>>3322143>Yep you've only had a camera for a month. ISO 100 plus 4 stops is ISO 1600Imagine typing this out and thinking you just wrote an intelligent post that btfod the person you were responding to. I said 4 TIMES. You know what a stop means right? You know "plus four stops" isn't "four times as much" right? Or do you also imagine that "14 stops of dynamic range" is a ratio of 1:14?
>I bet if the original poster shot that photo at an even higher iso and hide the exif you wouldn't of even known or caredPictures resized to sub hd, compressed heavily, and posted on 4chan will generally look a lot worse than they would in print. If the point of taking photos for you is to just show what's in the frame, then why go for a $3000 camera? If you don't care about noise and dynamic range, then why not get a $500 APS-C or MFT camera? There's simply not a reasonable argument for shooting at suboptimal settings over optimal ones. Your argument is basically "people on 4chan will most likely not notice the difference, so I'm not going to shoot at the best quality my expensive gear is capable of, and instead I'm going to use subpar settings". Would it hurt you to use your gear to its fullest potential? What's the downside of using correct settings over "my camera is good enough that bad settings will look usable as well"?
>wouldn't ofI'm sorry but this one is just embarrassing. You're on an english speaking forum, please learn the language before posting.
