P porktaco Well-known Local time 6:37 AM Joined May 31, 2009 Messages 1,460 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #1 seems awfully good for such high ISO but hey http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3277739 icebear Veteran Local time 7:37 AM Joined Aug 25, 2006 Messages 3,121 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #2 yes indeed, fully sufficient at f=2 and I always wondered who needs ISO 102500 A Archlich Well-known Local time 4:37 AM Joined Oct 9, 2009 Messages 1,729 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #3 What about the pattern noise in the last two? Looks much alike the ones develop at ISO 102,400 with the bigger beasts. You must log in or register to reply here. Share: Facebook X (Twitter) Email Share Link
icebear Veteran Local time 7:37 AM Joined Aug 25, 2006 Messages 3,121 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #2 yes indeed, fully sufficient at f=2 and I always wondered who needs ISO 102500 A Archlich Well-known Local time 4:37 AM Joined Oct 9, 2009 Messages 1,729 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #3 What about the pattern noise in the last two? Looks much alike the ones develop at ISO 102,400 with the bigger beasts. You must log in or register to reply here.
A Archlich Well-known Local time 4:37 AM Joined Oct 9, 2009 Messages 1,729 View My Gallery Oct 5, 2012 #3 What about the pattern noise in the last two? Looks much alike the ones develop at ISO 102,400 with the bigger beasts.
What about the pattern noise in the last two? Looks much alike the ones develop at ISO 102,400 with the bigger beasts.
