ART The XTi seems fine with ISO 1600

[1.8]

 

[FDT]

Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (htc touch : Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.11355/408; U; en))

Is that one of the new macbooks?

 

[1.8]

Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (htc touch : Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.11355/408; U; en))

Is that one of the new macbooks?

IBM >* and you know this

 

[siniquezu]

not at that size

 

[1.8]

not at that size

wat

 

[Derrict]

The texture of the plastic masks most of the noise.

 

[Valence]

The texture of the plastic masks most of the noise.

.

 

[Girth]

Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (htc touch : Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.11355/408; U; en))

Is that one of the new macbooks?

IBM >* and you know this

I thought you were quoting yourself there for a min.

 

[jared_IRL]

all decent 10MP cameras are fine at iso 1600. The people that complain are pixel peepers and not anyone that actually prints their work.

This is not to say that it couldn't be better, or that the new camera's high iso performance is not absolutely ridiculous and amazing...

But an xti or d80 or whatever will perform good enough to live with at high iso's.

 

[1.8]

Yeah the XTi isn't incredible at 1600 but I've yet to have a shot that was too noisy to use. Just sayin

 

[xenon supra]

looks good, and no, not a new macbook

 

[hurleyint1386]

Looks like a ThinkPad T61

 

[hurleyint1386]

Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (htc touch : Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.11355/408; U; en))

Is that one of the new macbooks?

Do you notice the Windows key?

 

[darkjedi]

XTI sucks ass at ISO 1600. I shoot alot in low lighting and high ISO.. It's the main reason why I upgraded to 5D.


There was barely any light in this shot:






kit lens 55mm f/5.6 1/2sec

 

[darkjedi]

Stupid comparison, but heres the same shot with a 5D 24-105L @ 75mm 1/2sec f4.0 ISO1600

 

[jared_IRL]

they're not the same shot.

The 5D shot has an extra stop. Of course it's going to look better, it's properly exposed....

 

[darkjedi]

they're not the same shot.

The 5D shot has an extra stop. Of course it's going to look better, it's properly exposed....

that's why I said stupid comparison. these shots were taken when I first got my 5D to compare between my old gear vs new.

 

[jared_IRL]

Oh, I know... But it's pretty funny that you're basing your poor review of the xti's high iso off of a poorly taken shot.

I mean high iso = noise, and underexposed images = noise. so you're effectively doubling the noise the xti produces, then comparing that to a good quality image from the 5d.

I'm not saying that the xti is as good as the 5d, cuz it's not, but it's also not as bad as you're making it out to be.

But I think we had this exact same discussion the first time you posted this....

 

[Bloke]

heres iso 6400 on tmax
opinions?

 

[jared_IRL]

heres iso 6400 on tmax
opinions?

I tmax.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (htc touch : Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.1.11355/408; U; en))

Is that one of the new macbooks?

 

[e.pie]

The texture of the plastic masks most of the noise.

.

 

[mobbarley]

I mean high iso = noise, and underexposed images = noise. so you're effectively doubling the noise the xti produces

 

[White Stormy]

XTI sucks ass at ISO 1600. I shoot alot in low lighting and high ISO.. It's the main reason why I upgraded to 5D.


There was barely any light in this shot:






kit lens 55mm f/5.6 1/2sec

http://uploader.ws/upload/200805/xti.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
kill yourself

 

[mobbarley]

heres iso 6400 on tmax
opinions?

nice of you to drop in yo.