New Camera Thoughts

[William W]

Rules of Thumb -

. . . As for using the small aperture . . . So, when shooting vast landscapes like i do, while every shot is different, a good rule of thumb is to use a small but not excessively small aperture (many times somewhere in the f/10-f/16 range, at least with the lens I have) . . .

As a Rule of Thumb, I’d be thinking F/8 to F/11.

***

A practical, broad range application of generalized theory, for next time – re the Ice Photo and other landscape shots:

You pulled the shot at F/25 @ 1/30s @ ISO 250 using a AF-S Nikkor Zoom 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 G ED at FL = 32mm on a D80. Let’s assume that’s the correct exposure setting for that shot:

> Arguably better to have chosen ISO 100 (base ISO for the D80)

> Arguably better to have been between F/8 and F/11 (for many reasons, some mentioned above, and suffice to state as a generalization - 'probably nearly always the sweat spot apropos IQ, for your lenses' – and, importantly, to allow a faster Tv)

> The lens is not designated “VR” so unless you’re using a tripod and head, arguably better to be around 1/250s when hand holding

> notwithstanding the point above, VR does not address Blur caused by Subject Movement – and in Landscapes there is wind and wind moves trees and leaves and other stuff – so best to remember that Landscapes are not a default “static scene”

Considering the scene and applying ‘generalized theory’ - I reckon that good thinking for the starting point for that shot would be around: F/8 @ 1/125s @ ISO100

WW

[William W]

and BTW - you've got a nice collection in your Flickr Account.

[William W]

I was looking through many of your shots - there are some with tall trees in the mid-foreground: typically you used something like Av = F/36 and Tv = 1/5s - I am guessing you have a good tripod and head - however the tops of the trees are noticeably less sharp than the base of the trees - my guess is Subject Movement Blur.

WW

[DanK]

Back to Ted's post #5: I think this is important and worth more substantial discussion, perhaps in a separate thread.

Manfred, your "gotchas" all make the implementation of any process for dealing with hyperfocal distance more difficult, but I don't see how they make the approach in the article Ted cited any more difficult than the conventional approaches. Using the conventional approach as well, one has to cope with the short focusing throw and lousy distance scale that characterize modern AF lenses, and one has to select a focusing mode that doesn't give the camera control. As one example, I often estimate distance, find something at roughly the distance I want, and use single-point AF or MF to focus on that. The article Ted cited suggests to me that when I do that, I might well want to choose a different point on which to focus.

[YossarianXXI]

and BTW - you've got a nice collection in your Flickr Account.

Thank you very much, that means a lot from someone in this community.

> Arguably better to have chosen ISO 100 (base ISO for the D80)

> Arguably better to have been between F/8 and F/11 (for many reasons, some mentioned above, and suffice to state as a generalization - 'probably nearly always the sweat spot apropos IQ, for your lenses' – and, importantly, to allow a faster Tv)

> The lens is not designated “VR” so unless you’re using a tripod and head, arguably better to be around 1/250s when hand holding

For any kind of broad scenery shot, i nearly always use a tripod. I usually carry 2 with me, sometimes 3. I have a small one that isn't super stable but easy access and can be propped on a rock or log or step or something pretty easy. It can tuck really easy so i can just leave it on while i hike. (One of the reasons I wanted a new camera is that, using this small tripod, I have to get on my belly to look through the viewfinder quite often. Sometimes, i'm propped in a way where i can't really get into the viewfinder. The rotatable screen view will be a lifesaver.)

I have a second small one that isn't as quick and easy, but much more stable, which i use quite a bit. Then i have a full 56" (I think) 3 Legged sturdy lightweight one i use for others. I find all three useful.

But your point(s) is (are) well taken (when the ISO isn't 100 on those shots it's likely i had it in different for a handheld picture back in the trees or something and then forgot to change it when i put it back on the tripod for a more stable shot.

