Thomas Clausen wrote:
>On 3 Feb 2005, at 20:02, Daniel Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>>That's another question -- do people actually find the faster ends of
>>these lenses to be useful? I've tried taking photos indoors with a
>>50/1.4 wide open, and while I can get a lot less hand shake than I
>>would with it at f4, the depth of field is so small that I end up with so
>>much of the shot being out of focus the end result isn't much better.
>>
>Think: viewfinder-brightness and ease of focusing in the inside of a
>secluded temple....
>
>Also, a shallow depth-of-field does have its artistic advantages that I
>wouldn't trade in.
>
I agree with both. This problem is also one of the reasons some of us
folks are so interested in high isos with low noise and IS in DSLRs.
With usable iso 1600 and IS, you gain 4 or more stops over the usual 400
film. In your extreme case, iso 3200 and IS would gain at least 3 stops.
And trust me, 3200 on a 300D is better looking that what you got.
Now tell me, has Pirates of the Carribean changed since I was there? If
not, there should be lots of folks with flash P&S and disposable
cameras. Just set on TTL auto and a reasonable f-stop, trip the shutter
and wait for a nice flash from someone around you. If that doesn't close
the shutter, just flip to manual and back. One of the best indoor, low
light shots I ever took was done partially by somone else's flash.
Wonderful mix of candlelight and flash. It's a bit hit or miss, of
course, so try lots of exposures. A little flash of your own wouldn't
hurt either?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|