Options
iso
There's been some discussion recently regarding flash, high ISO's, and fast lenses. I thought I'd show some examples of the tradeoff's.
Why does one need fast lenses when you can just use flash or bump up the ISO? If one is using flash, why shoot at high ISO's?
So...here's the first comparison. Same shutter and aperature, both use flash....one at ISO 100, one at ISO 3200
First the ISO 100 shot:
Next the shot at ISO 3200:
Notice the difference in the feel of the image. The first one is darker even though the subject (salt shaker) is well lit. The second image has a much more natural feel to it....and there's more noise.
And now a shot at ISO3200 and f1.8
I think I over exposed this one a tad. But as you can see...it's lighter still. If the room light were dimmer than it was, this may have been the only one that allowed the natural light look. But there's a cost. Notice how much more blurred the second shaker is.
None of these photos is "right". They are merely different. I present these photos only to illustrate what the options are and the different looks achieved.
While the first photo isn't all that bad considering the subject...when you are in a large room and the lights dim...taking shots of people...with low iso and small aperatures you get photos like this:
Not a bad photo...but one that doesn't show anything about the setting. This particular photo is ISO3200 but the aperature was f8. Now it was dark outside....but you get shots that look very much like this indoors with small aperatures and low ISO's.
In this following photo shot the same night...I opened up the aperature to f2.2, and the ISO is stil 3200
Now you get _some_ sense of the setting.
If you have "slow" lenses, you have less options to get the ambient light look to your photos. But shooting wide open with large aperatures give you narrow DOF. Which can be good....or can lead to shots like the following:
where only one of the subjects is in focus due to the narrow DOF.
IS will help you shoot with smaller aperatures and their correlating slower shutter times and still not mess up the shot with camera shake. Unless your subjects move -- as people tend to do.
Trade off's. No "right" answer...no "right" look.
Lee
Why does one need fast lenses when you can just use flash or bump up the ISO? If one is using flash, why shoot at high ISO's?
So...here's the first comparison. Same shutter and aperature, both use flash....one at ISO 100, one at ISO 3200
First the ISO 100 shot:
Next the shot at ISO 3200:
Notice the difference in the feel of the image. The first one is darker even though the subject (salt shaker) is well lit. The second image has a much more natural feel to it....and there's more noise.
And now a shot at ISO3200 and f1.8
I think I over exposed this one a tad. But as you can see...it's lighter still. If the room light were dimmer than it was, this may have been the only one that allowed the natural light look. But there's a cost. Notice how much more blurred the second shaker is.
None of these photos is "right". They are merely different. I present these photos only to illustrate what the options are and the different looks achieved.
While the first photo isn't all that bad considering the subject...when you are in a large room and the lights dim...taking shots of people...with low iso and small aperatures you get photos like this:
Not a bad photo...but one that doesn't show anything about the setting. This particular photo is ISO3200 but the aperature was f8. Now it was dark outside....but you get shots that look very much like this indoors with small aperatures and low ISO's.
In this following photo shot the same night...I opened up the aperature to f2.2, and the ISO is stil 3200
Now you get _some_ sense of the setting.
If you have "slow" lenses, you have less options to get the ambient light look to your photos. But shooting wide open with large aperatures give you narrow DOF. Which can be good....or can lead to shots like the following:
where only one of the subjects is in focus due to the narrow DOF.
IS will help you shoot with smaller aperatures and their correlating slower shutter times and still not mess up the shot with camera shake. Unless your subjects move -- as people tend to do.
Trade off's. No "right" answer...no "right" look.
Lee
0
Comments
Oh well always have been
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
Lee
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
"Hello Mr. Travel Agent, I want to go somewhere!"
"Ok, great, where do you want to go."
"Oh I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter."
"Great, you're there already then, wasn't that fun" :-)
If you need specific recommendations, you need to be specific yourself on what your needs are.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Goal: weddings, indoor shooting without flash
Result: all my lenses are fast lenses. "Fast" means they support larger aperatures. So my lenses are f2.8 or faster.
Goal: indoor sports
Result: Canon 85mm f1.8 -- even 2.8 often times for indoor sports
Goal: images that don't have motion blur
Result: Well...this one is tricky. Do I get lenses with image stablization? In a perfect world I could afford fast lenses WITH image stabilization. But they are the most expensive lenses. There are some reasonably priced IS lenses, but they are "slow". You can use a monopod or tripod to hold your camera steady -- but you CAN'T get fast shutter speeds in low light with small aperatures. If your subjects move, the ability of IS to let you take a longer exposure while keeping away camera shake....you'll still get a blurred photo.
So I have a monopod and a tripod and fast lenses.
Goal: Best lenses I can afford
Result: I buy top of the line third pary lenses instead of Canon L's. The L's are better, no doubt, but I get the "best bang for my buck" by buying top of the line Sigma and Tamron lenses.
My lens set:
Canon 50mm f1.8 -- it's only $80 and is nice for portraits and low light work
Canon 85mm f1.8 -- My indoor sports and portrait lens.
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 -- Very nice wide angle lens. Love it for indoor work, can't wait for spring to take this baby outside.
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 -- Until I got the wide Tamron, this lens was on my camera most of the time. Wonderfully sharp, good focal range.
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 -- Fantastic lens for sports and for weddings where you can shoot from the back of the church, and still get a close up and don't have to use flash. For outdoor sports, the f2.8 allows you to isolate your subject away from the gaggle of ugly parents watching their kids
Sigma 2x converter. For those times when I want more reach on my Sigma 70-200. More of a novelty.
Lee
Perhaps my earlier post was misleading, but to stay with your theme:
"Hello Mr. Travel Agent, I want to go to Shay's house!"
Just not sure how I want to get there
Train
Plane
Bus
Limo!!
maybe just drive myself
"Ok, Great here are the $ and schedules, let me know which you like."
Point being, as in all things there are many ways to achieve a goal and I was just saying that "leebase's" post added another variable.
Thanks for reading
Ben
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
My Galleries
Flicker
G+