The Learning Curve

[Pea-n-Me]

In this case, changing the ISO to 400 and keeping your f/stop the same would have given you a 1/80th shutter speed.

OK, so adjusting the ISO [as part of the exposure triangle] makes sense because I know I can't exactly adjust the shutter speed directly when in Aperture Priority mode.

I'm seeing that maybe my problem is that I should pay more attention to the numbers I'm seeing, shutter numbers in particular (I tend to look more at ISO and aperture exclusively). Another mistake I probably make is just taking a quick glance in the LCD screen to see how the picture looks after I take it and then later see that it may not be as sharp as I'd like it or whatever. Frustrating. Another thing I know I need to do is pay more attention to other things as well like the histogram. Bringing it all together I guess just takes time.

Thanks for your help in understanding. I wish I didn't already delete some of the worse pictures of the series. I think when I stared the session I got some that were overexposed, underexposed, blurry, etc, which made me adjust the settings until I got what I thought was a decent shot.

Some of you guys make this look so easy!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think the lens you were using was fine. If you were using a wider lens you wouldn't have gotten that great closeup portrait.

This confuses me a little bit. I thought that primes were good for portraits?

 

[handicap18]

This confuses me a little bit. I thought that primes were good for portraits?

They are. However what is just as important is focal length. I think you mentioned you might have used a 24mm prime. That is fine, but the image you would have gotten would have been alot wider than the one with your 50-150 at 119mm. To get the same you probably would have to have gotten so close to the bird that it might not have been to comfortable for either of you.

In film days a popular prime lens for portraits was the 85 or 90mm. That is why with the Nikon, Canon and Pentax bodies the 50mm is good. Its field of view is 75mm. With Olympus probably a 40mm or so would be a good prime lens for portraits. But these are just a base to start. Generally you don't want to be to close to your subject for a portrait. I would say your 24mm would be a good general purpose as it give you a 48mm field of view. Which is about what you would have wanted in film days and just about what the human eye see's at.

I would definitely be paying attention to all 3 (ISO, Shutter and Aperture). They are all just as important. Can't have one without the other.

Keep up the practice and things will come together before you know it.

 

[DebºoºS]

Another mistake I probably make is just taking a quick glance in the LCD screen to see how the picture looks after I take it and then later see that it may not be as sharp as I'd like it or whatever.

This is a real problem for everyone. Unfortunately, the LCD screen playback can only give you a general idea of what your shot will look like and quite literally in bright light. There usually isn't enough time to look at the histogram, highlights etc. anyway. By the time I look at all that stuff if I can see it outside I've lost the shot. If it's a still life or a model sitting there not going anywhere then I'll take the time to be sure.

 

[dr_zero]

I like my 70-210 for just about everything I shoot nowadays I can get in close without being close to the person or animal or bug! & with it I can adjust how much of the frame I fill and don't have to move from my light.

I found a article on portrait work and it has this to say.
http://photo.net/learn/portraits/?

With a Canon or Nikon, most professionals end up using their 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 zooms as portrait lenses. These 3 lb. monsters aren't very pleasant to handhold, though, and if you know that you're only going to do portraits, you're better off with a prime lens. Prime lenses are lighter and give better image quality. Unfortunately, the prime lens in this range that a serious photographer is most likely to own is the 100 or 105 macro. These are very high quality optically but difficult to focus precisely since most of the focusing helical precision is reserved for the macro range. Here are some great portrait lenses:

* Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, $1745 (review) or, if you're on a budget, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, $355 (review)
* Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM, $410 (review)
* Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM, $935
* Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor, $1000 or Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor, $408
* Nikon 105mm f/2.0D AF DC-Nikkor, $900
* Nikon 135mm f/2.0D AF DC-Nikkor, $1159

What if you're using a small-sensor digital SLR, such as any of the Nikons or the Canon Digital Rebel? In that case, an inexpensive 50/1.8 will function as a very usable portrait lens, roughly equivalent to the 85/1.8 short portrait lenses that are popular on full-frame cameras. Note that the background will not be as blurred as it would be with the longer lens.

* Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, $80 (review) or, if you're feeling rich, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, $325 (review)
* Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor, $115

These Dis folks are right on the money

 

[wenrob]

I was going to buy the Nikkor 55mm f/1.8 but then read it wouldn't auto focus on my D40. I keep wondering if it's worth it anyway. Any thoughts?

 

[handicap18]

I was going to buy the Nikkor 55mm f/1.8 but then read it wouldn't auto focus on my D40. I keep wondering if it's worth it anyway. Any thoughts?

