File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I kinda wanted to get the nikon d300, but then a challenger appears for my interest? nikon d700 i saw some samples of the images, and i notice that the image were a little bit darker and clear weith less noise. is it worth waiting to save for for that nikon d700?
>> Anonymous
i would get the D300 for the HD video mode, much better IMO
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296540
Prolific troll is prolific.

>>296538
D700 is worth saving up for, especially if you like to do low-light shooting.
>> Anonymous
Yes, save up for the D700
>> Anonymous
bump the ISO on the D300 one extra stop, there you go. you just got the D700 "low light performance" for free

use that extra $1500 for lenses and shit
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296544
>bump the ISO on the D300 one extra stop, there you go. you just got the D700 "low light performance" for free
You don't know what "low light performance" means, do you?
>> Anonymous
>>296538
What are you going to use this for? If this is just for basic hobbyist stuff, then I would not recommend the D700.
>> Anonymous
and there's also of course, delicious FX format borkeh. How easy is getting that with a shit camera like the D300? Is it free too?
>> Anonymous
same AF sensors, same AF processor

D3 and D700 have one stop advantage over the D300, with 12800 and 25600 nearly unusable unless for emergencies or if you enjoy snowstorm noise images.

again, bump the D300 one stop, there you go
>> Anonymous
>>296551

D300 for 33mm at 2.8 at 2 meters

epth of field
Near limit 1.81 m
Far limit 2.23 m
Total 0.41 m

D700 for 50mm at 2.8 at 2 meters

Depth of field
Near limit 1.88 m
Far limit 2.14 m
Total 0.27 m

OH WOW HUGE DIFFERENCE OMG, I LOVE THAT PROFESSIONAL BORKEH LOOK
>> Anonymous
Main advantage of FX is its sensor.
50mm lens is 50mm on DX or FX, just the DX only shows a part of the image circle.

Take 2 shots with the object the same size in the viewfinder (ignoring viewfinder coverage). And the FX shot will have a shorter DOF.
This is important to some people. Especially for portraits.
>> Anonymous
>> D700BEAUTY-LG.jpg
>> D700BEAUTY

lol wut
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296552
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/262|0/(appar
eil2)/205|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon
The noise advantage of the D700 is closer to 1.5-2 stops.
>> Anonymous
The real main difference is that the D700 has a larger (.72x) but less accurate (95% coverage) viewfinder, whereas the D300 has a smaller (.626x) but more accurate (true 100% coverage) viewfinder. Take your pick.

Everything else is specwanking or image quality whoring for 95% of users. The other 5% are 2.5% people who shoot in zero light, 2% professional sports photographers, and .5% people who should get over it and move to sheet film if they really care so damn much about minimizing depth of field.
>> Anonymous
what's with the graphs

go on your beloved dpreview and see. but whatever, man, let's meet halfway, 1.5 stop

i'll take my extra $1500 and get some baller lenses while you have your 1.5 stop advantage. oh woe is me
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296563
The indoor-at-nighttime lighting I'm currently in is about 1/50th at f/2.8 and ISO400. That's handholdable with a normal focal length, but crap for capturing movement. And if you're using a zoom lens, that f/2.8 is wide-open if it's an option at all.

Two more stops and you're at 1/200th. Or you can take that same 1/50th out of my well-lit cubicle and into a poorly-lit bar.

I think your 2.5% estimate vastly underestimates the number of people who would benefit from a clean ISO1600.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296564
>i'll take my extra $1500 and get some baller lenses while you have your 1.5 stop advantage. oh woe is me
That's a completely valid choice. I'm just saying that for people who shoot in less-than-ideal lighting conditions, the extra stop and a half is worth it.

(Not to mention the ability to use the cheap-ass fast 50mm lenses as true normals, which effectively gives you even more light)
>> Anonymous
>> clean ISO1600

wow for someone who supposedly shoots film too, you sure are complaining a lot about digital noise

any decent NR software will take care of noise and preserve fair amounts of detail. if you really want to pixel peep, you may see the difference on your monitor, but on prints? no fucking way

i guess what they say about ac being a gearfag is true
>> Anonymous
>>296566
>I think your 2.5% estimate vastly underestimates the number of people who would benefit from a clean ISO1600.

