Aperture Priority, keeping the shutter speed equal to the focal length
Rick
problem at times is I'm so focused on my aperture, my shutter speed
falls to 1/30 or lower, resulting in some blurred shots. I know there
is another rule to keep the shutter speed at your focal length, In
this case should be at 1/150 (using crop sensor camera), confused,
should I be more concerned with shutter speed? How to obtain an equal
balance shutter/aperture.
Thanks, Rick
J�rgen Exner
>As an example I'm using aperture priority, hand held, 100mm lens. My
>problem at times is I'm so focused on my aperture, my shutter speed
>falls to 1/30 or lower, resulting in some blurred shots.
Well, yes, that is what aperture priority does: it locks in the aperture
to whatever you set it to and then adjusts only the shutter speed (and
ISO) as needed.
>I know there
>is another rule to keep the shutter speed at your focal length, In
>this case should be at 1/150 (using crop sensor camera), confused,
>should I be more concerned with shutter speed? How to obtain an equal
>balance shutter/aperture.
Every non-trivial camera I have ever owned had a mode that automatically
controls shutter speed and aperture and balances them out. Different
manufacturers call them differently but look for e.g. "Automatic" or
"Progam" mode in your user manual.
jue
Troy Piggins
If you want to continue using Av mode, just play with the ISO
(increase it) to get the shutter speeds you want. And/or widen
the aperture (make the f-number go down). When you half-press
the shutter button the expected shutter speed should show up in
the viewfinder.
You need to decide what is more important to you, aperture or
shutter speed. This will depend on what you are shooting. If
shutter speed is more important, maybe try Tv mode?
Alternatively, and giving you full control over everything, is
shoot full Manual mode. You chose the shutter speed, you choose
the aperture.
--
Troy Piggins
nospam
<7d14b129-5637-4f04...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Rick <rpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
enable auto-iso and set 1/150th (or whatever speed you need) as the
minimum acceptable shutter speed. when the shutter speed gets that low,
the camera will start raising the iso instead of lowering the shutter
speed beyond the limit you set.
me
wrote:
If you happen to be using a Nikon look into using Autoiso along with
aperture priority. Allows you to set a min shutter speed and a max iso
value.
Paul
"Rick" <rpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d14b129-5637-4f04...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why not use shutter priority, set the minimum shutter speed you need, and
let the aperture fall where it will?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Rick
> "Rick" <rpal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have a Nikon D300s and Canon 7D - I understand Auto ISO and using
shutter priority. I'm just curious why when shooting non sports, most
photographers use Aperture Mode, but do they maintain the shutter
speed to the lens focal length? I would think there are many
situations when you want f/8 and shutter speed of 1/150 - but the
lighting/environment doesn't allow this config - without boosting the
ISO, what should you alter the Aperture or Shutter. Many times the 2
rules don't allow much overlap. I'm just a little confused listening
to podcasts, saying they shoot aperture priority, but watch you speed
(why not just use shutter then)
Paul Furman
If depth of field is an issue in the shot, then it often can be a pretty
big deal. The wording in the title suggests locking shutter speed at the
focal length but I think he understands that's not quite the right
story. "Shutter no slower than focal length" is the rule for hand held.
I shoot aperture priority because that's usually my first priority; to
have control over the DOF. Shutter speed can be anything as long as it's
not too slow to hand hold. So, I still need to watch the shutter speed
and decide whether to adjust ISO or aperture when it becomes too slow to
hand hold.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Wilba
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not use shutter priority, set the minimum shutter speed you need,
>>> and let the aperture fall where it will?
>>
>> If depth of field is an issue in the shot, then it often can be a pretty
>> big deal. The wording in the title suggests locking shutter speed at the
>> focal length but I think he understands that's not quite the right
>> story. "Shutter no slower than focal length" is the rule for hand held.
>> I shoot aperture priority because that's usually my first priority; to
>> have control over the DOF. Shutter speed can be anything as long as it's
>> not too slow to hand hold. So, I still need to watch the shutter speed
>> and decide whether to adjust ISO or aperture when it becomes too slow
>> to hand hold.
>
There are no rules, since the ability to hold a camera steady varies so much
between individuals. "Shutter no slower than focal length" is probably
reasonably safe for the average newby using an non-stabilized 35mm camera
for prints smaller than 10x8 viewed uncritically.
To adapt that guideline for APS-C cameras you'd apply the crop factor -
shutter no slower than the focal length x crop factor.
