Isn't that most of the time then?

I think I was shooting at ISO 100 pretty much for the entire weekend.
I know others that like to shoot at ISO 50.

Mark

Curious. Must be a digital thing.
I tend to use 100 for landscapes, maybe some portraiture in the future, 200-400 for general daytime stuff, and then the 800 - 1600 for the evening work.

Even when I used film, I tended to stick to slower ISO speeds; most of the time I used Velvia at 50 or 100 ISO. With the 5D2 I use 100 most of the time, but speed up if I can't hand-hold a shot where a tripod isn't appropriate. When I'm using continuous mode with AF Servo, the camera is set to Auto ISO so some of the shots from Northern Ireland (e.g. the waves) are at 500 or higher.

I spend most of my time shooting without a tripod, so the faster the film, the less likely I'm going introduce shake.
This was done on 800, this on 200, and this was on some 100.

Each have their own feel, but had I tried doing the VW stuff on a 100 roll, it would have been a waste of time.
So, would you still have gone on a 100 setting for that? It was about 9.30pm, you can probably spot the light sources available.

Interesting. As one of my favourite subjects is aircraft, there's something to think about- but with my track record with their products, I WILL NOT go Canon again.

Interestingly enough, I've just had a look at the Nikon equivalent of my Canon 75mm-300mm lens and it's about twice the price. Now is that because they are superior in any way, or are these inflated prices?

I don't have permission to view the large size of that VW shot, but in answer to your question, yes, I would have used 100 with a tripod. But that's just me.

I like the two boat pic, very nice and atmospheric

Weird, you should have the permission to do so.
Yeah, if I had the sticks out with me, then maybe I would have. I rarely carry them though - perhaps I'll break out a roll of the new Ektar 100 in the fridge and see what's what.

Oh, and cheers bobbdobbs.

I for one am only Mortal and will certainly not live that long!

That's exactly what tipped the favour Canons way for me. But lots of the aviation chaps use Nikon (or Canon) + Sigma lenses with no problem - the 70-300 APO DG I don't think can be beaten for the money but like you and Canon, I can't really go back to Sigma lenses.

If you don't mind second hand stuff keep looking HERE for the occasional bargain. My mate got his Nikon gear from here and he's well pleased with it.

Al

I was in the Calumet store in Belfast after visiting Musgrave Park Hospital...the guy was really nice - I was trying out a D700, but then I asked if I could have a look at the Hasselblad H3D-50 sitting on the shelf. Now, fair play, he would have been fully within his rights to refuse, since there's no way I could have afforded the camera, but he let me have a play with it, which was very generous.

However, instead of picking it up, I sort of crouched over the counter, holding it no more than around one or two centimetres off the top of it and sort of held it like it was an egg...

Brilliant camera, though. What amazed me was that it was noticeably lighter with an 80mm lens, back, batteries, viewfinder etc than a D700 with an 85mm lens on. :O

theChipmunk

No, he wouldn't! He has no idea how much money you have, and if he did refuse he's just be a snob and you'd spread the word, so it'd be bad for business. You do yourself a disservice - you'd be well within your rights to take a Porsche for a test drive if you wanted to.

True, but to be honest I wouldn't lower myself to that level.