| Author |
Message |
Ron Gage
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 8
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:18 pm
|  |
OK - so my first posting didn't go so well. Let's see if you think this one is any better...
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
43.04 KB |
| Viewed: |
1088 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
36.19 KB |
| Viewed: |
1088 Time(s) |
|
|
|
scruggelgreen
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 417
Location: Apple Valley Minnesota
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:20 pm
| |
Out of Focus and Noise
|
|
scruggelgreen
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 417
Location: Apple Valley Minnesota
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:22 pm
| |
Also i noticed you shot at ISO800, not good for Noise control
Also, if you look at your EXIF, it shows a subject distance of 16.2m. I doubt you were really that close. That tells me you have an issue with getting the focus locked on to the subject
|
|
Ron Gage
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 8
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:25 pm
| |
| scruggelgreen wrote: | Also i noticed you shot at ISO800, not good for Noise control
Also, if you look at your EXIF, it shows a subject distance of 16.2m. I doubt you were really that close. That tells me you have an issue with getting the focus locked on to the subject |
Yeah. Shot with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 2x. Needed the 2x to get enough frame fill and the ISO 800 to get fast enough to be able to shoot the thing without motion blur.
|
|
scruggelgreen
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 417
Location: Apple Valley Minnesota
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:28 pm
| |
| Ron Gage wrote: | | scruggelgreen wrote: | Also i noticed you shot at ISO800, not good for Noise control
Also, if you look at your EXIF, it shows a subject distance of 16.2m. I doubt you were really that close. That tells me you have an issue with getting the focus locked on to the subject |
Yeah. Shot with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 2x. Needed the 2x to get enough frame fill and the ISO 800 to get fast enough to be able to shoot the thing without motion blur. |
Yeah that can be a tough thing with photographing action. Why did you shoot at f7.1? With a 2x you should be at 5.6 if I remember correctly for a max aperture
|
|
Ron Gage
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 8
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:35 pm
| |
| scruggelgreen wrote: | | Ron Gage wrote: | | scruggelgreen wrote: | Also i noticed you shot at ISO800, not good for Noise control
Also, if you look at your EXIF, it shows a subject distance of 16.2m. I doubt you were really that close. That tells me you have an issue with getting the focus locked on to the subject |
Yeah. Shot with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 2x. Needed the 2x to get enough frame fill and the ISO 800 to get fast enough to be able to shoot the thing without motion blur. |
Yeah that can be a tough thing with photographing action. Why did you shoot at f7.1? With a 2x you should be at 5.6 if I remember correctly for a max aperture |
If I recall correctly, I was shooting in apature priority mode and was trying to maximize DOF while keeping speed above 1/800 to stay above the lens/camera effective lens size (~640mm - camera is a 1.6x sensor factor).
|
|
scruggelgreen
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 417
Location: Apple Valley Minnesota
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:08 pm
| |
Likely in this case your dof, even when wide open should be plenty. Since there is nothing behind the plane, this should be fine.
|
|
greenfield54
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 2616
Location: Philippines
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:31 pm
| |
| Ron Gage wrote: | | scruggelgreen wrote: | | Ron Gage wrote: | | scruggelgreen wrote: | Also i noticed you shot at ISO800, not good for Noise control
Also, if you look at your EXIF, it shows a subject distance of 16.2m. I doubt you were really that close. That tells me you have an issue with getting the focus locked on to the subject |
Yeah. Shot with an 80-200 f2.8 and a 2x. Needed the 2x to get enough frame fill and the ISO 800 to get fast enough to be able to shoot the thing without motion blur. |
Yeah that can be a tough thing with photographing action. Why did you shoot at f7.1? With a 2x you should be at 5.6 if I remember correctly for a max aperture |
If I recall correctly, I was shooting in apature priority mode and was trying to maximize DOF while keeping speed above 1/800 to stay above the lens/camera effective lens size (~640mm - camera is a 1.6x sensor factor). |
As Laurin said many times, the rules of DOF no longer applies beyond 40 feet. You don't even need AF. Set the lens to infinity (MF). You can shoot at any aperture (even wide open) and everything beyond 40 feet will be in acceptable sharpness. Just my 2 cents worth. :)
|
|
matthi
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Posts: 483
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:56 pm
| |
| greenfield54 wrote: |
...the rules of DOF no longer applies beyond 40 feet. You don't even need AF. Set the lens to infinity (MF). You can shoot at any aperture (even wide open) and everything beyond 40 feet will be in acceptable sharpness. Just my 2 cents worth. :) |
Well,he was shooting with a 400mm lens, if I got that right, 2x 200.
With that high focal length you get a depth of field about roughly 2ft if you focus at a point 40ft away at f/16, 0,33ft at f/2.8 etc pp
With f/16 that point is at about 1641ft (looking at my DOF calculator), what might or might not be more or less the high these guys are flying their shows at
So, the focal length is a very important aspect in this maths (even sensor size is (FX/DX))....
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26254
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:00 pm
| |
| matthi wrote: | | greenfield54 wrote: |
...the rules of DOF no longer applies beyond 40 feet. You don't even need AF. Set the lens to infinity (MF). You can shoot at any aperture (even wide open) and everything beyond 40 feet will be in acceptable sharpness. Just my 2 cents worth. :) |
Well,he was shooting with a 400mm lens, if I got that right, 2x 200.