I think you're vastly overrating the importance of squeaky-clean files. Take a look at that Delta 3200 (IIRC it's the Delta) you love to shoot, a pretty modern emulsion, and see how messy it is? Aren't all these cameras better than that, even at 6400?

I'm not saying there's no technical image quality benefit from the upgrade from D300 to D700. What I'm arguing is A), it's not that important, but B) the viewfinder is very important, since it's at the very core of the photographic experience and will affect the photographs one takes much more than how clean (or not) they are. For some people, a larger view would help them more. For others, probably most, a more accurate one would.
>> Anonymous
>>296566
I consider the D300's ISO 1600 to be totally use-able in all situations.

Though to contrast that, You could buy a hell of a lot (read 3 or 4) f1.8 or faster lenses for $1500
(20 or 24 or 28mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8)
F2.8 is slow for real low light photography. Unless Versatility for weddings is needed, I would say a lens would trump the D700's 1.5 stop advantage.
>> Anonymous
guys, wait for it, ac's going to request photos of each of us because he thinks he's getting trolled when he's wrong

hilarious shit
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
     File :-(, x)
>>296553

the difference between DoF between the DX and FX is very very noticeable, take it from someone who knows first hand. Don't throw numbers around unless you actually know how they apply in actual shooting conditions.

>>296538

The D300 is a very very capable camera in terms of HIGH ISO performance. It comes close even to the D3

The reason to get FX is to show off with a ff sensor and expensive lenses. Seriously. Also remember that it will show EVERY flaw imaginable in your lens, so you better have a shit hot lens.

I use to shoot with the 50mm on my D70s all the time, took it for granted that it was how it behaved... then i put it on the D3... holy moley the vignetting made me feel like a 15 year old Deviantcunt.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D3Camera SoftwareVer.1.11Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern848Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:11:15 13:42:37Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4256Image Height2832RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used200Image QualityFINEWhite BalanceAUTOFocus ModeAF-SFlash SettingREAR SLOWISO Speed Requested200Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVLens TypeUnknownLens Range50.0 mm; f/1.4Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations14783
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296570
>I think you're vastly overrating the importance of squeaky-clean files. Take a look at that Delta 3200 (IIRC it's the Delta) you love to shoot, a pretty modern emulsion, and see how messy it is? Aren't all these cameras better than that, even at 6400?
Film grain and digital noise aren't the same thing, though. At least to me, digital noise looks like ass whereas film grain looks good. Especially in the shadows, where digital starts giving you banding and shit like that.

And hell, I'm not one to shy away from ISO800 or ISO1600, as those who've lurked sufficiently will know. But with a D700, I could shoot at that same level of noisiness at ISO3200 or 6400, which would be nice.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>296578

fuck it's the wrong side up... lol

and i shot that with the 50mm 1.4D, ignore the lying EXIF where it states AF-S
>> Anonymous
>>296578Don't throw numbers around unless you actually know how they apply in actual shooting conditions.

lol wut?

Don't trust the math and the numbers but trust your experience?

We're talking about ~15 cm of depth of field here in most cases. This is totally not critical unless you're a /p/ fag who likes to run around shooting wide open and ABSOLUTELY want to have like.. the tip of the nose in focus only.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296576
>each of us
You're just one guy. There seem to be two other Anons in this thread disagreeing with me:
>>296573I think you're vastly overrating the importance of squeaky-clean files.
and
>>296574I consider the D300's ISO 1600 to be totally use-able in all situations.

and they're clearly not trolling, just disagreeing and making perfectly rational points.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>296578
The Nikon 50mm f1.4 is a mediocre to bad lens wide open IMO.
I was totally amazed when the Sigma totally stomped it for everything but size / weight.

