Marco Nero wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
Even with the Aperture set to a narrower size, the sensor still has the benefit of more light when the exposure takes place. The same applies with using darkened filters like Circular Polarizers and Neutral Density filters. It's one of those things that gets overlooked quite often. And it's one of the most compelling reasons to be using fast lenses.
.
32mm - accurate AF through glass in a very dark museum. Tack Sharp @ 1/80 sec with ISO 100. Taken at the Sydney Powerhouse Museum... so dark that I can't even use a PowerShot camera in this room.
This picuture would have benefitted more from a stabilizer than a larger aperture as it needs more depth of field. This a an example the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM would have been able to give a better result.
Look at the ISO used, you absolute peanut.
Sorry?
.
It was ISO 100. Which means I had the ability to shoot with anything up to say ISO 3200 and thus reduce the aperture while keeping the shutter speed at 1/80 sec - thus increasing the Depth Of Field if it were desirable. You clearly don't understand the basics of photography.
My basics of photography says the ISO noise of 800 or 1600 is less desirable than 100 or 200, and that is exactly why an image stabilzer is more important in cases like these, and Marco Nero calling me an "absolute peanut" isn't going to change that.
Missing stabilization is one of the problems of the 32mm, especialy because there's no IBIS in the Canon world. You can ignore the importance of stabilization, personal insults included, but all this ignorance isn't going to change the facts.
-- hide signature --
If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.