Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 6, 2006, 12:07 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

(typo in subject line, actually shot on Dec 5, 2006)

Taken with E-300 and 50-200 Zuiko at 200mm. ShotRAW in manual mode, ISO 400, 1/400 sec at f11, then processed in Capture 1 LE with some tweeking of the curves in the RAW processor.I enlarged the resulting JPEGimage to 100% in Photoshop and cropped out to just the area around the moon, so this is a full, 100% sizedimage of the area of the frame justaround the moon. Didn't realize until after posting the E-1 file below that this image has a little too much of awarm cast to it.



Attached Images
 
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 6, 2006, 12:21 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

Same subject, same technical details, but this time shot with an E-1, hence the full-sized image is smaller due to the less resolution of the 5 MP sensor vs. the 8 MP sensor of the E-300. All I did was to eyeball the white balance, so yes, there is a difference. Just gives an idea of both the resolution difference of a 5MP vs. 8 MP sensor and the difference in performance at ISO 400 of the two cameras. Also goes to show the white balancedifference you can see easilyside by side, but isn't quite as easy to tell when you're working images at different times. I didn't hold both cameras the exact same way either, hence the two images are notmatching in terms of angle of view, even though they were taken only a few minutes apart.
Attached Images
 
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 9:41 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

-Greg

Great pictures Greg. Very nice ones those.

I was trying the same with the 40-150 lense. After about
20 shots I realized that E-500 was overexposing. I did manage
to get a decent one after using a much much higher shutter speed
than the camera metered for in Auto.

The white balance was quite good though.

Is it normal for a camera to overexpose a shot like that even if
you are using Spot metering ? Maybe the E* cameras with Spot-Hi
metering could solve that (... just a newbie pondering).

(Can't post it right now since the pictures still on the CF card)
gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 12:19 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

gaggu wrote:
Quote:
-Greg

Great pictures Greg. Very nice ones those.

I was trying the same with the 40-150 lense. After about
20 shots I realized that E-500 was overexposing. I did manage
to get a decent one after using a much much higher shutter speed
than the camera metered for in Auto.

The white balance was quite good though.

Is it normal for a camera to overexpose a shot like that even if
you are using Spot metering ? Maybe the E* cameras with Spot-Hi
metering could solve that (... just a newbie pondering).

(Can't post it right now since the pictures still on the CF card)
Hi gaggu,

I don't even bother with metering when shooting the moon. There's a classic tip of using the "sunny 16 rule" when shooting the moon, and it works every time, but I use more of what you'd call a "sunny 11 rule" instead. This is one subject where you get a better exposure by not using your cameras meter.

At ISO 400 I set my camera (manual mode)to 1/400 sec shutter speed. If I had used ISO 200 it would have been 1/200 and so on, and I set the aperture to f11 no matter the ISO. That is going to get you into the ballpark as far as a good exposure. With digital you can always check your LCD and if the image isn't quite perfect you can play with the f-stop setting.

Also, at ISO 400, if 1/400 sec is not a fast enough shutter speed for you to hold the camera steady enoughto get a good, sharp image, shoot it at 1/800 at f8, or 1/1600 at f5.6. All of those exposure combinations give the exact same exposure, all you're doing is doubling the shutter speed and openingthe aperture up one additional f-stop with each faster shutter speed. F11 is not really needed for a shot of the moon.You won't behaving depth of field issues with the moon at f5.6!
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 4:00 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Very nice shots Greg! Donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 4:38 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

Thanks a lot Greg for that

I remember someone mentioning those idioms earlier.
Are they from the book "Understanding Exposure" ?
It might be handy getting that book I wonder.

Thanks again Greg

Cheers,
--
Gaggu
gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2006, 5:21 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

gaggu wrote:
Quote:
Thanks a lot Greg for that

I remember someone mentioning those idioms earlier.
Are they from the book "Understanding Exposure" ?
It might be handy getting that book I wonder.

Thanks again Greg

Cheers,
--
Gaggu
Yes, I've seen the sunny 16 rule in many books, and used to practice it with mechanical, meterless cameras back when I shot film. It always was fun to see how many exposures I could get right without using a meter. Outdoors I always used 1/reciprocal of the ISO setting (1/500 at ISO 400), at f16 for sunny skies (but I almostalways used f11 instead), f8 for cloudy bright, f5.6 for overcast or backlit scenes, f4 for heavy overcast, then you'd adjust the settingsas needed for depth of field.


Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2006, 1:19 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

This exercise also convinced me I simple don't have the "reach" I want, so today I ordered the 1.4 Zuiko converter, which will turn the 200mm end of my 50-200 Zuiko into 280mm, oran equivalent of 560mm in 35mm terms. This is about where I used to be with my Canon outfit when I had the 100-400 Canon with it's 1.6 converted digital factor of 640mm, except the Canon had image stabilization, butI ambetting I will soon be able to buy an Olympus camera with in-camera image stabilization.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:16 PM.