> notwithstanding the point above, VR does not address Blur caused by Subject Movement – and in Landscapes there is wind and wind moves trees and leaves and other stuff – so best to remember that Landscapes are not a default “static scene”

This is definitely something i "know" but haven't been thinking about as I shoot. So I will remember this too. Thank you (And thanks to all who have given advice, it's always helpful)

Back to Ted's post #5: I think this is important and worth more substantial discussion, perhaps in a separate thread.

While I will always take more advice, I did pick up the Z 50 today. IT was on sale and I think it'll be a great fit for me. So, I will certainly follow a new thread, but it might be a better place here out.

[xpatUSA]

While I will always take more advice, I did pick up the Z 50 today. IT was on sale and I think it'll be a great fit for me. So, I will certainly follow a new thread, but it might be a better place here out.

Congratulations, hopefully it will make you a better photographer than with the humble D80. And those 17 scene modes should be most helpful!

Looking forward to Z50 landscape shots.

Watch out for the dreaded diffraction though, it'll be showing up much, much earlier with those 4.2um pixels ...

[lunaticitizen]

Congrats! It's amazing that you carry multiple tripods. I got a really compact one (PD Travel Tripod) but I'm still loath to bring it out

[William W]

. . . I did pick up the Z 50 today. IT was on sale and I think it'll be a great fit for me. . .

Have lots of fun and learn heaps.

WW

[Manfred M]

Back to Ted's post #5: I think this is important and worth more substantial discussion, perhaps in a separate thread.

Manfred, your "gotchas" all make the implementation of any process for dealing with hyperfocal distance more difficult, but I don't see how they make the approach in the article Ted cited any more difficult than the conventional approaches. Using the conventional approach as well, one has to cope with the short focusing throw and lousy distance scale that characterize modern AF lenses, and one has to select a focusing mode that doesn't give the camera control. As one example, I often estimate distance, find something at roughly the distance I want, and use single-point AF or MF to focus on that. The article Ted cited suggests to me that when I do that, I might well want to choose a different point on which to focus.

Dan - there always seem "gotchas" when we change technologies that make the preceding technology obsolete. The DoF scale, accurate distance marks, short focus throw and wide spread use of zoom lenses make these techniques less useful than they once were.

That being said, focus stacking does come to the rescue and allows the photographer to create certain types of images that are extremely sharp through their entire range. Add multi-level pano plus exposure stacking and we get images that have resolutions that approach what we got with medium format (if we push hard, we can get into the large format range), we get sharpness from the closest part of the image right through to the most distance objects (some cameras have this as built-in functionality) and of course we can used exposure stacking to get everything from the finest shadow detail to the brightest highlights.

Yes, I do use the principles of what these articles suggest in my own workflow. I very rarely focus on the most distant objects in the scene, but tend to focus in the middle ground if there is a lot of foreground in the image. I have DoF / Hyperfocal Distance apps on my phone to consult in the field and the results tend to be better than what the camera picks (using a single focus point to do this; it won't work with the more complex multi-point focus modes).

Is it worth discussing in a separate thread? Certainly...

[Manfred M]

I'm another tripod shooter and own four (five if you count my video tripod). I generally carry two with me when I am planning to shoot with a tripod.

When traveling, luggage limits and mode of travel will dictate which ones come along. I have two light weight travel ones that are okay, except for long exposure work and my regular super heavy duty one that I take whenever possible. My heavy duty tripod gives me pixel level alignment even with exposures that run from minutes to hours.

My table top tripod comes along as well. All of my tripods, other than the video one are carbon fiber to hold down the weight.

[xpatUSA]

Autofocus modes like "matrix" uses algorithms to calculate the optimal focus plane distance, so it is anyone's guess where it really is.

First time I've heard of matrix autofocusing although a quick search shows that it exists - quite remarkable that people would actually let the camera select the focus plane distance!

Theory is great, but the equipment really needs to be built in a way that it can be used.

