Do I need the megapixels?

[SnowFella]

It's all just a trade off really, getting the shot or not getting the shot Sure I would of loved having taken it at base ISO but if my math's correct backing down to ISO100 would of had me shooting 5 stops lower shutter speed, ie somewhere around 1/2sec...doable from a tripod and after a visit to your local taxidermy shop but not with a moving subject
Here's what ISO3200 looked at a slight crop (sides only), background has had noise reduction but left the subject alone.


Lots of noise if I zoom in but viewed at normal size it's mostly neglectable.

[DaveW]

As said before you use higher ISO's if you have to in order to get the picture as you did. My comments were aimed at those who stick the camera on high ISO's all the time even for static subjects.

We seem to forget this is nothing new, the slow speed films like Kodachrome 25 (ISO 25) had the finest grain, whereas fast films had coarse grain and in the past you never had colour films with the high maximum ISO's many digital cameras have, not even monochrome film, therefore if you used high speed film you expected very grainy images. To quote film speeds from the web:-

Ilford makes an ISO 3200 film (Delta 3200)

Kodak used to offer an ISO 1200 film, but I think it's long gone.

Ansco used to have an ISO 1600 film (Super Hypan)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professi ... 55/e55.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SnowFella]

Here's mp overload for you, almost 70mp in the full sized shot


Currently working it up for a large print, think 3x1 foot so I'm going to need the pixels. Though it's only ~50% of the mp of the 6 images taken needed to stitch it together, the rest was lost in the stitching process.