Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] iso 100.000+??
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:38:49 -0700
References: <23a0a61f0910211727j22c205e6k6594e6382ca9c0d6@mail.gmail.com> <440b792d0910211759v42bbb4deh802feadf3d60ef93@mail.gmail.com> <102220090519.3930.4ADFEB610000129400000F5A223045151403010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com> <E801D7EF-779A-4D7B-8265-63AA9B18A958@gmail.com> <102220090543.24417.4ADFF0FF000DF92100005F61223045151403010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com>

>>>> > Why do we need iso 100,000?  I seem to remember we all got along
> > just fine with iso 400 or 800.  Seems like just a race to see who
> > can supply the highest iso before the next guy.<<<<<<

It simply means the "techies" of the world are in a race and in reality it's 
quite meaningless to normal every day picture taking folks. However??? :-) 
I'd sure love to have a go shooting at the 100,000 ASA just for the hell of 
it to see what one could do without light! I suppose it could be useful 
under secretive surveillance situations, but the curiousity is more of 
interest than anything in a normal every day use. But I have been known to 
be wrong. ;-)

It's the whole digital concept every time we turn around.......... BIGGER IS 
BETTER bs!" Practical everday use for most of the folks here? It means 
diddly! I could be wrong again because maybe someone is a CIA operative! :-) 
Bet nobody ever thought of that one! ;-)

ted




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <grduprey at mchsi.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] iso 100.000+??


>
>
> Same here, Steve, I still shoot at 400 max most of the time, with an 
> occasional 800.
>
>
> Gene  -------------- Original message from Steve Barbour 
> <steve.barbour at gmail.com>: --------------
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:19 PM, grduprey at mchsi.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Why do we need iso 100,000?  I seem to remember we all got along
>> > just fine with iso 400 or 800.  Seems like just a race to see who
>> > can supply the highest iso before the next guy.
>>
>>
>> good question...
>>
>> I used to shoot in almost total darkness with asa 400 on film at  f1,
>> a  Noctilux, that was usually fine...
>>
>> now we have fast lenses with ISO   400-800, even 1200...
>>
>>
>> what am I missing?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Gene
>> >
>> > -------------- Original message from mehrdad :
>> > --------------
>> >
>> >
>> >> i know with the m8 & m9 we are struggling with iso 1250, i guess
>> >> when m12 is
>> >> out leica will catch up with todays canon
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:27 PM, simon jessurun wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102001canon1d4.aspbest,simon
>> >>> amsterdam
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Leica Users Group.
>> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- 
>> >> -------------------------------------
>> >> regards, mehrdad
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 
16:44:00



Replies: Reply from h_arche at yahoo.com (H. Ball Arche) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Reply from rsphotoimages at comcast.net (rsphoto's email) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
In reply to: Message from simon.apekop at gmail.com (simon jessurun) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Message from msadat at gmail.com (mehrdad) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)