[Leica] Is ASA 200 the new 100 ?

[nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman)]

That is my experience as well--with the Canon 10D ISO 800 is excellent 
and 1600 highly usable; with the new 20D, those are moved up a notch, so 
1600 is very good and 3200 highly usable, as I found last night in a 
rather dim bar. But in daylight I still shoot at ISO 100, sometimes 400 
if it is very cloudy.

Nathan

B. D. Colen wrote:

> The answer has to be slightly Clintonesque - it varies with the camera,
> and the sensor size. But if you're talking about the better DSLRs, 100
> iso digital is equivalent to shooting a slow film - as in around 100.
> Oddly enough, you will find that 1600 iso on the latest Canon DSLRs is
> MUCH cleaner than 1600 film, and I find that on the Oly E-1 it is
> cleaner than 1600 film - as long as you don't under expose. This means,
> of course, that being limited to 2.8 lenses isn't quite as much of a
> burden as one might expect.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> Emanuel Lowi
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 9:22 PM
> To: lug@leica-users.org
> Subject: [Leica] Is ASA 200 the new 100 ?
> 
> 
> This question is related to the issues which result
> from the digital crop factor reality (which I keep
> getting mixed up with crap factories and crop circles,
> but I digress)..
> 
> I ask it in utter ignorance of digital technology.
> 
> Are the ASA settings on today's digital cameras really equivalent
> quality-wise to their numerical equivalents in film?
> 
> For example, ASA 100 film is the usual daylight speed
> for me in my normal shooting conditions. I'll load a
> slower film (ASA 50, 25) when conditions allow and a
> faster film (200, 400) when conditions demand.
> Otherwise it's all ASA 100 all the time, because this
> gives me the quality I need while allowing me my
> preferred shutter speeds and apertures.
> 
> Would ASA 100 still be my  "normal" setting with
> today's digital technology? Or can ASA 200 be used
> without worry and with quality equivalent  to what I
> am used to, due to a kind of sensitivity setting
> inflation ?
> 
> (Please, spare me the Clinton-esque debates over what
> I mean by "normal" and "quality."  If you can't
> proceed to an answer without getting all tangled up in semantics, please
> don't bother).
> 
> See, if a digital M has a crop factor, we've only got
> the 28/2 and Cosina 28/1.9 as fast-ish wide-ish
> lenses. Anything wider is f2.8 or slower and I cannot
> see how Leica or Zeiss or Cosina will deliver a
> quality 21/2 or 24/2 (never mind f1.4) that won't
> obstruct our viewfinders.
> 
> But if digital ASA 200 is just as good as the "old"
> film ASA 100,  there's less of a problem with the
> slower wides and the crop factor.
> 
> Be nice to me if I've asked a ridiculously stupid
> question.
> 
> Emanuel Lowi
> Montreal
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com