|
When shooting full moon, what has always worked for me is f/8, and shutter speed equal to 1/ISO. Since I've mostly been shooting at 500mm, that translates uaually to ISO 640, shutter speed 1/640s, for shooting handheld. If you are using a tripod, you can easily lower ISO to 100 and shoot at 1/100. Obviously, if the moon is not full you may have to use longer shutter speeds or higher iso.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Using lower isos i wasnt getting any light, but im shooting raw so maybe i shouldve actually looked at them in LR. Also no tripod yet, i know i need one, just blew my wad already. My other dusk picks turned out great using 400 4.5 1/125, so i dont know. Thanks for the book recommendation, ill pick it up unless its one of those $300 books. Hedgehog I am thinking about a teleconverter, but thats down the line, once I get better in general practice. ButtWolf fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I'd say bottom line, invest in FF lenses since one day you may wish to upgrade to an FF body, and then you'll be all set with the proper lenses right out of the gate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This is only a good idea if you have infinite money and shoulder strength. Wait..... aren't we all millionaire globe-trotting photographic artisans in here with unlimited budgets? ButtWolf posted:Also no tripod yet, i know i need one, just blew my wad already. Yeah, a new tripod and ball-head is my next purchase as well. I have an old Velbon to hold me over for now. Not sure if you're hand holding then, but a moon shot definitely needs something tripod-like to capture it. You could use a bag filled with sand, and prop the camera up on that. Or a pile of books, or whatever. Anything decently steady you can set the camera on, keep the angle you need, and then use a remote release or delayed release to take the shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Wait..... aren't we all millionaire globe-trotting photographic artisans in here with unlimited budgets? Makes me feel a lil better knowing I cant really do much better with current setup. Thanks for all the advice people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
ButtWolf posted:Using lower isos i wasnt getting any light Because you were at f45 which is insane. Open up to f8 or so like everyone said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Because you were at f45 which is insane. Open up to f8 or so like everyone said. I'm sure he meant f/4.5 not f/45. I don't think that a lens even exists for anything smaller than large format cameras that stops down that far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
ButtWolf posted:Using lower isos i wasnt getting any light, but im shooting raw so maybe i shouldve actually looked at them in LR. Also no tripod yet, i know i need one, just blew my wad already. My other dusk picks turned out great using 400 4.5 1/125, so i dont know. Thanks for the book recommendation, ill pick it up unless its one of those $300 books. For anyone newer to photography, the f-stop number is inverse to the size of the aperture. For example, f5 means the aperture is more open and letting in a lot more light, and f22 means the opening is tiny and letting in almost nothing (meanwhile it's also enlarging or bringing out out any dust or spots on your sensor you'd have to clean up in post). Depending on your camera, you can set your ISO to relatively high and not get a whole lot of noise (my camera is good in high ISO but still noisy). You can kind of counteract ISO by opening up the aperture to allow more light in so you can set your ISO lower. You can still get decently sharp images with the aperture open as well--I've found that auto-focus helps that a lot even with something like f6 or sometimes lower, but YMMV. Perhaps I just don't do the kind of photography that needs ISO at an absurdly high setting like 3200, but the less noise, the better. All that said, I use a Rokinon 12mm, maybe that's better with sharpness at a lower stop than other lenses that aren't wide-angle. That's not to say any of the veteran photographers posting here don't already know this, but I thought it might help for any newbies just getting into photography, because the whole aperture thing can be confusing as gently caress for a while when you just start out until you can remember. life is killing me fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
What are some general thoughts, settings-wise, for shooting meteor showers? Like the crazy-rear end one that's happening over the next few nights? Like how fast does my shutter need be if I want to avoid star trails? How long would it have to be if I want circular trails? Would I do one really long exposure, or stack a bunch of shorter ones? I just have zero experience with this, wondering if there are any simple tips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'm sure he meant f/4.5 not f/45. I don't think that a lens even exists for anything smaller than large format cameras that stops down that far. Nope. 45.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:For anyone newer to photography, the f-stop number is inverse to the size of the aperture. For example, f5 means the aperture is more open and letting in a lot more light, and f22 means the opening is tiny and letting in almost nothing (meanwhile it's also enlarging or bringing out out any dust or spots on your sensor you'd have to clean up in post). Depending on your camera, you can set your ISO to relatively high and not get a whole lot of noise (my camera is good in high ISO but still noisy). You can kind of counteract ISO by opening up the aperture to allow more light in so you can set your ISO lower. You can still get decently sharp images with the aperture open as well--I've found that auto-focus helps that a lot even with something like f6 or sometimes lower, but YMMV. Perhaps I just don't do the kind of photography that needs ISO at an absurdly high setting like 3200, but the less noise, the better. All that said, I use a Rokinon 12mm, maybe that's better with sharpness at a lower stop than other lenses that aren't wide-angle. Yeah I though it was the opposite for f stop. Dammit. I'll try again tonight at f8, 1/125-250, and then try out 200,400, 800 ISO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