For stabilised bodies or lenses, you'd have to experiment to see how much
advantage you get from the stabilization. For instance, most Canon IS lenses
will give you 2 or 3 steps advantage over what you can do without it (if you
can get 90% of your shots "sharp" at 1/125th with an EF-S 55-250 @ 100mm
with IS off, you'll probably get a similar percentage sharp at 1/15th with
IS on).
John Sheehy
news:tkn2j51pplenbt4rj...@4ax.com:
> I know that on my Pentax I have a TA mode that lets me fix the
> exposure time and aperture, leaving the ISO to the camera. It does let
> me set the ISO range as well.
Unless you had some other feature which allows the shutter speed to
increase if the ISO can't go low enough to avoid a clipping disaster, I
wouldn't set a minimum ISO for auto-ISO in manual (or TAv, as it is known
on Pentaxes). Maximum I'd set, if my camera had it, only for one reason
- because limiting the max ISO allows TAv to under-expose at the max ISO,
which usually does not increase noise vs the same TAv values at a higher
ISO, and gives highlight headroom, something you can appreciate when
shooting at night where harsh lighting is also in the scene, much
brighter than the main subject.
That was for manual exposure, though (manual Av and Tv). For Av-Priority
with auto-ISO, setting a minimum shutter speed has the value of forcing
higher shutter speeds, so the camera doesn't attempt to do base ISO with
a poor shutter speed.
Ideally, cameras would allow users to design their own program modes.
The most basic method would be to allow the user to make a table of ISO,
Tv, and Av (and optionally, flash EC) values for every absolute metered
EV value (as adjusted by EC). When I do a certain type of shooting, with
a certain lens, these parameters are fairly deterministic, and I don't
need to be bothered with the choices most of the time. The tables could
get fancier, by using variables, like focal length, for zoom lenses.
Simpler (not to me, but to the manufacturers' conservative, tiny brains)
and more likely to be implemented in the near future would simply be a
means to tell the camera things like the fact that you want a particular
lens to favor an f/stop, and stay within the range of two f-stops, same
with shutter speed, for when these parameters are automated. These are
already implemented to some degree on some cameras. Canon users seem to
be the last in line for useful features like this; Canon management is
still flabbergasted that the cameras can change ISO manually without
changing film, and have no vision.
John Sheehy
news:hgtthe$3d3$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
> Why not use shutter priority, set the minimum shutter speed you need,
> and let the aperture fall where it will?
That's kind of dangerous, too. f/22 or greater will soften the image, and
sharpen the sensor dirt. Wide open may be much softer, with uglier bokeh,
than just 2/3 stop down. There is a very narrow range in which I prefer my
lenses to operate, most of the time. DOF is also a very important creative
parameter.
What is needed is more complex automation, where the user can plan to avoid
disasters.
NameHere
Well, hell. If all you are after is the most automated camera on earth, why
don't you wish for an AI "smart camera" that learns your shooting styles?
After about a week of playing with your new "smart camera" it should know
most every type of snapshot you'll ever take in your life. It'll be the
last P&S DSLR camera you'd ever need. Yes, your cameras might all look like
DSLRs, but I hardly see anyone vying to use them as real cameras. They just
want an expensive P&S camera, that's all it is. Why don't you ask them to
design a camera that's ambulatory too. Turn it on and send it out the door
for the day. Then you can sort through its snapshots just like everyone
does to see if they got anything good that day, with the same amount of
forethought. Actually, your super P&S DSLR camera might actually have more
forethought than the "photographer". You do, after all, buy your DSLR with
the "intelligent" metering modes in them don't you? You know, the built-in
database of the most common snapshots taken so it knows how to adjust
exposure for you. Because, heavens forbid, you should know to overexpose in
the snow and sands, or underexpose that person on stage in a spot light or
that sunset to retain the colors. That's too complex for today's
"photographer" to keep those things in mind, isn't it. It should even
decide what shutter speed depending on your hand-held skills.
Unfortunately, I can shoot hand-held tack-sharp shots at 3 to 5 stops more
than the typical 1/FL shutter speed rule. So I'd just turn off that feature
anyway. I have no need for a P&S DSLR.
NameHere
What is needed is a talented person with a functioning mind that is holding
any camera. They used to call them "photographers". Ever hear of them? They
don't need a camera that will save them from their own disasters. They know
how to prevent disasters in the first place.
Robert Coe
Well, yes, but if the guy is really that much of a newbie, he needs to
understand that on many cameras (including all Canons that I've ever used)
the "Automatic" and "Program" modes differ in several important respects.
