Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree Emanuel, I find that one of the big advantages of digital is the ability to change "ASA" on the fly. It was brilliant when I went on holiday with my Canon D30 in Spain, the first time for me with digital. Outside the light was vicious and I was visiting castles and monasteries in the region. The crypt and castle pictures at max sensitivity were by miles the best I had ever taken in low light and when I emerged back to 100ASA. Too long on Kodachrome 64 to -need- fast speeds but when you do this is where digital shines. Frank writing this has made me go back and look at those 2002 pictures - thanks for reminding me ;-) On 6 Feb, 2006, at 01:25, EPL wrote: > One thing I can say about the great photojournalists of yesteryear -- > whether they were shooting Leicas, Contaxes or Whatchamacalits -- > they were > certainly not shooting EI 1600 film. > > I'm old enough to recall when High Speed Ektachrome at ASA160 was a > mixed > blessing. If you were a dog desperate for breakfast, there was always > GAF500. > > So when I read here that people dismiss a piece of gear because > they can't > use it past EI 800 (Gawd, I'd rather eat worms than shoot at 800), > I don't > know whether to laugh or cry. > > What, is there less light today than when Smith did Minamata (don't > start up > on that one please)? Are lenses today slower than Salomon's > Ermanox? Or are > we merely indulging in too much Lagavulin, ladies and gentlemen, to > hold our > do-everything Gizmoflexes steady anymore? > > Do tell! > > Emanuel > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information