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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 3, 2006, 2:47 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

ISO 1600 in daylight? You looking for 1/200000000 exposure? :lol:
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 2:52 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Default

First off....Thanks so much John. I am with you on the lense deal. I understand what you are telling me. Now when you are talking an ISO of 1600, I have no idea what you mean. Sorry. Now is that something that I will need to change on the camera when I am taking phots? I must asume that there are different ISO's for different shooting needs? I am sorry that I don't know very much. I do really appreciate your feedback. As I do want to make the right decision in a camera and lense selection while getting the most out of my money.

One more question that is a little off topic. Now do you know if any of the cameras you are talking about are good with black and white. Now I do know that I want a camera with Sepia. (I have no idea what Sepia is ) but I like the kind of old fashioned black and white with a little tint instead of just plain old monochrome.

Thanks so much for your time. You have no idea how much I appreciate your time,

Skee
Skee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 3:21 PM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

swgod98 wrote:
Quote:
ISO 1600 in daylight? You looking for 1/200000000 exposure? :lol:
Actually, if you read my post again I stated the following:

Quote:
But, don't kid yourself - even with those sports you'll use ISO 1600...
I didn't mention the term daylight. But, real life examples are always better. Here's a photo from a game this past spring: Taken at 4:47 pm in May - a reasonable game time for softball. The exif shows that it was aperture 2.8, ISO 1600 and shutter speed of 1/640. Not fast enough for freezing bat or ball but good for runners. 1/320 is not fast enough to freeze hand motion.



By 17:00, the the lighting had gotten to the point where I needed ISO 3200, 2.8 to get shutter speed of 1/800. Taken at ISO 1600, shutter speed would have been 1/400 - at ISO 800 - shutter would be 1/200 which is unacceptable to me:



Need another example? Here was a little league game from a couple weeks ago - played at 8:15 pm under lights. I was shooting ISO 1600 almost from the start - by 8:30 I had this shot: ISO 1600, f2.8 shutter 1/640:



Now, ignore the fact that if I only used ISO 800 speed would have dropped to 1/320. Even this shot is poor IMO because the bat motion wasn't frozen. Sure you could argue that some motion is good but I would argue THE PHOTOGRAPHER should make that choice - not a limitation of the equipment.

So, if you plan on shooting baseball / softball I can gaurantee you you'll be at a game where you need 1600. For what it's worth I had to shoot half the game in ISO 3200 with shutter speeds of 1/320

Following was ISO 3200 1/320 - hate to see the motion blur on this but 3200 was the best I could do - a good number of shots were unusable but I still salvaged about 200 - if I didn't have clean ISO 1600 performance I would have lost half of those shots as well


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 3:28 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Skee,

black & white and sepia - To be honest I don't use sepia but I prefer doing black and white conversions in post processing anyway - you can get much better results than any in-camera conversion. I honestly don't even know if the models have sepia or B&W modes - my honest advice would be to do that in post processing but perhaps others can say if these cameras have good B&W or sepia modes.

As for ISO - it's a reference back to film days and in today's digital world it references how reactive to light the sensor is. Exposure requires 3 parts: shutter speed, aperture and ISO. You can do a search to get details as this has been discussed in multiple threads. But the important thing to know is: a high ISO value allows you to maintain shutter speeds in lower light conditions. Each 'drop' in ISO (3200 to 1600 to 800 to 400 to 200 to 100) will cost you half your shutter speed (assuming aperture remains the same. So, If I have an aperture of 2.8, ISO of 3200 and shutter speed of 1/1000:

If I drop my ISO from 3200 to 1600 my shutter speed will go down to 1/500

If I drop my ISO down to 800, shutter speed drops to 1/250

Etc....
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 9:32 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Default

Those pictures look pretty darn good to me. I see the bat and pitcher arm blur, but it still looks like a good picture to me. What could you do to eliminate the blurr and show a perfect freeze of the bat or arm? Change lenses or even higher ISO?