Bob
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> What is needed is more complex automation, where the user can plan to avoid
> disasters.
If you think so, you should want (and start to lobby for)
a free-as-in-speech-not-as-in-beer and open camera, where you
(or someone you pay or entice otherwise) can program in just the
behaviour you want, no matter how complex and unique it may be[1] ---
just as you'd be fully free to change the menu to anything you want
(don't need it? replace it with a breakout game, for example)
or re-asign the buttons to your specific wants.
-Wolfgang
[1] Bind the behaviour to the metering? Tie the solution to
whatever shooting situation the camera detects? Set minimum
shutter to 1/60s whenever the face detection records 2 or
3 faces, but to 1/300s when there's just one face and it's
moving in such-and-such ways?
Catch Up!
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>John Sheehy <J...@no.komm> wrote:
>
>> What is needed is more complex automation, where the user can plan to avoid
>> disasters.
>
>If you think so, you should want (and start to lobby for)
>a free-as-in-speech-not-as-in-beer and open camera, where you
>(or someone you pay or entice otherwise) can program in just the
>behaviour you want, no matter how complex and unique it may be[1] ---
>just as you'd be fully free to change the menu to anything you want
>(don't need it? replace it with a breakout game, for example)
>or re-asign the buttons to your specific wants.
>
Already been done: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> What is needed is more complex automation, where the user can plan to avoid
>>> disasters.
>>If you think so, you should want (and start to lobby for)
>>a free-as-in-speech-not-as-in-beer and open camera, where you
>>(or someone you pay or entice otherwise) can program in just the
>>behaviour you want, no matter how complex and unique it may be[1] ---
>>just as you'd be fully free to change the menu to anything you want
>>(don't need it? replace it with a breakout game, for example)
>>or re-asign the buttons to your specific wants.
> Already been done: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
A hack that works by guessing (sometimes even correctly))
funktions of the camera system counts as much for a open camera
as an anthill counts as a sky scraper. Even if ants disagree.
And even if it's a pretty hack.
-Wolfgang
PS: show me the CHDK-camera where you can use the sensor-shift-IS
to shift images and the CHDK-camera that produces 21 stellar
(not tiny mushy ones) megapixels without any visible noise, at
ISO 1600 (yes, I know the "Serious photographers Only Use Iso
20 Or 10 Or 5" lie!) --- and that at 14 (35mm-equivalent!) mm
focal length. Without any 'converter' --- I can add any
converter you care to add just as well --- and I have the
better starting point already. And don't claim your usual lie
that the converter doesn't cause image deagrdation. If it's
not visible with your camera, blame your camera for bad optics
(yes, they are 'diffration limited' i.e. you cannot even get
them good enough (due to physical limits) to show the problem
--- that takes a real camera. A pinhole is inherently soft
and bad for most all photography --- and diffraction limited.)
PPS: plonk another slime identity.
John Sheehy
news:uo0217-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:
Sure; there's no limit if you can control everything yourself. You could
even have a sensor in the camera to tell if you're panning, when Tv is
floating. Focus distance could be used along with focal length for Tv
values as well. For people with f/4 500 and 600mm lenses, the preferred
Av could shift from f/4 to f/8 or more when a subject is very close, etc.
All the things you were going to do anyway. We're not all caught up in
the bravado of doing repetitive, deterministic tasks ourselves,
regardless of what others might feel.
John Sheehy
news:oghtj5p9hjal44jh1...@4ax.com:
> Already been done: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
I forgot all about that. Last time I looked at that, I didn't own any
supported cameras, but now I see the G9 on the list. I think the last time
I looked all it was doing was writing RAW data for cameras that didn't have
RAW. Time to experiment! I'm sure the level of control isn't as much as
we were talking about.
The G9's ISO above 80 are just fluff; I get slightly better results under-
exposing ISO 100 4 stops than I do with 1600. It would be nice to be able
to modify the camera so that it used ISO 80 gain and digitization under the
hood for everything; then, high-ISO RAW files would be smaller, and have
the same DR as ISO 80, with slightly less read noise. Win-win-win. When
you think about it, the people at Canon must be either very inconsiderate,
or very dumb. Could it be that no one at Canon ever realized that ISOs
above 80 would best be done without any additional gain? Could it be that
there would be less read noise, too, if the gain were not variable?
How about moving the sensor with the IS to create in-between-pixel extra
shots for higher resolution?
We are prisoners. The people with the power to move things along are too
busy counting their loot and marketing to tourists.