I feel.
Bros... must put in prespective la... considering the analogue days when you cant shoot any reasonable (noise-free) pictures above ISO800 (some may even go lower).. IT IS ALREADI A BIG ADVANTAGE LA...
Me have no issue with current "High ISO performance" tecnhology + BIG aperature lens .. very happy alreadi
ya lor ya lor
totally spoilt by modern technology.
anyway Kriegs, I spoke to the pre-press manager in my ex-company. I asked him if a 12MP image was sufficient to print magazine quality A3 size. He seemed to do some quick mental calculation and they scoffed it off with an "off course enough!" though said that the JPG must be saved in Fine resolution.
so I kinda left it at that. Didn't think it was appropriate to prolong the conversation coz he seemed a bit busy.
You're welcome...! You also piqued my curiosity. Maybe one day I catch up with him for lunch or something, then can chat further on this topic. This whole business of DPI/PPI, and (with regards to commercial printing) terms like 'dot gain', 'screen', etc are rather interesting.Wah, thanks for the kind help bro! Treat it as enough for the local context then. Agreed, asking further into details is brimming on interrupting into his busy schedules. Appreciate your help!
No lah, I wasn't saying one shouldn't expect noise at 3200. But given that you've used D90 before, how is that compared to D700's 3200? A bit hard to determine for sure, just wondering. Reason being, I've shot at 3200 using D90 and the details are pretty bit lossy... Wondering how great an improvement is D700 on that.
I threat 3200 as D90's maximum ISO acceptability - not be used all the time but only when necessary. I gather D700's and D7000's 6400 is the max, but the halfway mark (3200) should be pretty acceptable. Whereas, 1600 (1/2 of 3200) on D90 is pretty acceptable to me. Hence my asking.
Sky, DD maybe (most likely) be busy right now...
i thought so too.. wanted to ask him sth..