ButtWolf posted:Nope. 45. What is that lens? I've never seen anything that stops down below f/32 for 35mm bodies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
ButtWolf posted:Yeah I though it was the opposite for f stop. Dammit. I'll try again tonight at f8, 1/125-250, and then try out 200,400, 800 ISO. When I first started out, I also thought that for the longest time--I didn't mess with aperture at all and did auto settings for shots, but in real estate that doesn't fly when you want to compete so I started looking up tutorials for shooting and for post-processing to get the best results. I shoot all manual now even for homes where I'm not getting paid as much, because I've become pretty quick with it. As far as ISO, 800 might be good. You can take a few different shots at different f-stops and ISO settings and see what you like best since you're shooting in RAW, and you could also layer images together in Photoshop to get decent results if you don't have any single shot that you like enough to mess with individually. I do a lot of twilight shots of homes, and for the most part I do have to blend them together to get the sky I want, for instance. Sometimes I get the perfect shot that only requires me to edit in RAW, but that all depends on timing and client involvement for me. So let's say you get the moon you want but don't like the sky, or vice versa. You can blend another shot that has the subject how you want it with the same shot that has the sky where you want it, and you can mask in Photoshop. It takes patience and can be frustrating, but once you get it down it's easy. Hope that helps. e: I know you're not shooting houses or architecture, but blending can apply. Different ISO and aperture settings for the exact same shots in the same camera positions definitely do apply so that you can make sure that you have SOMETHING to work with for your time. Basically, do a bunch of shots in one position with different settings, then move to another position and do the same, all without moving the camera at all unless it's to change position. At some point you will look at the metadata for a shot you really love, and take note of those settings. life is killing me fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:What is that lens? I've never seen anything that stops down below f/32 for 35mm bodies. Lots of lenses longer than 135mm go below f/32.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:When I first started out, I also thought that for the longest time--I didn't mess with aperture at all and did auto settings for shots, but in real estate that doesn't fly when you want to compete so I started looking up tutorials for shooting and for post-processing to get the best results. I shoot all manual now even for homes where I'm not getting paid as much, because I've become pretty quick with it. Yeah, I'm actually pretty decent with photoshop, so that's good advice. Helen Highwater posted:What is that lens? I've never seen anything that stops down below f/32 for 35mm bodies. 75-300mm
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:What is that lens? I've never seen anything that stops down below f/32 for 35mm bodies. My Nikon 105mm goes down to f/57 on my D750. Just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but it's something I've been curious about. On older cameras that have a program mode(Nikon FA, Canon AE-1 program, etc), how is it changing the aperture? The lenses have a physical aperture ring with no electronic contacts(I think?). You have to stop it down to the lowest aperture for it to work. Do they have an ability to change the aperture without twisting the aperture ring that I don't know about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
When the lens is stopped down all the way, there should be a little lever that you can push with your finger to open it back up. The camera is just physically interacting with the lever to pick an aperture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
404notfound posted:When the lens is stopped down all the way, there should be a little lever that you can push with your finger to open it back up. The camera is just physically interacting with the lever to pick an aperture. Yeah this is usually the button that unlocks the lens from the mount as well from what I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
The whole 'buy full frame lenses just in case in 5+ years time you decide you might want to poo poo out a ton of money on a FF body' has never sat right with me. Good quality APS-C lenses are generally cheaper, lighter, fit the focal range better, and with Sigma's Art series have faster apertures. And good lenses will always sell for decent money, so if you're smart with your purchases you won't lose much if you resell everything you buy. Hell, if I was going to buy a new body right now and upgrade, it'd probably be a D500 anyway, not one of Nikon's not-single-digit FF offerings. It feels like putting a huge monster sound system in your small city car on the off chance you might buy a Hummer one day, and it shouldn't be thrown around as a 'rule' of purchasing as much as it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah this is usually the button that unlocks the lens from the mount as well from what I've seen. It wouldn't be the depth of field preview lever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:It wouldn't be the depth of field preview lever? Suppose it could be. That's just what it is on OM mount lenses so maybe I'm wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:It wouldn't be the depth of field preview