I'd save up more for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or wait for Sigma to finally release their 50mm f/1.4. No word on a price on that on yet. Initial pre-order price on many web sites is $499, but there is no possible way that will end up being the final selling price once it is finally available. Nikon and Canon 50mm f/1.4's are each under $400 and Pentax is around $250. So if it stays at $499, Sigma wont sell any.

I have the 30mm f/1.4 and love it. I don't use it as often as should. But every now and then I'll take it out and use it as a general purpose walk around lens. Its a nice focal length and pretty sharp from 2.8 to 11.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I came across this and thought I would include it here:

Illustration of Digital Camera Sensor Sizes

 

[Dcanoli]

Okay, so after reading the last page of posts, let me throw another curve in....

1. I have a Pentax 100D.
2. Two lenses--(1) 18-55mm kit & (2) 50-200mm

Now, talking "portraits" (in quotes) and Walt Disney World at night. If you watch the POTD thread, you can see that GDAD posts a lot of fantastic night, still shots.

I know he is shooting with the Nikon 300, but what about us mere peons that don't have the cash for the bigger cameras or multiple lenses.

We've had this discussion on the photo. board before, but let's address it again since we are dealing w/"portraits" and still shots.

IN GENERAL, what is the consensus among everyone for WALT DISNEY PARK shots at night or in low-light situations? Would you use a 50mm prime or a 30mm prime?

I know the f/stops are different as are the wide angle perspectives. Do you feel there is an advantage of one lenses over the other?

...and what about brand loyalty? I notice that a lot of people really like Sigma's lenses...

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

and what about brand loyalty? I notice that a lot of people really like Sigma's lenses...

I've heard some really good things about the Sigma 30mm but others say it may have focusing issues....at least on the Olympus camera's

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

IN GENERAL, what is the consensus among everyone for WALT DISNEY PARK shots at night or in low-light situations? Would you use a 50mm prime or a 30mm prime?

I know the f/stops are different as are the wide angle perspectives. Do you feel there is an advantage of one lenses over the other?

...and what about brand loyalty? I notice that a lot of people really like Sigma's lenses...

I use a 50mm 1.8. The biggest difference will be how wide the photo will be and price. You'd have to step back for certain shots. For the price, the 50mm is great!

I've heard some really good things about the Sigma 30mm but others say it may have focusing issues....at least on the Olympus camera's

I've heard the same about the Sigma for Nikon users as well. I think in general, it's a good idea to try out any 3rd party lens in person if at all possible. If Ritz has them in stock, they let you try it on your own camera. I've heard of front and back focusing issues. The users send them to Sigma to calibrate for their camera and then it usually works fine. I've heard of some people getting it calibrated for say a D80 and then later having to get it recalibrated for a D300. Weird --Different cameras but same brand so??? Strange, but that's what I've heard in other photo forums.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I was going to buy the Nikkor 55mm f/1.8 but then read it wouldn't auto focus on my D40. I keep wondering if it's worth it anyway. Any thoughts?

I use my 50mm 1.8 almost exclusively in Manual mode. I rarely will AF w/ it. I have the D80 and take a lot of extremely low light photos in nightclubs and concert settings. If I am not in really low light conditions, then I use Shutter priority mode using AF. I've found that shooting in Manual mode has helped me to learn a lot about my camera and how the various settings affect one another. It probably has increased my learning curve quite a bit (as in it probably took me longer to get decent shots ) but at least I learned a bit from my mistakes along the way.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

In film days a popular prime lens for portraits was the 85 or 90mm. That is why with the Nikon, Canon and Pentax bodies the 50mm is good. Its field of view is 75mm.

I would say your 24mm would be a good general purpose as it give you a 48mm field of view.

It may seem picky, but I would save "It's field of view is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera" or "...it gives you a field view equivalent to a 48mm lens on a 35mm film camera." Field of view is an angular measure (so many degrees out of 360 possible degrees). When we give it in terms of mm, we are usually talking about the field of view you would have with a lens of that focal length. The problem with that is that the field of view for any given focal length depends on the sensor size. Back when almost everyone used 35mm film, you could ignore that.

People who shot 35mm film got used to thinking in terms of the field of view of their 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, etc lenses. Today, most reviews and discussions convert things into their 35mm equivalents because it is a frame of reference that they are used to. For people that never shot 35mm, it doesn't really add much value. My preference would be that people just use the actual angle when discussion FOV. So a 50mm lens on a Pentax DSLR would have a horizontal FOV of 25 degrees.

IN GENERAL, what is the consensus among everyone for WALT DISNEY PARK shots at night or in low-light situations? Would you use a 50mm prime or a 30mm prime?

