Couple of newbie questions about speed and light.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Ollie Clark, Sep 6, 2010.

  1. Ollie Clark

    Ollie Clark Guest

    OK, I'm the first to admit I'm just an amateur photographer but I
    do have a little technical knowledge (a little knowledge is a dangerous
    thing). A couple of things I just want to check my understanding:

    1. With all else being equal (lens, light, aperture etc. etc.) if you
    have a FF sensor instead of a cropped one could you use a faster shutter
    speed for a given image because of more light falling on the sensor?

    2. Similarly, all else being equal, if you have a lens with a larger
    front element could you use a faster shutter speed because more light
    would be collected?

    I (try to) take a lot of pictures of birds but there's rarely enough
    light for me to get a fast enough shutter speed. I'm trying to work
    out what equipment I'd be best off getting for faster shutter speeds.
    A lens with a larger aperture and/or a body with better high ISO
    performance would, I guess, be the main considerations but would the
    above (FF and larger front element) help as well? Not that I can afford
    another lens or body at the moment. :)

    I'm hoping these aren't completely stupid questions. If they are, at
    least it will show the gaps in my understanding.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Sep 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ollie Clark

    Ofnuts Guest

    The larger font element translates into a smaller f-number. The two
    things are related. Going FF definitely not going to help, because that
    will require longer lens and the longer the lens, the harder/more
    expensive it is to make it "fast".

    Something you don't tell is why you need a better shutter speed. Is it
    to compensate for your own movements when shooting perched birds or is
    it to avoid blur caused by the bird moves (wings flutter, etc...)? In
    the first case, if you haven't done so already, use a stabilized lens,
    or a monopod, or both. In the second case, your best bet is to find a
    camera body allowing more ISOs (but OS and monopod can still be useful).

    You can also use a faster but shorter lens, and improve your approach
    technique (a camo vest is equivalent to a doubling of your focal length) :)
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in
    birds' feathers.

    Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images)

    <http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg>

    Compare to the same species taken using available light alone.

    <http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg>

    You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash
    in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls
    also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by
    black-lights. The have no concept of reality left.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #3
  4. Ollie Clark

    Peter Guest


    I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at
    different angles in different parts of the image. Good work.
     
    Peter, Sep 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Ollie Clark

    Peter Guest


    Gee, was that really taken by you. It actually is a nice shot.
     
    Peter, Sep 7, 2010
    #5
  6. And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that doesn't
    know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit
    their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Ollie Clark

    Peter Guest

    We all know that swamp water has a highly reflective surface.
     
    Peter, Sep 7, 2010
    #7
  8. Now, why would you want them to be useful to you? So you can steal them and
    use them for your own gain like so many images of mine have been stolen and
    used in the past?

    The above two are not mine but were good examples to show how flash
    destroys all nature photography, especially bird photography, nothing more.
    A very simple way to tell--those two will still be on the net at those same
    links 24-36 hours from now. Mine will not. Just as every photo of my own
    that I posted is no longer available on any past discussion threads.

    Still can't get enough attention, eh? You fuckingly useless off-topic
    thread-hijacking crapshooting TROLL.

    LOL!
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #8
  9. You're nothing but a fucking slanderous liar. Nothing more.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #9
  10. Correction:

    You're ALL nothing but fucking slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more.


    Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be.

    Downsize just posted:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg>

    100% pixel crop:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpga>


    Downsize just posted:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg>

    100% pixel crop:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg>

    Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images?

    Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow.

    What a fucking waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what
    pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have
    figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case --
    the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar
    trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever
    be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives.

    Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail
    butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing
    resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away,
    that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are.
    Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is
    beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the
    world.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #10
  11. All links to my own photos now working (for 24-36 hours).

    Correction:

    You're ALL nothing but fucking slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more.


    Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be.

    Downsize just posted:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg>

    100% pixel crop:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpg>


    Downsize just posted:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg>

    100% pixel crop:

    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg>

    Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images?

    Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow.

    What a fucking waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what
    pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have
    figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case --
    the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar
    trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever
    be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives.

    Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail
    butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing
    resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away,
    that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are.
    Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is
    beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the
    world.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 7, 2010
    #11
  12. Ollie Clark

    Ofnuts Guest

    Indeed yours... the 100% crop is indeed of P&S "quality". Now, the
    curious thing is that the 100% crop of the first shows that the image
    you honor us with is a 25% reduction, so the original image would be
    about 2248 pixels wide, so that would be a 3.8Mpix camera and I doubt
    such an oldie could have been used to take that kind of picture. So you
    do happen to crop your pictures now and then?
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 7, 2010
    #12
  13. His trolldom has long since passed. He's a pest, a blight, an annoyance.

    As soon as we all stop replying or talking about him, he'll wither away.

    As if.
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Ollie Clark

    Ollie Clark Guest

    Of course. Bigger sensor just means the light's spread out more.
    Ah, so a larger front element simply means you can have a larger aperture
    for a given focal length. Obvious when you think about it.
    Yep. I've noticed. :)
    Turns out they were questions with obvious answers when you think about it.
    Thanks for the very clear explanations.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Sep 8, 2010
    #14
  15. Ollie Clark

    Peter Guest

    I know, I know. Just wanted to see how far the troll would carry the scam.
     
    Peter, Sep 8, 2010
    #15
  16. Ollie Clark

    Ollie Clark Guest

    I need the faster shutter speed because of the birds movements mainly.
    Even on a tripod, I find I need at least 1/200 or higher because they
    move around constantly. It'd be nice to be able to get a picture like
    this:

    http://www.ollieclark.com/photobin/...mode=viewpicture&picture=EOS_5829_crop_wb.JPG

    without motion blur (although there are other prolems with that photo).

    I've got a stabilised lens but not a monopod yet. That would probably be
    a good idea. A body with better noise at high ISO is also on my shopping
    list. I've got an EOS400 and there's far to much noise at anything over
    400 really.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Sep 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Ollie Clark

    Peter Guest


    Tell you what, Let's pick a subject anywhere within 50 miles of where you
    live. We will both shoot it at the same time. You will use any camera you
    ant. I will use my D300, with any lens I deem appropriate. Both images will
    be posted. Oh! yes! the incentive. pick a sum to be posted in a reliable
    bank by each of us. Winner take all. Best artistic image to be selected by
    an independent, nationally recognized photo artist. You suggest a method of
    choosing the judge. I will decide if it's fair. If I do not agree it's a
    fair method let the American Arbitration Association decide on a fair
    method. Is $100,000 enough of an incentive? You have 12 hours to accept of
    reject.
     
    Peter, Sep 8, 2010
    #17
  18. Rejected. I have no need of more money. I have even less need to use your
    TROLL'S rules when I can quite adequately prove all that I need to prove on
    my own. In other words, YOU'RE USELESS. AND AN ATTENTION-STARVED OFF-TOPIC
    THREAD-HIJACKING TROLL AS WELL. You're nothing more than that, nor will you
    ever be more than that. But I and all others that see you do this
    relentlessly already know this about you. It's just a matter of you coming
    to terms with it.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 8, 2010
    #18

  19. The amusement factor left the building months ago, but mileage varies.....

    IAE, Neil, there's never been a period when the pest has been ignored-
    yes, ignored by you, me and a few dozen other regulars, but not all by
    any means.
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 8, 2010
    #19
  20. On 9/7/10 PDT 5:12 PM, Peter wrote:>
    Fine. If it really amuses you, carry on.

    But no one is going to out-pest this pest, much less get him to man up.
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.