Which forces me to state that my 17-year old raw-only DSLR with it's single center-point (non-cross type) AF remains usable for my purposes.

[Manfred M]

First time I've heard of matrix autofocusing although a quick search shows that it exists - quite remarkable that people would actually let the camera select the focus plane distance!.

Ted - I agree and rarely using anything other than a single focus point; but the complex autofocus modes are what most people shoot. Your point is exactly on as that is how I have always shot; I want to decide where the focus plane is, but you and I appear to be in the minority.

[DanK]

I also generally use a single point, but often not the center one. An exception is when I am tracking something moving, like a runner. Then I often use a Canon function that allows you to adding 4 or 8 focal points adjacent to whatever you have assigned as primary to help maintain focus if the person moves off the primary AF point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YossarianXXI]

Well i took the new z50 out this morning, (images coming later). I took a few in matrix focus (default) & then sat on a, park bench until i figured out how to put it in single point focus.

So, im folloing you folks some

[DanK]

Well i took the new z50 out this morning, (images coming later). I took a few in matrix focus (default) & then sat on a, park bench until i figured out how to put it in single point focus.

So, im folloing you folks some

Some of us (I'll just speak for myself) are control freaks. We don't give up control to the camera unless we can set limits...

I have had cameras with gobs of focal points for years, but I don't think I have ever turned them all on at once.

[lunaticitizen]

When I was confined in my room for almost the whole year last year, I took time to read lots of things I had never bothered to. For photography-related stuff, I read the ISO standard and the Merklinger method. The ISO standard took me a bit to understand and sometimes made me want to vomit; but I found the Merklinger method enlightening.

I used to set my focus plane at the hyperfocal distance, but I didn't understand why the farthest things on my image (such as mountains or buildings) were always a bit blurry. After I found the Merklinger method, I stopped using the hyperfocal method altogether. It's indeed a challenge to set your focus plane at infinity with AF lenses, but now I feel like I'm getting the hang of it. It's even easier with my MF lenses.

I've never tried focus stacking, since I don't really use tripod. It's in the list of things I want to learn this year, though.

[William W]

Some of us (I'll just speak for myself) are control freaks. We don't give up control to the camera unless we can set [and/or we know the] limits...

I am on that list.

[billtils]

... but you and I appear to be in the minority....

... as am I ...

[rpcrowe]

Dan - there always seem "gotchas" when we change technologies that make the preceding technology obsolete. The DoF scale, accurate distance marks, short focus throw and wide spread use of zoom lenses make these techniques less useful than they once were.

That being said, focus stacking does come to the rescue and allows the photographer to create certain types of images that are extremely sharp through their entire range. Add multi-level pano plus exposure stacking and we get images that have resolutions that approach what we got with medium format (if we push hard, we can get into the large format range), we get sharpness from the closest part of the image right through to the most distance objects (some cameras have this as built-in functionality) and of course we can used exposure stacking to get everything from the finest shadow detail to the brightest highlights.

Yes, I do use the principles of what these articles suggest in my own workflow. I very rarely focus on the most distant objects in the scene, but tend to focus in the middle ground if there is a lot of foreground in the image. I have DoF / Hyperfocal Distance apps on my phone to consult in the field and the results tend to be better than what the camera picks (using a single focus point to do this; it won't work with the more complex multi-point focus modes).

Is it worth discussing in a separate thread? Certainly...

Some mirrorless cameras have touch control for focusing on the LCD. My Sony cameras allow me to view through the eye level viewfinder but also allow touch screen focusing at the same time.

There are when shooting mirrorless cameras several ways to select the point of auto focus.

I would recommend that anyone working with a mirrorless camera become familiar with the various ways to select a point for autofocus and then to use the way that is easiest and most efficient for them...

[Polar01]

Colin try this link some good stuff on the Nikon cameras standard digital and mirrorless models.

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon...nd-action-tips

Cheers: Allan