With that high focal length you get a depth of field about roughly 2ft if you focus at a point 40ft away at f/16, 0,33ft at f/2.8 etc pp
With f/16 that point is at about 1641ft (looking at my DOF calculator), what might or might not be more or less the high these guys are flying their shows at
So, the focal length is a very important aspect in this maths (even sensor size is (FX/DX)).... |
Hyperfocal anything past 40ft will be in focus no matter what focal length of the lens is.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39188
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:25 pm
| |
I've shot and posted many times Jets at near the speed of sound were you could read the pilots name on his helmet. It's just understanding Technique and some experience tricks.A 2X TC is the last thing I would use for fast moving subjects.It makes your glass 2 times slower. You want the opposite for shutter speed.And it's the noise thats beating up your Image.A good exercise for anyone that wants to do action is...Go to a ourdoor basketball court and have a friend shoot hoops. and Practice for a few hours on getting a tack sharp Image.
Thats what I call doing the work.Every subject and every type of work requires a different skill set.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3783
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:50 pm
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | matthi wrote: | | greenfield54 wrote: |
...the rules of DOF no longer applies beyond 40 feet. You don't even need AF. Set the lens to infinity (MF). You can shoot at any aperture (even wide open) and everything beyond 40 feet will be in acceptable sharpness. Just my 2 cents worth. :) |
Well,he was shooting with a 400mm lens, if I got that right, 2x 200.
With that high focal length you get a depth of field about roughly 2ft if you focus at a point 40ft away at f/16, 0,33ft at f/2.8 etc pp
With f/16 that point is at about 1641ft (looking at my DOF calculator), what might or might not be more or less the high these guys are flying their shows at
So, the focal length is a very important aspect in this maths (even sensor size is (FX/DX)).... |
Hyperfocal anything past 40ft will be in focus no matter what focal length of the lens is. |
Where does this stuff come from? Really?
I'll dig out some pictures when I get some time of some parrots I took photos of in Bolivia. They were shot with a 300mm lens and were probably somewhere around 200m away (not great photos) and the background is very clearly blurred. Do I have to deal with a set of optical laws that nobody else does? No autofocus? And everything will be in focus? Sorry, I don't buy it. You guys have to throw the charts away one of these days. They are guidelines.
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26254
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:03 am
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | matthi wrote: | | greenfield54 wrote: |
...the rules of DOF no longer applies beyond 40 feet. You don't even need AF. Set the lens to infinity (MF). You can shoot at any aperture (even wide open) and everything beyond 40 feet will be in acceptable sharpness. Just my 2 cents worth. :) |
Well,he was shooting with a 400mm lens, if I got that right, 2x 200.
With that high focal length you get a depth of field about roughly 2ft if you focus at a point 40ft away at f/16, 0,33ft at f/2.8 etc pp
With f/16 that point is at about 1641ft (looking at my DOF calculator), what might or might not be more or less the high these guys are flying their shows at
So, the focal length is a very important aspect in this maths (even sensor size is (FX/DX)).... |
Hyperfocal anything past 40ft will be in focus no matter what focal length of the lens is. |
Where does this stuff come from? Really?
I'll dig out some pictures when I get some time of some parrots I took photos of in Bolivia. They were shot with a 300mm lens and were probably somewhere around 200m away (not great photos) and the background is very clearly blurred. Do I have to deal with a set of optical laws that nobody else does? No autofocus? And everything will be in focus? Sorry, I don't buy it. You guys have to throw the charts away one of these days. They are guidelines. |
http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
And the mathematical formulas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance
|
|
matthi
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Posts: 483
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:50 am
| |
Hyperfocal anything past 40ft will be in focus no matter what focal length of the lens is.[/quote]
So, you guys say if you just focus on something at 40ft away from that point on anything beyond 40ft will be clearly in focus no matter what focal length, aperture and senor ??
If that would be true, how do they get blurred backgrounds at NG if they shoot wildlife at a distance higher than 40ft, as they do all day ??
And wildlife photographers are very keen about their blurry backgrounds to have the animal better presented....it would be physically impossible then to get such backgrounds, and how boring would become photography then
Cause if you tell this guy he simply has to focus for infinitive and can shoot with whatever he wants, even at 2,8 if the subject matter is at least 40ft away and everything is in focus...then he can format his card directly after the next flight show, no need to bring that stuff home, cause he won´t even reach the "quality" he had here
if you look here http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm you can calculate it by your own:
[/img]
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
83.62 KB |
| Viewed: |
946 Time(s) |
|
|
|
matthi
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Posts: 483
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:54 am
| |
And if we do it by hand using the formula from wikipedia we get this and there is for sure a clear and significant difference for the aperture:
But I don´t see any formula resulting in 40ft no matter how, that would be a magic formula cause it is impossible
Note that 666m are about 2187ft and 1905m are 6250ft...
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
47.21 KB |
| Viewed: |
924 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
46.67 KB |
| Viewed: |
924 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| |
|
Log in
