Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Hope you don't mind if I jump in. Noise is a personal thing. There
>are some people who have a stroke if they see any at all. Others
>don't mind a little as long as it is not obtrusive and prefer the
>image unsoftened by noise reduction, either in the camera or
>afterwards on the computer.
>
<Big snip of a lot of good stuff>
I generally agree with what you say, especially about one needing to be
comfortable with the camera.
However, let me propose something. You, or anybody, choose the
combination of iso, printer, etc., etc. that gives the noise results
that you find minimally just acceptable. Then assume that I offer to
give the same results at twice the iso, or four times the iso, without
any other trade-offs. Are you really going to say that makes no
difference? That the shots that can then be taken with acceptable
results, but couldn't be before, are of no interest? If it does indeed
make a difference, then one really should look at the trade-offs.
For me, with my love of looong tele shots and macros, my distaste for
flash and my dislike of carrying heavy gear around, it makes a profound
difference, transforming both my experience of photography and the
results I get. For others, it may not. For me, it's not about a little
noise vs. no noise, it's about the same amount of noise with a faster
shutter speed, and/or more DOF or a lighter kit, etc.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|