I know the f/stops are different as are the wide angle perspectives. Do you feel there is an advantage of one lenses over the other?

For low light, the focal length (30mm vs 50mm) doesn't matter that much. The main thing is having a lens with a wide aperture (low f-stop number). The wide aperture let's you use a faster shutter speed.

The difference between 30mm and 50mm is the field of view. With a 30mm lens, you'll see a wider area than with a 50mm lens, but everything will be smaller. It's like the difference between being zoomed out or zoomed in just a little on your video camera. Which is better depends on whether you are trying to take pictures with a wide view or whether you are trying to make things look closer.

Using a 50mm lens on a typical DSLR (K10D, D40, Rebel), if you take a picture of something 20 feet away from you, your picture will cover an area about 9-10 feet wide. If you take a picture of something 40 feet away, it will cover an area 18-20 feet wide. Using a 30mm lens on the same camera, a picture of a subject 20 feet away will cover an area 15-16 feet wide. In other words, a 30mm lens will capture an area about half again as large, but everything will be correspondingly smaller.

One advantage that the 30mm has at night is that because everything is smaller, movements are also so smaller. That means that you should see a bit less blur because the motion blur is not magnified quite as much.

 

[handicap18]

It may seem picky, but I would save "It's field of view is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera" or "...it gives you a field view equivalent to a 48mm lens on a 35mm film camera." Field of view is an angular measure (so many degrees out of 360 possible degrees). When we give it in terms of mm, we are usually talking about the field of view you would have with a lens of that focal length. The problem with that is that the field of view for any given focal length depends on the sensor size. Back when almost everyone used 35mm film, you could ignore that.

People who shot 35mm film got used to thinking in terms of the field of view of their 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, etc lenses. Today, most reviews and discussions convert things into their 35mm equivalents because it is a frame of reference that they are used to. For people that never shot 35mm, it doesn't really add much value. My preference would be that people just use the actual angle when discussion FOV. So a 50mm lens on a Pentax DSLR would have a horizontal FOV of 25 degrees.

Your right Mark. I've been struggling a bit on the crop vs ff focal length issue because of what you point out. There are a lot of people who are new to SLR photography because of digital.

The part I struggle with mostly is when defining (or trying at least) what the human eye see's at. It is around the 50mm length. However, you can't put that into crop terms because the field of view is now different on a crop body even though the actual focal length doesn't change. So to get the field of view (camera speaking) of the human eye you need a 30mm (or so) lens, even though the human eye is closer to 50mm. So then now, what happens in 10 years (maybe sooner) when FF bodies are much more affordable and people start upgrading. At that point they're going to have to know the differences. People can relate a lot easier (IMO) to the focal lengths mm because that is something that can easily been seen. Thats how lenses are marked. I think its harder to quantify degree's when comparing lenses. Its not marked on the lens and its not listed in the EXIF data.

Less than 10 years ago Nikon came out with a dSLR that was $6,000. It is a crop body and only 2.7MP. Now there are entry level 10MP crop bodies for $500 and they have a 12MP FF body for less than $3,000. Its only a matter of time for an entry level FF body.

 

[Dcanoli]

Hey Kyle,

Just popping in to say thank you for the link. I'm in the middle of going thru the pictures.

Beautiful shots. (I'm surprised you are not posting them on the Picture of the Day thread.)

They are good candidates for a 30mm lens.

ITA w/your above post. It is hard to believe how much things have changed/dropped in the last year alone.

Last year, after much research and help from these boards, I bought a digital SLR (and sold my two film ones). I opted for the Pentax K100D (a mere 6 MP). Then, this year--in fact a few months ago--Nikon dropped the price on their 40D to the same thing I paid for my Pentax.

..and now, you can get 10MPs for around the same price as what I paid for my 6.

You just can't keep up.....it's a never-ending battle, and with two kids and a household to run, you work with what you got!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Your right Mark. I've been struggling a bit on the crop vs ff focal length issue because of what you point out. There are a lot of people who are new to SLR photography because of digital.

The part I struggle with mostly is when defining (or trying at least) what the human eye see's at. It is around the 50mm length. However, you can't put that into crop terms because the field of view is now different on a crop body even though the actual focal length doesn't change. So to get the field of view (camera speaking) of the human eye you need a 30mm (or so) lens, even though the human eye is closer to 50mm. So then now, what happens in 10 years (maybe sooner) when FF bodies are much more affordable and people start upgrading. At that point they're going to have to know the differences. People can relate a lot easier (IMO) to the focal lengths mm because that is something that can easily been seen. Thats how lenses are marked. I think its harder to quantify degree's when comparing lenses. Its not marked on the lens and its not listed in the EXIF data.

