File :-(, x, )
40D at ISO800 Anonymous
40d at iso 800 is awesome
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:31 14:51:15Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width768Image Height1152RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Wow, no artifacts. Sweet.
>> Anonymous
doesnt help the fact that your sky is completely blown and ruins the picture.
>> Anonymous
>>231035
but I dont think there is a way to see the details on the trunk properly if the is properly exposed.

It is not easy to shoot properly exposed sky in a forest, as the amount of light difference is just too great.
>> Anonymous
>>231047
>the is
the sky
>> Anonymous
>>231047
yeeeah i know, was it overcasty? thats usually the problem

also in Understanding Exposure the guy meters off the sky a lot so im not sure if that would have helped here, ive yet to go out and really try it.
>> Anonymous
>>231030
It's true that it's awesome at 800, but iso1600 is just ok but theres much better performers like the old 30D
>> Anonymous
>>231054
As a forest dweller, with the forest, it is better to spot meter at your target, another other metering methods will results in exterme underexposed problem during 10am to 4pm.

Only way to shoot nice forest is HDR, but imho, HDR isnt real photography.
>> Anonymous
>>231068

Whatever you categorize it as, I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-done (aka not overdone to hell) HDR.
>> Anonymous
>>231055
yea but how is the 30d at ISO 6400??

thought so..
>> Anonymous
Wow, I'm impressed, my 300$ Nikon D100 takes image at ISO 800 with the same quality.
>> Anonymous
PROTIP: Almost every DSLR made in the last 10 years will give you clean images at ISO 800 if you downsample them to 1100x700.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>231166
And don't have a lot of shadows.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>231166

That is where you are wrong sir. My rebel xti...

< evidence at ISO 400

1100x733
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>231195
It's underexposed.
>> Anonymous
>>231195
I obviously meant properly exposed images. You can get the same shit with an 1D at ISO 100 if you deliberately underexpose and then push software EV compensation up the wazoo.
>> Anonymous
>>231196

curses! my attempts to blame my camera have been foiled!
>> Anonymous
>>231183
This is worth adding to: even the camera I have with a tiny 1/2.5" sensor (6x crop) will deliver fairly noise-free images at ISO 800 if the scene is low contrast and doesn't have a lot of heavy shadowing, and if you overexpose the raw a bit and bring it back down. In other words, DC's right, the real test of the noise capabilities of a camera is in scenes with heavy shadow.
>> Anonymous
>>231195
no EXIF, no your pic