|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Which would you rather have? ISO or more MP? | |||
| More Megapixels, you can never be too big |
|
3 | 7.50% |
| ISO peformance, grainy pictures are worthless |
|
37 | 92.50% |
| Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Which would you rather have? More mexapixels or better ISO performance?
__________________
Heavily medicated for your protection Flickriver http://www.photoblog.com/thomasneubauer/ http://thomasneubauer.com |
|
||||
|
I weigh in favor of ISO performance
__________________
Vince "...the law of unintended consequences, sometimes, you get a truly memorable photograph" Gear: Canon G2, Canon 20D, Nikon D300...bunch of lenses http://www.flickr.com/photos/20127329@N06/ www.montalbanophotography.com |
|
|||
|
Both.
+smile However for most of the shooting I do and for the type of publication I do (no more then 10x8' usually) I will go for better high ISO performance.
__________________
Flickr stream. http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/ 500pics stream http://500px.com/Richard_Taylor |
|
||||
|
iso for sure. id rather have a 10mp with excellent ISO than a 20mp with only average ISO
__________________
please add me on facebook even if you don't like my photos. much appreciated! Colby Jack Photography on facebook :: Nikon D7000 :: Nikkor 18-20mm f/3.5-f/5.6 :: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 ai :: |
|
|||
|
or Improved sensor tech. There have been advances in it from the early sensors. I suppose Medium / Large format would be the immediate ticket.
|
|
||||
|
I want more resolution. I'm a data junkie. You can always throw data away if you don't need it. Getting more when you don't have it is less of a possibility. When I shot 35mm, I wanted to shoot medium and large format. That still applies for me in digital. Having 24MP with my 5Dii utterly rocks. Hard drives are cheap.
I was happy with film in isos 60-1000. I really don't need iso setting one kazillion at the expense of low iso performance (which is kind of what we're getting these days). I'd also vote for more dynamic range. I don't mind the megapixel race, I think we've still got some elbow room there in APS-C and full-frame land (although, yes, we've hit the limits on 1/2.3" sensors). But the high iso thing is getting ridiculous. How often do you need to shoot at iso 25,600? And are you happy with the fact that iso 100 is looking more crappy because of it? The iso 100 and dynamic range on my 50D is nowhere near as nice as the iso 100 and DR I had on my old XT. Having iso 3200 is nice, but the main reason I like my 50D over the XT, sensor-wise, is the higher resolution.
__________________
I shoot with a Canon 5DmkII, 50D, and S90, and Pansonic G3. flickr stream and equipment list |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Each day we send out a quick email to thousands of DPS readers to notify them of updates. This email is just short excerpt of the first few lines of our latest post with a link if you want to read it all. You can unsubscribe from this this service at any time.
This service is provided by a third party (Feedburner) and you can subscribe to it by leaving your email address in the following field and confirming your subscription when you get an email asking you to do so.
Enter your email address for
Daily Updates:
For those wanting a weekly summary of what happens on this site this free email newsletter is probably your best option. It includes a summary of the tips posted to the site each week. This newsletter is subscribed to by over 25000 readers (many who also subscribe to the other options above) - come join the community!
To subscribe to this weekly newsletter simply add your email address to the following field and then follow the confirmation prompts. You will be able to unsubscribe at any time.
Enter your email address for
Free Weekly Newsletter: