Why does this exist? Everyone knows that no one has ever taken

Because digital noise doesn't correspond to analog grain. Color negatives doesn't even have grain, simply you'll get a correct exposure at that iso as it happens with 400 or 160 or 100 ASA. Also not always the value of a picture comes from sharpness, deep depth of field and correct exposures.

>>3115456
>no one has ever taken a good photo with a lens slower than f/2
WHAT?

>>3115503
2.8 masterrace.

>>3115503
Don't you know. Only full frame cameras are good because everything else shoots with iso 800 f 4+

File: images (4).jpg (12KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x150px

>>3115456
>1997
>Be anthropologist hiking in Amazon
>Pissing rain, deep canopy cover
>Come across undocumented pygmy tribe
>Camera meter reads 1/2sec, f2 @100iso.
>Take pictures, get fed, have white dick touched by curious savages
>Get back to home country with news of this amazing discovery
>"I have pictures to prove it!"
>Get film developed
>Blurry masses
>"Dr. Anon, these don't show anything. You probably just ran into some monkeys"
>"No, they were human I swear!"
>"Why didnt you use faster film? Fuji has 800 speed stuff you know."
>"Kek, nobody has ever taken a gud photo using 800iso before faggot."
>Pygmy peoples' face when nobody believes you and they go undiscovered for decades to come.

>>3115543
>>"Kek, nobody has ever taken a gud photo using 800iso before faggot."
My sides are in orbit. I also find iso800 good for macro photography

>>3115456

Isn't it grainier than Natura 1600?

OP you must be autistic

>>3115543
Kek'ed