I am ready for another lesson.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

Skee
Skee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 11:59 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

"What could you do to eliminate the blurr and show a perfect freeze of the bat or arm? Change lenses or even higher ISO?"

The only thing that will directly eliminate the blur is a faster shutter speed. But to get the faster spped, yes you could raise the ISO.

Think of it in terms of the impact on the light coming in. You double the shutter speed to eliminate the blur. Now if you change nothing else, you have half as much light, so your picture will be underexposed. So to get back to the same exposure, you need to either raise the ISO (which impacts how quickly the sensor absorbs light--in the film world this meant using a different film), or open the aperture farther. In this case he already had his aperture open to his maximum, 2.8. So his only choice left is to increase ISO.

Aperture sizes are measured by the "f-stop". You might have stops at f2.0, f2.8, f4.0, f5.6, f8.0. There are 2 things which are initially a bit confusing about f-stops. One is that the larger number represents a smaller number. Basically it's working like the denominator of a fraction, where for example 1/4 is smaller than 1/3. The other thing is that doubling the number means the opening is four times as small. That is because it's eally measuring the diameter of the circular opening. As a cicle's diameter doubles, it's area gets four times as large. But mainly, what you need to know is that each stop is doubling the opening. So in the example I gave, going from 4.0 to 2.8 doubles the size of the opening, and the amount of light getting in. Going from 2.8 to 2.0 doubles it again.

Typical ISO settings would be 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc. Note that here we are again doubling the amount of light being collected with each setting. And shutter speeds, the third measure you're adjusting, are easy to understand, as they're measured in seconds (or fractions of a second).

So the above example of the batter shot at:
ISO 1600, f2.8, shutter 1/640
Would have the same exposure at any of:
ISO 1600, f2.0, shutter 1/1280
ISO 3200, f2.8, shutter 1/1280
ISO 6400, f4.0, shutter 1/1280
ISO 800, f2.0, shutter 1/640
ISO 3200, f4.0, shutter 1/640
ISO 400, f2.0, shutter 1/320
ISO 800, f2.8, shutter 1/320
ISO 1600, f4.0, shutter 1/320

You should understand that the quicker shutter (1/1280) would show less blur, while the slower shutter (1/320) would show more blur. In the examples in which the shutter doesn't change, there might be one other noticeable difference in the picture that you might like to be aware of: depth of field. "Depth of field" refers to how much of the picture is in focus. That picture happens to be a very good example of narrow depth of field. If you look at the fence behind the batter, it's out of focus. This is typical when using a telephoto at a close distance. In the example above, suppose he's shooting with a 120mm lens from 50 feet. He might have a depth of field of under 6 feet, with maybe 3 feet behind the subject. If the fence is 5 feet back, it will be out of focus.

Using a smaller aperture will increase depth of field. So if he wanted that fence in focus, suppose he wanted to use an f-stop of 8.0--three stops above 2.8. I really wouldn't know how much that would change the depth of field (it depends on his equipment, lenses, and how far he was away), but it could easily give him a depth of field over 15 feet, which would be more than enough to get that fence in focus. Now in this example, that would require an unrealistic ISO of 12,800. But suppose he had taken that same picture mid day, when four times as much natural light was available. He might have gotten the original with an ISO of 400 (1/4 of what he used). With an aperture of f8, he might require an ISO of 3200. Another example of where you might want to use higher ISOs even in midday. Often you might like the narrow depth of field, keeping attention on the subject. But, as with the motion blur, it's sometimes nice to have an option.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2006, 4:42 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 10
Default

Wow!! Thanks for all of that information. That was a lot to take in for a new guy. Man taking good pictures seems intimidating. Well, hopefully with a little practice I will be able to get the hang of it. I guess the good thing about digital, is that you can see your picture now and know if you have the right settings.

Thanks again,

Skee
Skee 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 5:14 PM.