Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave_W" data-source="post: 78745" data-attributes="member: 9521">Okay, I was able to run an ISO study on the crescent moon of Sept 20, 2012. The images are straight out of the camera and the only adjustment made was the crop.D800; 70-300mm; f-6.7, EV = -2.0. Each photo was shot in M and spot metered and shutter speed was set at point 0 on light meter.ISO-100; 1/45 sec[ATTACH]16897[/ATTACH]ISO-200; 1/45 sec[ATTACH]16898[/ATTACH]ISO-400 1/125 sec[ATTACH]16899[/ATTACH]ISO-800; 1/250 sec[ATTACH]16900[/ATTACH]For whatever reason the ISO-200 seems a little brighter than the others and perhaps less of the moon was within the focus point, giving me a slightly lower reading on the light meter and hence, causing me to slightly over expose.... not sure. I'm not sure what to conclude. With the exception of the overexposure at ISO-200, there doesn't seem to be much difference between them all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 78745, member: 9521"] Okay, I was able to run an ISO study on the crescent moon of Sept 20, 2012. The images are straight out of the camera and the only adjustment made was the crop. D800; 70-300mm; f-6.7, EV = -2.0. Each photo was shot in M and spot metered and shutter speed was set at point 0 on light meter. ISO-100; 1/45 sec [ATTACH=CONFIG]16897[/ATTACH] ISO-200; 1/45 sec [ATTACH=CONFIG]16898[/ATTACH] ISO-400 1/125 sec [ATTACH=CONFIG]16899[/ATTACH] ISO-800; 1/250 sec [ATTACH=CONFIG]16900[/ATTACH] For whatever reason the ISO-200 seems a little brighter than the others and perhaps less of the moon was within the focus point, giving me a slightly lower reading on the light meter and hence, causing me to slightly over expose.... not sure. I'm not sure what to conclude. With the exception of the overexposure at ISO-200, there doesn't seem to be much difference between them all. [/QUOTE]

Verification