ISO performance on new cameras.

ethan

ethan

ethan

Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2005
Posts
7,912
Location
What used to be a UK
I remember a time when there would be no problems blurring and slowing water without the need for ND filters or creating moving plants in fields. Were cameras then of such poor quality that today's advancements in low light photography have made previous models and the way we go about doing things a relic of the past?
 
Last edited:
I am trying to put low pixel count DSLRs and their seemingly lack of sophistication by today's standards down to the fact that when I was using a Sony DSLR from way back, I never had to reach for a ND filter to create milky flowing water scenes (in bright weather). Though it looks like I haven't explained it very well, maybe I was mistaken in blaming it on the ISO or inferior technolgy . On a Fuji XT1 and a Sony RX100 I have been unable to do this without a ND filter.Which I don't understand?

It's looking more like I'm the bad craftsman that always blames his tools. ;)
 
Last edited:
I can see how that would be the case, I just couldn't understand how I , up until using the SonyRX100 and XT1, was able to get away with not having to use a ND filter?
 
D.P. said:
Pure luck, or a chnage int he weather. Maybe it is unnier when you go outside., or you know it is summertime and brighter compared to winter.

ISO 100 is ISO 100 on whatever camera you use.
Click to expand...

Would low pixel count and quality of the lens also have any bearing along with what you have said?
 
Lots of interesting things to think about with many informative comments. Thanks for the responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom