User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/12/2017 10:50:59 PM EDT
I understand ISO. I understand the shutter speed.
But aperture? I am lost. How much to use and when, and its frustrating. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2017 11:09:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Aperture is a hose. The lower the number, the more "light" can flow thru the hose into the camera. You have to balance ISO to the light and shutter speed, based on what you are trying to achieve.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2017 11:15:50 PM EDT
[#2]
the aperture controls the amount of light that strikes your sensor and controls the depth of field in your image.
apertures are measured in f stops. They are: 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22 (your camera also probably has 1/2 and 1/3 stops between those numbers above) an f-stop of 4 allows in half as much light as f/2 5.6 allows in half as much light as f/4 If you adjust your aperture by one stop (from 4 to 5.6, for example) it has the same impact as doubling your shutter speed but there's also the depth of field issue with a large aperture (low number) your depth of field is narrow... a small slice of your image will be in focus with a small aperture (high number) you have more depth of field and more of your image is in focus 
does that help? for landscape photography, you *generally* want smaller apertures (higher numbers) like f/11. you also generally want to shoot landscapes at slower shutter speeds, ideally on a tripod |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2017 11:38:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Do you want shallow depth of field? Go wide. Want the entire panorama sharp? Stop it down. Adjust shutter and ISO to achieve the exposure you want. For landscapes, use a tripod and crank that shutter way down if needed.
You might want to draw attention to a particular part of your nature shot, look to larger apertures. However, I've found that for true wide-open landscape shots with short lenses aperture is really more light control than depth of field control. Wide lenses have inherent (or is it apparent?) deep DOF, so adjusting aperture for whatever shutter and ISO you have to get your correct exposure is more the purpose than to have shallow focus. Here's a landscape at 11mm, f/2.8  DSC_3326-Sunset Storm3 by FredMan, on Flickr
11mm, f/9  DSC_6758-CailliePatio by FredMan, on Flickr
11mm, f/22  Pond Intra Cloud Lightning by FredMan, on Flickr
I typically use the widest aperture I can (and focus at infinity) for landscapes, unless there's some immediate foreground object I really want to emphasize. With short lenses. Longer focal lengths I'll stop down to get better DOF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 4:23:19 AM EDT
[#4]
The guys have already pretty much nailed it. I will add that depending on what you want to do, stopping way down can be bad too. Every lens has a spot that is their peak sharpness at that focal length. It varies on the combination of camera and lens, and their quirks, but it is something important to know. Case in point, my 70-300 peak sharpness is between f/9-11 depending on how far I zoom. When I threw it on a D810 (it is a full frame lens) that turned to f/8-9.
Now mind you, unless having razor sharp images is super important, it is a non issue usually. It is something worth mentioning though. Also, Fred when was the last time you cleaned that lens? (I'm just freaking OCD about dust on/in my gear)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:56:18 AM EDT
[#5]
I apparently forgot to set this to not archive
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_121/1909746_.html&page=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 11:26:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Thanks guys.
So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 12:14:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 12:32:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Generally (but not always...sometimes guys use them just to hold the camera in the same place) a tripod is used to steady the camera when you need a relatively slow shutter speed. That could be in low light, or it could be on a bright day. For instance, on a bright sunny day, you may want to use a slow shutter speed when shooting water features (waterfall, river, etc.) to get the "flowing water" effect. Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? It may or may not matter. He said IF you need a slow shutter speed. Use whatever shutter speed you want (or need), to capture the picture you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 12:36:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. 
This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 12:37:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Generally (but not always...sometimes guys use them just to hold the camera in the same place) a tripod is used to steady the camera when you need a relatively slow shutter speed. That could be in low light, or it could be on a bright day. For instance, on a bright sunny day, you may want to use a slow shutter speed when shooting water features (waterfall, river, etc.) to get the "flowing water" effect. It may or may not matter. He said IF you need a slow shutter speed. Use whatever shutter speed you want (or need), to capture the picture you want. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Generally (but not always...sometimes guys use them just to hold the camera in the same place) a tripod is used to steady the camera when you need a relatively slow shutter speed. That could be in low light, or it could be on a bright day. For instance, on a bright sunny day, you may want to use a slow shutter speed when shooting water features (waterfall, river, etc.) to get the "flowing water" effect. Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? It may or may not matter. He said IF you need a slow shutter speed. Use whatever shutter speed you want (or need), to capture the picture you want. Now that makes sense. Thanks for the example. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 1:19:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2141/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k.jpg This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2141/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k.jpg This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. Ok So your f/10 probably resulted in a shutter speed that was less than 1/100 sec, unless your ISO was really high. You can reasonably expect to handhold a lens/camera at 1/100 sec and get a fairly sharp image. (actually, the rule of thumb is the inverse of the focal length. ie if you're shooting a 300mm lens, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/300) Anyway, you *could* decrease your aperture in that pic by one stop (that would take you from f/10 to f/14 if you're using 1/3 stop increments I think) Doing that would cut the amount of light hitting your sensor in half. So in order to produce an equivalent image you'd need to double your exposure time to 1/50 of a sec. If you did that, one thing would happen: your depth of field would increase so that more of the image would be in focus. And one thing might happen: your entire image might be out of focus because your technique might not permit you to handhold a shot at 1/50 sec steadily. That's where a tripod would come into play. You could shoot at a much smaller aperture, and a much slower shutter speed with no issues at all if you're using a tripod.... esp if you're also using a remote release or a timer. Did 100% of the red sentences make sense to you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 1:33:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok So your f/10 probably resulted in a shutter speed that was less than 1/100 sec, unless your ISO was really high. You can reasonably expect to handhold a lens/camera at 1/100 sec and get a fairly sharp image. (actually, the rule of thumb is the inverse of the focal length. ie if you're shooting a 300mm lens, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/300) Anyway, you *could* decrease your aperture in that pic by one stop (that would take you from f/10 to f/14 if you're using 1/3 stop increments I think) Doing that would cut the amount of light hitting your sensor in half. So in order to produce an equivalent image you'd need to double your exposure time to 1/50 of a sec. If you did that, one thing would happen: your depth of field would increase so that more of the image would be in focus. And one thing might happen: your entire image might be out of focus because your technique might not permit you to handhold a shot at 1/50 sec steadily. That's where a tripod would come into play. You could shoot at a much smaller aperture, and a much slower shutter speed with no issues at all if you're using a tripod.... esp if you're also using a remote release or a timer. Did 100% of the red sentences make sense to you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2141/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k.jpg This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. Ok So your f/10 probably resulted in a shutter speed that was less than 1/100 sec, unless your ISO was really high. You can reasonably expect to handhold a lens/camera at 1/100 sec and get a fairly sharp image. (actually, the rule of thumb is the inverse of the focal length. ie if you're shooting a 300mm lens, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/300) Anyway, you *could* decrease your aperture in that pic by one stop (that would take you from f/10 to f/14 if you're using 1/3 stop increments I think) Doing that would cut the amount of light hitting your sensor in half. So in order to produce an equivalent image you'd need to double your exposure time to 1/50 of a sec. If you did that, one thing would happen: your depth of field would increase so that more of the image would be in focus. And one thing might happen: your entire image might be out of focus because your technique might not permit you to handhold a shot at 1/50 sec steadily. That's where a tripod would come into play. You could shoot at a much smaller aperture, and a much slower shutter speed with no issues at all if you're using a tripod.... esp if you're also using a remote release or a timer. Did 100% of the red sentences make sense to you? Yes, because the amount of light is less, the longer the exposure time needs to be (via the shutter time), and the longer the shutter time the more of a chance you'll need a tripod. (The book I am reading is anything slower than 1/60 creates too much shake and should be used with a tripod). I did look up the details for the picture and found this; F Stop was f/10 Exposure was 1/125 ISO was 100. Focal length was 18mm. Now, if I were to increase the f/stop as you said to f/14, allowing 'more of the distance picture' to be included into the image (I am hoping I phrase that correctly), how much would that really show in the image I posted? Would the sky be a little be sharper? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 1:48:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, because the amount of light is less, the longer the exposure time needs to be (via the shutter time), and the longer the shutter time the more of a chance you'll need a tripod. (The book I am reading is anything slower than 1/60 creates too much shake and should be used with a tripod). I did look up the details for the picture and found this; F Stop was f/10 Exposure was 1/125 ISO was 100. Focal length was 18mm. Now, if I were to increase the f/stop as you said to f/14, allowing 'more of the distance picture' to be included into the image (I am hoping I phrase that correctly), how much would that really show in the image I posted? Would the sky be a little be sharper? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2141/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k.jpg This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. Ok So your f/10 probably resulted in a shutter speed that was less than 1/100 sec, unless your ISO was really high. You can reasonably expect to handhold a lens/camera at 1/100 sec and get a fairly sharp image. (actually, the rule of thumb is the inverse of the focal length. ie if you're shooting a 300mm lens, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/300) Anyway, you *could* decrease your aperture in that pic by one stop (that would take you from f/10 to f/14 if you're using 1/3 stop increments I think) Doing that would cut the amount of light hitting your sensor in half. So in order to produce an equivalent image you'd need to double your exposure time to 1/50 of a sec. If you did that, one thing would happen: your depth of field would increase so that more of the image would be in focus. And one thing might happen: your entire image might be out of focus because your technique might not permit you to handhold a shot at 1/50 sec steadily. That's where a tripod would come into play. You could shoot at a much smaller aperture, and a much slower shutter speed with no issues at all if you're using a tripod.... esp if you're also using a remote release or a timer. Did 100% of the red sentences make sense to you? Yes, because the amount of light is less, the longer the exposure time needs to be (via the shutter time), and the longer the shutter time the more of a chance you'll need a tripod. (The book I am reading is anything slower than 1/60 creates too much shake and should be used with a tripod). I did look up the details for the picture and found this; F Stop was f/10 Exposure was 1/125 ISO was 100. Focal length was 18mm. Now, if I were to increase the f/stop as you said to f/14, allowing 'more of the distance picture' to be included into the image (I am hoping I phrase that correctly), how much would that really show in the image I posted? Would the sky be a little be sharper? well if your focal point was infinity (the sky or the horizon) it wouldn't impact your image much but if your focal point was the waves lapping at the sand, the difference would be obvious it's not that "more of the distance picture" will be in focus... it's that "more of the image before and after your focal point" will be in focus. Did this analogy make sense: look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will)
there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:05:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well if your focal point was infinity (the sky or the horizon) it wouldn't impact your image much but if your focal point was the waves lapping at the sand, the difference would be obvious it's not that "more of the distance picture" will be in focus... it's that "more of the image before and after your focal point" will be in focus. Did this analogy make sense: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks guys. So, when taking landscaping photos, unless you want something focused near you, it is better to go with a smaller apeture to get more of a focus on items in the distance? Fred, you mentioned a tripod. Would tripod only be used at low light? Why would lowering the shutter speed matter that much? Those pictures you posted, what was the shutter speed on those? for starters, give me your definition of landscape photo. anyway, you can focus on whatever you want - near or far - regardless of aperture. look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will) there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus with a narrower aperture (big number) more and more of the slides will be in focus. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2141/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k.jpg This would be one example of a 'landscape photo' that I generally take. The aperture setting on that is F/10. Ok So your f/10 probably resulted in a shutter speed that was less than 1/100 sec, unless your ISO was really high. You can reasonably expect to handhold a lens/camera at 1/100 sec and get a fairly sharp image. (actually, the rule of thumb is the inverse of the focal length. ie if you're shooting a 300mm lens, you want a minimum shutter speed of 1/300) Anyway, you *could* decrease your aperture in that pic by one stop (that would take you from f/10 to f/14 if you're using 1/3 stop increments I think) Doing that would cut the amount of light hitting your sensor in half. So in order to produce an equivalent image you'd need to double your exposure time to 1/50 of a sec. If you did that, one thing would happen: your depth of field would increase so that more of the image would be in focus. And one thing might happen: your entire image might be out of focus because your technique might not permit you to handhold a shot at 1/50 sec steadily. That's where a tripod would come into play. You could shoot at a much smaller aperture, and a much slower shutter speed with no issues at all if you're using a tripod.... esp if you're also using a remote release or a timer. Did 100% of the red sentences make sense to you? Yes, because the amount of light is less, the longer the exposure time needs to be (via the shutter time), and the longer the shutter time the more of a chance you'll need a tripod. (The book I am reading is anything slower than 1/60 creates too much shake and should be used with a tripod). I did look up the details for the picture and found this; F Stop was f/10 Exposure was 1/125 ISO was 100. Focal length was 18mm. Now, if I were to increase the f/stop as you said to f/14, allowing 'more of the distance picture' to be included into the image (I am hoping I phrase that correctly), how much would that really show in the image I posted? Would the sky be a little be sharper? well if your focal point was infinity (the sky or the horizon) it wouldn't impact your image much but if your focal point was the waves lapping at the sand, the difference would be obvious it's not that "more of the distance picture" will be in focus... it's that "more of the image before and after your focal point" will be in focus. Did this analogy make sense: look at it this way: imagine that the world and everything you see is a endless stack of transparent images (slides, if you will)
there's one slide right in front of your nose, and there's one miles away on the horizon, and there are a million of them in between with a wide aperture (low number) only one or two of those slides will be in focus 1) Explains why landscape guides recommends aiming for the distance / sky rater than the ground in front of you. And yes, it did. Now, if you have a wide aperture, but you focus on something in the distance... what happens? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:06:01 PM EDT
[#15]
By the way, since your aperture was f/10, I can see that you have your camera set to do 1/3 stop exposure increments
For learning purposes, it would be useful to go to your custom functions and set it to 1/2 stop increments |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:09:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now, if you have a wide aperture, but you focus on something in the distance... what happens? most everything between you and the point you're focusing on will be out of focus. (I'd probably use the term "soft" here as opposed to "out of focus") the stuff closer to you will be the most soft here's an imprecise simulation of what it would look like if you focused at the horizon 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:15:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the way, since your aperture was f/10, I can see that you have your camera set to do 1/3 stop exposure increments For learning purposes, it would be useful to go to your custom functions and set it to 1/2 stop increments I'll dig out the manual and see how to do that.
Not to sound like a broken record, but why the change? Just easier to learn the concepts if its a smaller fraction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:19:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll dig out the manual and see how to do that.
Not to sound like a broken record, but why the change? Just easier to learn the concepts if its a smaller fraction? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
By the way, since your aperture was f/10, I can see that you have your camera set to do 1/3 stop exposure increments For learning purposes, it would be useful to go to your custom functions and set it to 1/2 stop increments I'll dig out the manual and see how to do that.
Not to sound like a broken record, but why the change? Just easier to learn the concepts if its a smaller fraction? yes... easier to learn the concepts, and easier to keep track of changing the aperture. It's going to be in C Fn. I: "exposure level increments" in your settings two clicks on your wheel and you double (or half) your aperture. if your camera was capable of going to full stops only, I'd suggest that for even more simplicity! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 2:34:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
most everything between you and the point you're focusing on will be out of focus. (I'd probably use the term "soft" here as opposed to "out of focus") the stuff closer to you will be the most soft here's an imprecise simulation of what it would look like if you focused at the horizon http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Gatordonald/Arfjunk/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k_zpsixvaecco.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now, if you have a wide aperture, but you focus on something in the distance... what happens? most everything between you and the point you're focusing on will be out of focus. (I'd probably use the term "soft" here as opposed to "out of focus") the stuff closer to you will be the most soft here's an imprecise simulation of what it would look like if you focused at the horizon http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Gatordonald/Arfjunk/32758392331_2dd4bbc4a0_k_zpsixvaecco.jpg Wow. Thanks for the visual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 6:14:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Not sure if the guys answered it or not, but a tripod is useful for a lot of stuff. It lets you really slow down your shutter speed because it is a lot more stable than your hands. So you can so a f/9 iso 100 1/2 second exposure at sunset without getting blurred from handshake. Downside is that a good one is either expensive or luck.
I got lucky on mine. It weighs 10# or so, I'm pretty sure it's all steel minus a few cast and plastic parts, but has taken damn near everything I could throw at it. Even came with a ballhead for $60. Then again, another member here ordered the same one and got a fucked up one instead. Amazon took it back, but still. Most folks (myself included when I have the money) end up leaning towards Arca Swiss and Manfrotto tripods. Expensive, but incredible high quality. Slik is great for the $90 range, but for $50 more you can get an entry level Manfrotto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 6:19:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if the guys answered it or not, but a tripod is useful for a lot of stuff. It lets you really slow down your shutter speed because it is a lot more stable than your hands. So you can so a f/9 iso 100 1/2 second exposure at sunset without getting blurred from handshake. Downside is that a good one is either expensive or luck. I got lucky on mine. It weighs 10# or so, I'm pretty sure it's all steel minus a few cast and plastic parts, but has taken damn near everything I could throw at it. Even came with a ballhead for $60. Then again, another member here ordered the same one and got a fucked up one instead. Amazon took it back, but still. Most folks (myself included when I have the money) end up leaning towards Arca Swiss and Manfrotto tripods. Expensive, but incredible high quality. Slik is great for the $90 range, but for $50 more you can get an entry level Manfrotto. 
It was a buy once cry once decision for me, and I have not regretted it. Manfrotto for the tripod and the monopod. The only thing is, the monopod head isn't arca so it requires a special plate. I need to get an arca compatible head for it.
I haven't really made it a huge priority because I can swap on my ball head from my tripod, which I often do. I'd like to have a dedicated head for each though. Just haven't got the free cash right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 7:31:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the aperture controls the amount of light that strikes your sensor and controls the depth of field in your image. ... there's also the depth of field issue with a large aperture (low number) your depth of field is narrow... a small slice of your image will be in focus with a small aperture (high number) you have more depth of field and more of your image is in focus http://ecvphoto.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/4/7/15476082/8643193_orig.jpg https://damienfournierdotco.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/dof_aperture_7guitars.jpg Great visuals! For most people the aperture is all about how much of the image you want in focus: little, medium, lots. Portraits often have little in focus (just the subject) so that the subject stands out. Use a wide aperture (small f number). Landscapes usually have lots in focus. Use a small aperture (big f number). There is a side effect to adjusting the aperture in that it affects the exposure. No big deal if you are shooting a static subject using a tripod. If your subject is moving or your are shooting hand-held, you may need to adjust the ISO to get the shutter speed high enough to freeze the subject's movement or the movement from your shaky hands. Everything in photography is a compromise. Here is a depth of field calculator for playing with the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 7:39:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Regarding tripods...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a buy once cry once decision for me.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a buy once cry once decision for me.... Tell me about it. I have nearly $1000 tied up in mine. 
....and I have not regretted it. Me neither. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 8:20:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Tripod is covered. (Taken an hour or so ago)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 8:40:02 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:02:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Consider a graduated neutral density filter. That way you can bring up the exposure on the water, but lower exposure on the sunset a tad. You can also just get a straight ND filter in different grades to reduce light X amount. A ND 10 blocks out 10 EV of light for example. So you can run crazy long exposure times. But you can take photos like the 2nd one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:10:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Consider a graduated neutral density filter. That way you can bring up the exposure on the water, but lower exposure on the sunset a tad. You can also just get a straight ND filter in different grades to reduce light X amount. A ND 10 blocks out 10 EV of light for example. So you can run crazy long exposure times. But you can take photos like the 2nd one. http://betterphotograph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/graduated-neutral-density-filters-864x314.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/293hqj6.jpg Cause I am in the sunshine state and can't order the filter until I get back, is this something lightroom could do for me as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:32:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cause I am in the sunshine state and can't order the filter until I get back, is this something lightroom could do for me as well? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Consider a graduated neutral density filter. That way you can bring up the exposure on the water, but lower exposure on the sunset a tad. You can also just get a straight ND filter in different grades to reduce light X amount. A ND 10 blocks out 10 EV of light for example. So you can run crazy long exposure times. But you can take photos like the 2nd one. http://betterphotograph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/graduated-neutral-density-filters-864x314.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/293hqj6.jpg Cause I am in the sunshine state and can't order the filter until I get back, is this something lightroom could do for me as well? Somewhat but software isn't a perfect recreation for practical effects. The more you go into ND filters, the harder they are to recreate in post. I would consider seeing if there is a camera store nearby or if Amazon can overnight something to you, if it's something you want to try. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:39:12 PM EDT
[#29]
You near Siesta? If so, I could have come out and worked with you!
Here is a helpful hint: Aperture first Shutter speed second ISO third Add lighting fourth If you are shooting video, then the shutter speed should be 2× frame rate to start and keep the other order of priority the same. Eta: +1 on the filters. I'm sure there is a camera shop around that has some available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:41:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somewhat but software isn't a perfect recreation for practical effects. The more you go into ND filters, the harder they are to recreate in post. I would consider seeing if there is a camera store nearby or if Amazon can overnight something to you, if it's something you want to try. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Consider a graduated neutral density filter. That way you can bring up the exposure on the water, but lower exposure on the sunset a tad. You can also just get a straight ND filter in different grades to reduce light X amount. A ND 10 blocks out 10 EV of light for example. So you can run crazy long exposure times. But you can take photos like the 2nd one. http://betterphotograph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/graduated-neutral-density-filters-864x314.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/293hqj6.jpg Cause I am in the sunshine state and can't order the filter until I get back, is this something lightroom could do for me as well? Somewhat but software isn't a perfect recreation for practical effects. The more you go into ND filters, the harder they are to recreate in post. I would consider seeing if there is a camera store nearby or if Amazon can overnight something to you, if it's something you want to try. Having never used a filter, how exactly do they 'go on' ? And what are the best brands? Looking on here, it is a laundry list of options
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:42:16 PM EDT
[#31]
They just attach to the front of your lens
I have Tiffen filters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:43:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You near Siesta? If so, I could have come out and worked with you! Here is a helpful hint: Aperture first Shutter speed second ISO third Add lighting fourth If you are shooting video, then the shutter speed should be 2× frame rate to start and keep the other order of priority the same. Eta: +1 on the filters. I'm sure there is a camera shop around that has some available. Fort Myers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:45:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They just attach to the front of your lens I have Tiffen filters. So, I would have to get one for my particular lens, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:48:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I would have to get one for my particular lens, correct? Yes You are just south of us. Enjoy your time down here. The weather is nice this week! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:49:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Your best stuff for nice landscapes are small aperture, an ND grad filter, a shutter release and an alarm clock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 9:50:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They just attach to the front of your lens I have Tiffen filters. Ahhh... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/945061-REG/canon_8114b002_ef_s_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html that is the lens I have been using. Under accessories you can choose the ND type filter. Which density should I get? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 10:03:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Also, Fred when was the last time you cleaned that lens? (I'm just freaking OCD about dust on/in my gear) Oh, I've cleaned it since that shot was taken. That was actually dust/dirt on the rear lens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 10:15:22 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16712049_10107564654708209_8727237062794192457_n.jpg?oh=102f821816d1caa23d46f60df0310066&oe=593F8CC8 Tripod is covered. (Taken an hour or so ago) Is that the Manfrotto BeFree 'pod? I just picked up one of them to take on my trip. The ball head on that is OK, I guess, for a travel pod, but for non-travel use (i.e. where the weight doesn't matter as much) you'll find a ball head with independent pan and ball locks works much better (you can pan without changing the ball angle). My "home" pod is a Manfrotto 290 with their MH054M0-Q2 054 Magnesium Ball Head with Q2 Quick Release and their ARCA plate adapter. The "home" pod has 3-section legs, larger diameter legs, and heaveir overall construction. Stability is key with a tripod. My main use is to minimize camera shake at slow shutter speeds. I do a lot of night-sky photography, with shutters ranging from 6 seconds to 5 minutes. As you get experience you'll find that you can hand-hold steadyt down to 1/40 or thereabouts (unless you have a super zoom!). I easily hold steady up to 120mm and 1/40-1/50th sec. Use your shooting skills: Brace your body, elbows tucked in, breathe in, exhale, and shoot near the end of the exhale. This shot would be virtually impossible without a tripod. A few hundred 6 or 8 second frames, stacked.  Silo Starstack 2016-03-29 by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 10:33:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Since I'm a teacher and I purchase in larger numbers, I usually buy multi-packs.
That said, if you want to just test out some options, I'd go for a clear, medium and dark filter. Here is a page of Tiffen filters: Tiffen search results Some of them are pretty reasonable. I like to go cheap and then see what I like before pulling the trigger. Looks like there are some camera stores in town, including Ritz Camera that would probably be worth calling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2017 10:41:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since I'm a teacher and I purchase in larger numbers, I usually buy multi-packs. That said, if you want to just test out some options, I'd go for a clear, medium and dark filter. Here is a page of Tiffen filters: Tiffen search results Some of them are pretty reasonable. I like to go cheap and then see what I like before pulling the trigger. Looks like there are some camera stores in town, including Ritz Camera that would probably be worth calling. Ritz Camera in estero? According to google they closed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2017 11:46:52 AM EDT
[#41]
if you're using a tripod, and don't have a ND filter, you can take 2 (or more) images... one with the sky exposed properly and one with the foreground exposed properly and then do some photoshopping magic on them
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