What wide angle lens do you use on the D3 Jeremo?
>> Anonymous
whatever helps you sleep at night, man
>> Anonymous
>>296582

Hell, 3 different anons calling you out on being spoiled by digital and that ISO1600 is perfectly good, I would expect you to call us samefags or being "trolled."

>>296570
>>296573
>>296574
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296588
>Hell, 3 different anons calling you out on being spoiled by digital and that ISO1600 is perfectly good, I would expect you to call us samefags or being "trolled."
Why would you expect that?

That I'm spoiled by the cleanliness of high-ISO digital is a valid point and two of the three Anons in this thread are making that point in a rational way. It's Mr. I'm-Too-Good-For-Capital-Letters who's doing it in an trolling way (e.g.,
>i guess what they say about ac being a gearfag is true
with presumably that 'they' meaning him), especially since that same writing style is attached to pretty much every stupid argument that's been thrown at me in the last several months.

I personally much prefer the noise characteristics of my APS-C camera at 400 to what I get at 800 or 1600. If I could get that 400-level of noise at 1600, I think it'd be great. Your mileage may vary.
>> Anonymous
>>296579
I'm going to address your points in reverse order.

>And hell, I'm not one to shy away from ISO800 or ISO1600, as those who've lurked sufficiently will know. But with a D700, I could shoot at that same level of noisiness at ISO3200 or 6400, which would be nice.

Yeah, it would be nice, I absolutely agree. What I'm arguing is that the viewfinder is more important than cleaner files at high ISOs for most users.

Have you ever taken a shot at a high sensitivity that would've been great if it was clean but wasn't? On the other hand, have you ever taken a shot where you noticed in retrospect you could've composed it better?

>Especially in the shadows, where digital starts giving you banding and shit like that.

First, while this obviously constricts your processing choice, shadow noise can easily be dealt with just by moving the blacks slider (or at least that's what it's called in ACR, don't know what they call in it whatever raw converter you use with GIMP) up or the lower part of the curve down and just losing detail and depth into the shadows.

Second, this isn't meant to be a brand slight at all, but I've just noticed looking at files from different sensor brands that the Canons you're used to tend to have (well, up until this sensor generation) less noise overall but are more prone to banding in the shadows than other brands' sensors, like the Sony sensors in these Nikons.
>> Anonymous
>>296592


>At least to me, digital noise looks like ass whereas film grain looks good.

Valid prejudice, though I disagree; it's all the same to me in terms of how I appraise it, i.e. I don't like it but I don't care at all if it's there unless it starts standing out more than the picture itself, either way.

I'm younger than you are, so maybe it's just that I've spent a larger portion of my life exposed to digital noise so I'm just used to it like everyone is with film grain.

So it's more important to you than it is to me, but I still think in the end the viewfinder is absolutely the most important part of a camera, once everything else reaches a certain point, especially when the controls are exactly the same like they are here.
>> Anonymous
>>296591

oh? because i don't give a fuck about capitals on 4chan i'm "trolling"?

>> any decent NR software will take care of noise and preserve fair amounts of detail. if you really want to pixel peep, you may see the difference on your monitor, but on prints? no fucking way

that's not a valid point since i type without capitals? i'm sorry if i have the intelligence to notice your presence in gear threads
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296592
>Have you ever taken a shot at a high sensitivity that would've been great if it was clean but wasn't?
Many, many times.

Well, assuming you'll grant me the courtesy of assuming I could ever have taken a great shot ever.
>On the other hand, have you ever taken a shot where you noticed in retrospect you could've composed it better?
Many, many times. But never because there was 5% *extra* space around the edges. Or, rather, in those cases, I've just cropped out the extra 5%. Much more often it happens that an extra 5% that I didn't see thanks to my 40D's 95% viewfinder works for me because I did something stupid like cut off someone's feet.

