I don't know the answer either and it gets even more complicated when
you select ISO 3200 on the Sammy. At 3200 its drops the resolution from
12MP to 3MP. I assume it's combining four pixels into one. Makes me
wonder if 3200 might be a better choice than 1600 or maybe even 800 if
you don't need more than 3MP. We could spend the rest of our lives
testing, eh? :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/11/2011 6:14 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 4/11/2011 2:42 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> You make a very interesting point about the depth of field of the WB650
>> at a focal length of about 13mm. The depth of field is truly
>> tremendous. Unfortunately, the max aperture at that focal length
>> appears to be about f/4.4. That would have allowed shooting at about
>> ISO 500 compared to the 1600 on the 5D. I should perform the experiment
>> but I think ISO 500 would be rather messy on the WB650.
>
> No dispute from me. I was just commenting on the complexity of the
> trade-offs. It really can get tricky.
>
> Example: Tamron 24-135 on 5D, something far away to shoot. How will full
> Sammy frame @ ISO 400, 360 mm, F5.6 compare to
> a cropped ~1/7 of a 5D frame @ ISO 1600, 135 mm, F8.
>
> I don't know the answer, but sometimes ask myself such questions. :-)
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|