I have absolutely no problem in anybody using whatever method they deem necessary to take better photos. I think it is great. But using Arsenal system is just not for me. I prefer to take my own photos, good and bad. I commented only because I think it is terrible that people accuse Bob of being rude in his comment. He isn't rude at all but simply stating he doesn't like that system. America seems to have gotten to a very bad place when saying you don't like something triggers a negative response from others. We, all of us, have a right to like or not like something whether it be a photograph, method of taking a photograph, political figure, anything at all, with very few limitations such as violent acts toward others, without being chastised for our choice.

As for cameras I have DSLR's, Nikon D800, Leica M10 and for film cameras, an old Kodak Medalist, a German Diax 2, a Nikon FM and a Leica M6. I also have two 4X5 view cameras that I have never used. I think I am pretty well set for digital or film.

Thanks for the comments,

Dennis

The price of high ISO is noise.

Random noise represnets the loss of information from the image file.
Maybe you don't care about information, but you probably care about money.

At ISO 100, your $1800 lens looks like $1800.
At IS0 200, it looks like a $900 lens
At ISO 400, it looks like a $450 lens.
At ISO 800, it looks like a $225 lens.
At ISO 1600, it looks like a $112.50 lens.
At ISO 3200, the photo look like it was taken with a $56.25 lens...
with fingerprints on it.

The choice is yours.

There are alternatives: faster lens (e.g, a prime), good off-camera flash,
lights, or just wait for better light.

There is a way to have high ISO without noise, used in space telescopes:
cryo-cool the sensor. Short of that, there is no way to turn up the sensitivity
without getting more "static". There is always thermal (Johnson-Nyquist)
noise.

Since solid backgrounds are more common than speckled ones, clever processing
can hide th enoise by filling in tiny white spots in a dark backgroun. But is the
background really had tiny white spots, you lose. Or if there are tiny black
spots in a white background--since these are very common in real scenes.

The trouble with random noise is...it's random. It destroys information.
had tiny white speckles,

Hello everyone

The last three months many people I know have been asking me to shoot them, their kids or their pets. Most of them told me that they did not like the set they have paid for and they would rather pay me to do this work next time.
I said NO to all of them.

But, I do want to say YES, extra money is always welcome and would help me to buy more equipment.
So I have been "training" with my son, my girl, my cats and myself, what do you guys think? Do I have enough "skills" to do that and get paid for it?
Most of the shoots are with the 50mm. I would like to get a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 if I decide to work as a freelance shooting people and pets.

Thanks

Hello all, getting some conflicting info and would like your collective input before I pull the trigger. My 2011 iMac with 8GB of ram is cutting it anymore now that I am creating 50+MB Raw files in LR Classic CC. Doing a 3 exposure HDR is taking 45 minutes. Plan to upgrade a new 27" iMac and it's shaping up to set me back $2-3k. Info from sources I have been listening to advise an iMac with 3.5Ghz clock speed and 32GB of ram but the folks at Apple are telling me that doing still and not video that 16GB should be fine. Spending this much money I do not want to make a mistake and undersize it. It will have a 1TB hard drive but I already have an external Toshiba 1TB that all my photos go on and I use the Apple Time Machine for cloud based backups. Appreciate your take on the ram issue.

Thx Pat