ISO 1600 on D90. in an event just now.

maybe should've lowered it =\

This post has been edited by stsh90: Dec 30 2010, 01:49 AM

d90 iso1600 at least better than d3000 iso1600 few times

actually nowadays the NR in softwares are very good already. iso1600 shouldnt be much of a problem.

wah . LCW leh .1600 also nevermind larh.

lol will try to do a bit of NR when I'm free. bedtime. good night peeps=)

If there's too much noise, can always covert it to BW. Looks more pleasing that way imo

D300 also crap lah like that?!

NR is good, but u lost a lot of details by applying NR . That's why I shot all my files in RAW with NR OFF

This post has been edited by Bliz: Dec 30 2010, 08:38 AM

Just teasing you .

That is why, I was asking your budget. If budget allows go for D7000.

He's not firm with his decision I guess.

If you shoot 1 whole event with 1600 ISO, 1 by 1 apply noise reduction? :S. Not to mention if not done correctly the image becomes soft.

Since D7000 is available, I think so too

D300 is few years back technology la mate.

I bought the 2/35 Import version, so its about RM1k cheaper. it costs me about RM2.8k. no I don't need an adapter since its a ZF.2 mount

---

Added on December 30, 2010, 9:31 amnot that many. I was mostly spot-on for portraits, the focus dot on the D700 works tremendously well. I had more OOF shots with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 to be honest !

This post has been edited by a.ihsan: Dec 30 2010, 09:31 AM

Now I wonder how does the new 35 f/1.4G fare against this Zeiss 35 f/2.

Fare ?

oooo.. nice... what about the stage shots?

Fare in this case means "performs as compared to".

---

Added on December 30, 2010, 9:56 amI think we'd have to pixed peep to see the difference... Of course besides the obvious fact that the Nikon is a stop faster, and has autofocus, there shouldn't be much left to nit pick over.

---

Added on December 30, 2010, 9:57 amYes... ever since the D7000 came out, both the D300 and D300s can be considered crap. I don't mean crap per se, but crap compared to the D7000.

This post has been edited by adriancs: Dec 30 2010, 09:57 AM

For once, I thought something else
Played with Sony 35mm f/1.4 before. It's small and compact but looks better and perform slightly better (View on the cam tho) . Zeiss, I guess would be better.

This post has been edited by KTCY: Dec 30 2010, 10:01 AM

Sony's 35mm f1.4 is not that good la actually. the new 35mm f1.8 is almost on par with it just that the build quality is not that good, 1 stop slower, and non-FF compatible BUT 2 times cheaper.

I put on FF looks nice wor

If I were you I will go for decent dslr body. like d90 or d3100 or d5000 and get the best lens I could get.
and I believe you will need a lot of lenses w/ you.
hmm.. 1 body + wide + potrait + tele lenses is better compare to pro body + 18105 kit lens
IMO. once again IMO

---

Added on December 30, 2010, 10:49 amI usually shot on iso 1600 in night time w/ my d3100.
and the result? still good!

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Dec 30 2010, 10:49 AM

^ I used to think that way, good lens + normal body is enough. But once I went up to D700, all my lens got an 'upgrade' instantly LOL.