>>296595
>oh? because i don't give a fuck about capitals on 4chan i'm "trolling"?
No, the lack of capitals is just how I can tell it's the same person each time. It's the trolling that means you're trolling.
>> Anonymous
>>296598No, the lack of capitals is just how I can tell it's the same person each time. It's the trolling that means you're trolling.

okay, champ

explain to me which part of this is me trolling and not a valid point:

>> any decent NR software will take care of noise and preserve fair amounts of detail. if you really want to pixel peep, you may see the difference on your monitor, but on prints? no fucking way
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>296595
>i'm sorry if i have the intelligence to notice your presence in gear threads
Also, if you *really* had any intelligence, you'd notice my presence in the photo threads too. I'm fucking everywhere, because I really don't have a life at all. It's just that there are so few non-gear threads posted here, and I get sucked into these stupid arguments on the gearthreads so much more often, that it appears that it's all I post.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>296592Yeah, it would be nice, I absolutely agree. What I'm arguing is that the viewfinder is more important than cleaner files at high ISOs for most users.

O lawd. It's not that hard to think
"hm.. this viewfinder does/doesn't show me everything, I suppose I need to compose accordingly

rather than "Hm... shame it's too dark to take a picture without running the ISO and having a wave noise all over my picture and ruining it completely. SURE GLAD IT'S FRAMED WELL!
>> Anonymous
>>296602"Hm... shame it's too dark to take a picture without running the ISO and having a wave noise all over my picture and ruining it completely.

We're talking about 1 to 1.5 of a stop here.. If you're at ISO12800 and still need more, then we've got a problem. But for most situations? It's "almost" the same thing for $1,500 less.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>296603

d300 + 50mm 1.4 + 20 1.4 +etc. + noise
d700 + 50mm 1.4 clean images

Personally I'd go with clean images and saving for another lens then wishing I could not have to deal with noise and an 'improper' viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
>>296607

I'd love to know what you're shooting with to complain about the D300's level of noise when it's in the top 3, right under the D700 and D3.

Or are you one of those pixel peeping guys who will say noise "ruined" a photo?
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>296611

3200 because shitty local venues dont have good lighting.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>296612

And that's at 1/30 f2
>> Anonymous
>>296612

What camera...
>> Anonymous
i never got into the larger formats, but i was for many years an avid 35mm slr man. not only as part of my occupation, but as a hobby that i am passionate about.

now that being said i received my order for the canon 40d a week or so ago. i had only experienced compact digital cameras before owning this slr and let me say that i am absolutely blown away by the behavior of the digital medium at high asa speeds.
i realize its all opinion, but i really find the "noise" of the digital medium much more acceptable than very grainy film.

from what i understand the nikon d300 performs even better at high ASA than the canon 40d and that's just somethin else. take it from me. as soon as the sun goes down i crank this canon up to 800 asa and go on shooting as normal. even 1600 asa is very good unless you are completely dissecting the technical properties of the image (the plague that the internet has wrought upon photography)
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>296584
I completely agree, at 1.4 the AF-D is fuckin rubbish, but i actually like the softness it gives. At f/2 and especially f/2.8 it excels, i shoot at f/2.8 most of the time.

I've got the 28-70 AF-S, wanted the 24-70 but got offered a great deal on the 28, i'll probably get a 24 fixed focal if they ever release one.

>>296607
Is that a comparison? if so that's a little off.
You forget the D300 shots at 75mm which means all it's got is the sweet spot in the lens, where as the D700 would get all the flaws, i don't get how the images can be cleaner since I know the D300 isn't far off from the D3 and the D700 for all intents and purposes is the same as the D3
>> Anonymous
>>296598
>Many, many times.

I think asking for an example would not be out of order? Because I really, really doubt that's actually the case, and not because I doubt you can take great shots, because I've seen them.

>>296673
>i'll probably get a 24 fixed focal if they ever release one.

There's an AF Nikkor 24/2.8, a AI/AI-S Nikkor 24/2.8, a AI/AI-S Nikkor 24/2, a Sigma AF 24/1.8, and probably a few others.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
I bought my D300 like, a week before they had the D700 in stock. I went back the next week to buy a spare battery and saw the D700, with a momentary twinge of regret. Then I shot a wedding two weeks later and had massive regret, though some of that was probably due to user error.

