Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:34 PM   #41
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That's only because your technique for taking those those images was *very* flawed (i.e., trying to tell members that a higher ISO speed gives you more detail by using a brighter exposure with the higher ISO speed setting).

No disrespect intended. But, I'd suggest reading a good book on basic photography (and it can even be an old book on film photography, as the same basic photography principles apply to both film and digital) to get a better understanding of how exposure works before trying to use those types of examples to prove a point, when your approach was absolutely wrong.

Your "simple" approach is going to mislead members, which is why I stepped into this thread to begin with.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:35 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

no I was try to show how iso will allow you to get a low light pic. If the d3000 max out at 3200, and if you want to take a picture hand held, anything more the 1/80 sec will induce allot of shake. If you have a camera that can do 6400 since it is faster film speed, it will allow you to get that photo with more details in extreme low light as those photos were meant to be.

I have taken classes during my collage days. We are in disagreement on demo technique and it is a dead end street. I have seen instructor use the same example, and granted they went on later to show further slides with what you are saying. IMHO it has merit, but it was a geezee moment for some during my school days.

Last edited by shoturtle; Dec 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:38 PM   #43
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You didn't show that. Your settings mislead members reading this thread by using a brighter exposure with the higher ISO speed image. If you would have used the correct shutter speeds and aperture for proper exposure with both ISO speed settings, the ISO 3200 photo would have been better.

I'm trying to be "nice", and explain what you're doing wrong. But, you're misleading members with flawed tests, and I'm not going to leave that kind of thing unchallenged.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:38 PM   #44
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

but that is not HOW higher ISO allows you to get a low light picture "better".
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:44 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Like in my orginal post, these were lousy picture, but looking at the two, which one more things the eye can see.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:45 PM   #46
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbords View Post
John, you mention that you currently use 50mm and 85mm lenses. Do you find that for portraits such as the one of your son, that's the most appropriate focal range? I have 2 children myself and as I'm sure you know, it's quite difficult to get close and have them sit still (which I would have to do with MF), and am curious if I would really need to go beyond 100mm in a lens.
For tight portraits - definitely 85mm ish. For environmental portraits (like the links you posted below) then 50mmish. But the benefit of that 50mm 1.8 is the low price point to get started. $400 is a lot for a lens (see below) but $110 aint bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbords View Post
Here's a link to some of the compositions I hope to be able to achieve. Aside from breaking the bank on compatible lenses for the D5000, is this type of subject isolation possible with some skill and the stock kit? http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/bokeh,d5000..
The shots in that link are taken with the 50mm 1.4 af-s lens (one of 2 short prime lenses I believe - the other being a sigma) that have a focus motor. You're not going to get those types of shots with a kit lens in ANY system.

That lens sells for $439. The canon version sells for $365. And now you see another difference between the systems - the nikon lenses at the higher end tend to be a bit pricier than Canon.

And that's the conundrum - buy the cheap nikon camera and you have to buy the expensive nikon lens. Pretty counter-productive from where I stand. But that's me. If you can either live without the shallow dof or are willing to jump into the $439 50mm 1.4 then the D5000 is OK. Otherwise you're giving up the ability to use a $110 50mm lens and the ability to use any 85mm lens.

decisions....decisions. Everything is a trade-off.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:46 PM   #47
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
Like in my orginal post, these were lousy picture, but looking at the two, which one more things the eye can see.
please reread Jim's posts that very clearly spell out the obvious flaws in this kind of logic
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:51 PM   #48
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
no I was try to show how iso will allow you to get a low light pic. If the d3000 max out at 3200, and if you want to take a picture hand held, anything more the 1/80 sec will induce allot of shake. If you have a camera that can do 6400 since it is faster film speed, it will allow you to get that photo with more details in extreme low light as those photos were meant to be.
That's not what you were demonstrating, or what you said in your last post, before you decided to edit it to try to defend your position, probably because I pointed out the reason you should use a higher ISO speed is to be able to use faster shutter speeds for a given aperture and lighting if blur from subject movement or camera shake is involved.

Instead, you were showing that a higher ISO speed gave more detail (but, only because you exposed it brighter), leading members to think a higher ISO speed would give you that (when the lower ISO speed images were underexposed compared to the higher ISO speed images)

Sorry, but, I'm going to have to call you on that. If your college courses led you to believe that higher ISO speed images would give you more detail (when you're obviously using a brighter exposure to make that assumption, especially given that you said the ISO 1600 images were even darker), I'd suggest finding a different course somewhere to get a better understanding of basic photography concepts.

You seem like a nice guy. Nothing personal, but your advise is *way* off.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:52 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
You didn't show that. Your settings mislead members reading this thread by using a brighter exposure with the higher ISO speed image. If you would have used the correct shutter speeds and aperture for proper exposure with both ISO speed settings, the ISO 3200 photo would have been better.

I'm trying to be "nice", and explain what you're doing wrong. But, you're misleading members with flawed tests, and I'm not going to leave that kind of thing unchallenged.
Yes, but this was a quick example of what film speed on a baseline example not a whole class.

But they saw the original photos, and then read what you said about iso in relation to time and f stop. I think it will make more sense. I should have posted more photo. I could have done better? Yes by taking couple of more pic with the different setting.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2009, 3:54 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I am not big on technical terms I apologized for that. I have made those term errors before. I will try to be more technical it the future.
shoturtle 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 12:19 PM.