Less than 10 years ago Nikon came out with a dSLR that was $6,000. It is a crop body and only 2.7MP. Now there are entry level 10MP crop bodies for $500 and they have a 12MP FF body for less than $3,000. Its only a matter of time for an entry level FF body.

Many people are so accustomed to 35mm photography that you've come to see it as some sort of natural standard. That's not the case.

Let's take the example of the human eye. An eye is typically about 1 inch or 25mm deep. Not having a telephoto group, the focal length of the eye cannot be greater than it's length. So an eye cannot possibly have a focal length of 50mm.

What is typically said is that the eye has the same field of view as a 50mm on a 35mm film camera. Even that is an oversimplification because the eye's field of view is rather hard to ascertain as our vision falls off rather gradually towards the edges. You can perceive motion in a very wide field of view but can only accurately assess color in a much narrower field.

The important thing is that knowing a focal length (50mm, 30mm, etc) doesn't tell you the field of view. You need to also know the sensor size. There is nothing special about the size of a 35mm piece of film other than Thomas Edison started using that size for his motion picture film back in the 19th century and it has been somewhat an standard since then.

I honestly don't think that we'll ever see 35mm film sized sensors become the norm in photography again. There are significant advantages to smaller sensors. They are cheaper to produce. They can be used with smaller and lighter cameras and lenses. They provide greater DOF. There are drawbacks (lower resolving power, greater susceptibility to noise, and less control over DOF), but current APS-C sized sensors already deal with these issues in a way that most find more than satisfactory. I don't see a significant enough difference for most people to pay the extra cost and deal with the extra size necessary to shoot with a larger sensor than the common APS-C sensors that dominate the DSLR market.

My guess is that in 10 years, people using "full frame" cameras will be doing the opposite translation. They'll say that they are using a 50mm lens, which is 30mm equivalent for a "normal" DSLR. That will only happen if the market stays dominated by APS-C sized sensors, which I suspect will be the case.

If the market fragmentation between 4/3s, APS-C, FF, etc continues, the use of focal lengths as a short hand for FOV will become increasingly difficult. It won't make any sense to tell someone using an APS-C size camera that their 30mm lens has a field of view equivalent to 50mm on some format they've never used.

On the other hand, adding degrees of FOV to lenses would cause another problem. The maker doesn't know what size sensor the lens will be used on.

We could go on referencing full frame equivalents, but that's going to just confuse newbies. When you tell them that 100mm is a good focal length for portraits, they'll buy a 100mm lens and wonder why portrait shoots must stand so darned far away from their subjects.

Oh well, there is a limit to how much you can simplify a relatively complex subject.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

On the subject of FOV, I am looking at making a web app that will help some. I'm not sure how hard it will be, so I don't know whether I'll actually do it. Here is the gist.

When you go to my FOV page, you'll see an embedded google maps window. The map will be most useful in Satellite view mode. You zoom it to the place you are interested in. You also put a little marker where you intend to stand. You place a second marker showing what you are focusing on. To give a more concrete example, you might mark on the map that you'll be standing right at the end of Main Street in the Magic Kingdom and you'll mark that you are facing Cinderella's Castle.

Now you pick what camera you are using (or what sensor size your camera has) and what lens you are using and what aperture you are using.

The web page will then draw lines showing you the minimum and maximum angle of view for that lens. It will also show the DOF.

The main point of the page will be to help people understand what they'll be able to see with their camera/lens combination. Secondarily, it will help them understand DOF a bit better as well.

If I actually took the time to create this, do you think it would be useful? Or am I overgeeking things again?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

We could go on referencing full frame equivalents, but that's going to just confuse newbies.

Hey, it's one of the things I understand!

(I'm actually pretty good with understanding theory; my biggest problem is applying theory to practice. )

If I actually took the time to create this, do you think it would be useful?

Of course. Your threads are always helpful. They may be a little over people's heads sometimes but we kind of "grow into them" as we get better. That's why it's nice to have them referenced.

Appreciate everyone's input.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I had a tip that might be helpful to some of us newbies.

I was taking some shots in the city the other night (using Aperture and Shutter Priority modes) and I was having some difficulty choosing settings.

I switched to Auto to see what settings the camera itself would pick, then used those as a guideline for myself. It saved a little bit of time and frustration.

Anyone else have any seemingly simple tips that other could benefit from? Come on, we're all learning!

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Anyone else have any seemingly simple tips that other could benefit from? Come on, we're all learning!

Yes. when shooting at night always use a tripod or some camera support. I found that out last night. Out of the numerous hand held pics I took, 2 looked half way decent