....anyone tested the D300 at ISO 100? I've checked around a bit, just
want to quiz the shooters here...

cg

"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...
...anyone tested the D300 at ISO 100? I've checked around a bit, just
want to quiz the shooters here...

cg
Charlie Try rec.photo.digital or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

May get more results. Warren

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:04:09 -0600, "WW"
wrote:


"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
.. .
...anyone tested the D300 at ISO 100? I've checked around a bit, just
want to quiz the shooters here...

cg
Charlie Try rec.photo.digital or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

May get more results. Warren


Har-har...no crosspost...wrongpost! LOL...

cg

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:16:16 +0100, Charlie Groh wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:04:09 -0600, "WW"
wrote:


"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...
...anyone tested the D300 at ISO 100? I've checked around a bit, just
want to quiz the shooters here...

cg
Charlie Try rec.photo.digital or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

May get more results. Warren


Har-har...no crosspost...wrongpost! LOL...

cg


well, I've got the fuji-modded D200, and it's awesome, if that helps. .
different chipset though. No bleach in hilights... I would think the 300
would at least equal it cos of the pixel density (I think there's some
redundancy in there that effectively gives you dead pixels till the
surrounding area saturates when they kick in and retrieve the tone again, but
that could be my memory playing tricks with the spec sheet.) behaves like a
conventional fast film for the latitude gain with the resolution of a slow
film. About as good as it gets for the chip area.

So what's your worry? What you want to test? :-)

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:54:08 +0100, Bored Borg
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:16:16 +0100, Charlie Groh wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:04:09 -0600, "WW"
wrote:


"Charlie Groh" wrote in message
...
...anyone tested the D300 at ISO 100? I've checked around a bit, just
want to quiz the shooters here...

cg
Charlie Try rec.photo.digital or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

May get more results. Warren


Har-har...no crosspost...wrongpost! LOL...

cg


well, I've got the fuji-modded D200, and it's awesome, if that helps. .
different chipset though. No bleach in hilights... I would think the 300
would at least equal it cos of the pixel density (I think there's some
redundancy in there that effectively gives you dead pixels till the
surrounding area saturates when they kick in and retrieve the tone again, but
that could be my memory playing tricks with the spec sheet.) behaves like a
conventional fast film for the latitude gain with the resolution of a slow
film. About as good as it gets for the chip area.

So what's your worry? What you want to test? :-)

....I just fouled-up and posted to the wrong group, sorry. However, I
know there are photogs here, too, and here you are! The 300's native
ISO is 200 and there are 3 settings below that...roughly in thirds
down to 100...I did find some testing done and there are some choices
to be made depending on subject matter (I'm trying the 160 L 0.3
setting for awhile...seems some think that's the "sweet spot"). I'm
not familiar with the 200, but it sounds like you're miles ahead of
moi in the tech surrounding pixels and such...I'm just looking for
general guidelines, eventually, of course, it's how my eye sees it.

(funny, I was actually thinking "film" today...hehehe...may break-out
the olde bodies and do some "you'd better be right the first time"
work!).

cg

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:17:50 +0100, Charlie Groh wrote
(in article ):

...I just fouled-up and posted to the wrong group, sorry. However, I know
there are photogs here, too, and here you are! The 300's native ISO is 200
and there are 3 settings below that...roughly in thirds down to 100...I did
find some testing done and there are some choices to be made depending on
subject matter (I'm trying the 160 L 0.3 setting for awhile...seems some
think that's the "sweet spot"). I'm not familiar with the 200, but it sounds

like you're miles ahead of moi in the tech surrounding pixels and such...I'm
just looking for general guidelines, eventually, of course, it's how my eye
sees it.

(funny, I was actually thinking "film" today...hehehe...may break-out the
olde bodies and do some "you'd better be right the first time" work!).

cg

easily done. I'm always running into trouble with my
alt.nuns-latex.fetish.custard-wrestling posts going awry :-)

I was a scientific photographer (and a keen amateur) for many years and after
the first few years I finally came to grips with the "There's more to life
than photographing resolution charts" go out and make pictures philosophy. I
knew a lot of camera club types (I was one too, all through my teens) who
never got beyond the race for better definition and thirtyOdd years later are
still stuck on the quest for an extra line pair.. that's why I was raising an
eyebrow. slightly, at the mention of 'test." It is (often) a road to folly,
unless you're iron-willed and prepared to shrug off the fact that there are
always "better" cameras out there.

I know film FAR better than digital but digital gives you 90% of the quality
at least 90% of the time.. with virtually no running costs. I rarely touch
film now. I feel like I trained as a dinosaur jockey or a gas street-lamp
tuner or the bloke who works the cutter head microscope for vinyl LPs.. Years
of work and experience in learning sensitometric control, Zone systems and
how to baffle the unwary with Jones quadrant transfer curves... as completely
obsolete as alchemy.

However...

What I HAVE learned about digital photography is that by the time you've
researched and found your ideal set-up, the market will already have changed
and you'll have to start all over again IF you want to keep on the bleeding
edge, The corollary of this is that the extra technological stretch is NOT
worth pursuing. It exists purely for magazine pundits and marketing hacks and
will not improve your picture-making results in the short to medium term.

For years I never went out of the house without a camera.. either an F2 or an
old WW2 Contax, usually. Then i started with a coolpix compact.. which turned
out superb quality snaphots but was frustratingly useless in all my terms of
reference, so I continued with film for "proper" photography until very
recently.
I still prefer to use an incident light meter. I like the camera to do what
_I_ want it to do, with no shutter lag, exposure control or auto-anything and
that's why I finally bought what I did.. seems you have to pay dearly for
complete manual control. Ironically, I now tend to use it on "auto" most of
the time. I can, however, go in to full-on photographer mode if the subject
and occasion warrant it.

I'm convinced that if I put as much effort into the technology s I did with
film, It'll be superceded by colour-holographic wris****ch eye-movement
controlled wizardry overnight. So I don't bother.

I shoot for highish-quality jpegs unless I'm doing a shoot (usually a
commercial job) that I know I'll manipulate (or sell). Then I switch to RAW.

Most of my commercial work is reference material for illustration, and
sharper-than-life is unnecessary - but control over lighting etc is
absolutely essential.

Bottom line - nothing's worth losing sleep over. Go plane some wood, fry some
fish, drink wine.. paint a sunset.

And (photographically speaking) nothing feels - or looks - as good as
producing a proper paper chlorbromide from a properly-exposed _sheet_ of
film. The trouble is most people have never actually seen one, so they don't
know what the trad method is capable of.

Good luck with it all. :-)