It hasn't failed me since, though, and that's with tons of night photography, low light photography, etc. I fucking love that camera and would recommend it to anyone.

ISO 3200 can look like balls (still usable, and it just looks like ASA 800 on film), but ISO 1600 works just fine. My only other complaint is the lack of decent wide angle options (unless you want to fork over massive cash, which you might be willing to do if you want to pay for the D700 over the D300).
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>296798
>Because I really, really doubt that's actually the case
Here we go. Very low-light shooting environment inside a bar. This was back when I just had my Rebel, so ISO1600 was the highest I can go. Even at this resolution, there's noticeable banding in his face and shirt from the noise.

(And I still needed to set my nifty fifty wide open and shoot at 1/20th)

Most of the shots from this night (this one included) were both noisy *and* blurry. If I'd had a D700 or a 5DII, I could've bumped it up to 3200 with the less noise and brought the exposure time up to a more reasonable 1/40th.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:03:13 22:50:07Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias-1 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width682Image Height1024RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-240779072Color Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation2Sensor ISO Speed288
>> Anonymous
Sigma 12-24 = crazy wide and cheap on the D700, or Sigma 15-30, which is like $250.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
You can keep your D300.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerNicolas Fernandez AguadeMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern786Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:20 00:24:01Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height665RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>296538
Nikons are 4 trolls, try Canon EOS series instead, buttfark
>> Anonymous
>>296845
I'm definitely going to have to call oversensitivity on your part on this one. Yes, there's noticeable noise, but the picture is still clear and it shouldn't affect anyone's experience of the frame.

Also I said "great shots." "Random tight snapshot of guy in bar" doesn't count; I mean the really transcendently good ones that are the only ones that really count for anything. Those don't get ruined by noise, but even this one doesn't.
>> Anonymous
>>297014
I love that photo.
6400?? The noise looks like grain.
I want one.
>> Anonymous
>>297014
>>297041
same person
>> Photon
if you got money, get the D700 and then a few lens to match the FX. My friend bought a D700, and he's a fisherman. He hasnt touched a camera in 20 years.

If you're not rich, get a D300 and a GOOD lens.

I am getting the D300+grip and a ...no more money for lens. I'll just use my trusty 50mm 1.8
>> Anonymous
>>297042
Actually I just have a D80.
I'm looking at getting at D700 though.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
I'm also thinking on going digital with a d700...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>297041
Thanks. D700's noise looks quite good, IMO.
>>297042
Idiot.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerNicolas Fernandez AguadeMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern786Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:20 01:37:05Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height665RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>297035
>I'm definitely going to have to call oversensitivity on your part on this one.
Fair enough. It is a subjective thing, after all. But to me, that shot looks like it was taken, printed out on a printer with a clogged nozzle, and then scanned again at low resolution. Those lines all over it just look ugly as sin.

>Also I said "great shots." "Random tight snapshot of guy in bar" doesn't count; I mean the really transcendently good ones that are the only ones that really count for anything.
Haven't you heard the trolls? All I take are snapshots, and then I talk about gear.

I'll grant that this shot of Taco Phil is unlikely to ever hang in a gallery wall unless I sneak in at night and hang it there myself, but it illustrates (at least to me, and I can't believe I'm the only one) the noise problem I'm talking about. Smooth random grain, that's no problem. Noise in a well-defined stripe pattern across the frame? Looks like ass.
>> Anonymous
>>297066
Ohh, maybe I spoke too soon about the noise...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>297068
Well, there's a good reason why it is often said that the D700 has a great low light performance.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerNicolas Fernandez AguadeMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern786Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:20 02:50:21Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width665Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
.skckirb tihS .5
5??? .4.

.devas I uoy yeleif eht nepO .3

sj.n.ahc4 4sas t i evaS .

.egami siht nepO . 1