Does anyone think it would be better to up the ISO and get a faster speed even on the tripod ?
You obviously have your own way of working, and usually it's very effective. But, in poor light, I would bump up the ISO ... I'd sooner have more image noise than blurring caused by unwanted subject movement, if only because image noise
can be processed, fairly effectively up to a point.
I'll up the ISO then. I also have the option to select A1 Focus mode which will shoot in AF One-Shot mode but switch to A1 Servo (for moving subjects) the instant movement is detected . Here's a question I've been thinking about.
I'm dallying with the idea of a 70-200 f2.8 (canon) IS or no IS - I have to think about that. I'm wedded to my tripod as you know. I have a 100-400mm f4.5 >5.6 and from 300 > 400mm it's f5.6. At 200mm I can get f5. If I were to take two photos ,one with the 70-200 f2.8 , ISO 200 and 1/200 sec. then next to it the 100-400 at 200mm and 200 ISO but I adjusted the speed to two stops slower to compensate for the two stops of aperture difference ie. f2.8 >f5.6 (or share the difference between the ISO and shutter speed) would I get exactly the same photo ? I have a suspicion that the 70-200 f2.8 would give me a sharper if not better quality image because I think, I don't know for sure, that the glass in the 70-200 is of superior quality. They are both L series lenses. I would also like the 180mm f3.5 L series macro lens which is very close to the max. of 200mm of the 70-200 and only one half stop less so another poser is ,with this lens why would I need the 70-200 IS or no IS. What do you think ? I hope I've got the figures right but is the principle correct ? The 180mm lens , however, has aperture blades designed to give superb bokeh.