lever? On manual bodies, there's a lever that is just inside the lens ring that pushes on a pin in the lens that opens up the aperture. The depth of field preview lever disengages the aperture control so that it will shut down to the selected setting. Normally, the aperture is held wide-open by that lever pushing on the pin to help with focusing until you take the picture, at which point the lever in the body moves back to let the pin in the lens back out and the aperture snaps to the correct setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:This might be a dumb question, but it's something I've been curious about. On older cameras that have a program mode(Nikon FA, Canon AE-1 program, etc), how is it changing the aperture? The lenses have a physical aperture ring with no electronic contacts(I think?). You have to stop it down to the lowest aperture for it to work. Do they have an ability to change the aperture without twisting the aperture ring that I don't know about? There's usually a physical lever on the back of the lens next to the mount that the body pushes to set the aperture. Nikon still uses the same lever design on modern lenses that they used way back in the 70s so you can use modern lenses on film bodies that have automatic aperture control, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Okay, that makes sense, thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Is this the best thread to ask about what type of camera to get? DSLR vs. mirror less etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I don't know, but I can save you a lot of time and effort of posting about it by predicting the recommendation you'll be given: Fuji XT(1,2 or 10), 18-55mm, 55-200mm, and 35mm f/2. Adapt an old tamron if you want a macro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Yeah looking at the Wirecutter's recommendations (I don't want a DSLR, used to have one and just found it was annoying to transport etc.) for P&S and mirrorless it looks like mirrorless is hands-down the way to go. Only exception is if you need something really small. Is that about right? The cheap mirrorless recommendations are the same price as the mid-range P&S. How restricted in lens would you be with Fujifilm? I've always been a Nikon person which have a huge range, but in reality I only used like 2-3 lens anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:Yeah looking at the Wirecutter's recommendations (I don't want a DSLR, used to have one and just found it was annoying to transport etc.) for P&S and mirrorless it looks like mirrorless is hands-down the way to go. Only exception is if you need something really small. Is that about right? The cheap mirrorless recommendations are the same price as the mid-range P&S. Mirrorless are DSLR, just without mirrors. They are about the size of P&S anyway and the quality is just as good as any mirrored DSLR. I'd go mirrorless, to be honest Fuji has some good mirrorless models and so does Sony. I've for a Sony a6000 and I love it, it works well for what I do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Mirrorless are DSLR, just without mirrors. They are about the size of P&S anyway and the quality is just as good as any mirrored DSLR. I'd go mirrorless, to be honest Fuji has some good mirrorless models and so does Sony. I've for a Sony a6000 and I love it, it works well for what I do. Technically, they are not DSLRs since to be an "SLR" it needs to have a reflex mirror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Technically, they are not DSLRs since to be an "SLR" it needs to have a reflex mirror. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
if I put a reversing ring on my 70-200 and mount my 50mm backwards on it doesn't that mean I have 2 lenses and thus I no longer have a DSLR?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
dakana posted:if I put a reversing ring on my 70-200 and mount my 50mm backwards on it doesn't that mean I have 2 lenses and thus I no longer have a DSLR? If I don't actually pay your mother for the sex that we had does that still make her a whore? really makes you think
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:If I don't actually pay your mother for the sex that we had does that still make her a whore? really makes you think
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Mirrorless are DSLR No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
From a format perspective they are, even if it's not an accurate description for what's going on inside. DSLR in this case is shorthand for 'has good sensor, interchangeable lenses and a full suite of capture controls. It's easier to describe mirrorless cameras as DSLRs in a compact body that are in permanent live-view mode than as compacts with all the nice things from DSLRs on top.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Or we could be adults and use the correct technical terms so we don't confuse people with approximations, because by your definition my 8x10 view camera is a DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:From a format perspective they are, even if it's not an accurate description for what's going on inside. DSLR in this case is shorthand for 'has good sensor, interchangeable lenses and a full suite of capture controls. It's easier to describe mirrorless cameras as DSLRs in a compact body that are in permanent live-view mode than as compacts with all the nice things from DSLRs on top. Look! My iPhone is a DSLR as well now thanks to interchangeable lenses! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Or we could be adults and use the correct technical terms so we don't confuse people with approximations, because by your definition my 8x10 view camera is a DSLR. What's the sensor like on that 8x10?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:What's the sensor like on that 8x10? They are good, but single use. You have to buy a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 21:09
|
|