How far we have come

[Deleted]

The photo was shot at twilight last week with My Nikon D300 and an 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens. It was shot at 800 ISO, f5.6, 1/50 sec. with zoom at 1500 and virbaration reduction turned on. The inset is a blow up of the center of the photo. There is a little noise present but I could have never done that well with conventional film. The one thing I can't figure out is how those young women could stand in that water--fresh off the snowpack, for nearly an hour.

Wayne

[nikonbob]

No doubt about it, with modern tech I am now getting photos I could not have with film. At least not as easily, anyway. The carriage shots that I posted in another thread were at 1600 iso and I think beat my best efforts with 800 iso film. I only have one lens with VR and find that it works well. I remember asking on another site if anyone thought that in body VR would be a useful feature on a range finder camera. The basic response was what for? I always thought that if a new technology was useful then why not incorporate it into an existing system. I would enjoy a FF RF or FM2n with in body VR . No reason to not enjoy the best of both worlds. As for the young women, your guess is as good as mine. I am getting calf cramps just thinking about it.

Bob

[Deleted]

Bob:

They say VR gives you two extra stops and it seems to work pretty well in the photo (1/50 sec shutter speed at 150mm). But I thought it also would help shooting a low speeds in say, a bobbing boat. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't seem to help at all improving images shot while the shooter is moving more than a few fractions of an inch. That was sort of disappointing.

Wayne

[SidW]

Wayne, Bob,
Remember that scanning film images adds noise (grain), so the original should be better than the scan. Just how much is added depends on the scanner, some are better than others.