Lens progression advice, please
Discussion
Just remember that in manual mode the metering indicator is a guide.
The metering has no f
king clue what you are shooting and is trying to blat it down to 18% grey.
This works perfectly for 18% grey subjects. and not for the other 82%.... *
The metering has no f
king clue what you are shooting and is trying to blat it down to 18% grey. This works perfectly for 18% grey subjects. and not for the other 82%.... *
- well technically the other 99% of subjects but you only have so much control over exposure so one correct for 18% grey will be fine for %15 too %25 grey or whatever...
Edited by RobDickinson on Thursday 19th January 23:32
RobDickinson said:
Just remember that in manual mode the metering indicator is a guide.
The metering has no fking clue what you are shooting and is trying to blat it down to 18% grey.
This works perfectly for 18% grey subjects. and not for the other 82%.... *
See, again GREAT advice Rob, as I had no idea about this with the meter, and pretty much took it to be gospel. I have started trying to get into the habit of checking my histogram after each shot - although "started" means literally the other day, after I had just bought the new lenses. The histogram was showing, actually, that my pics appeared to be somewhat underexposed, so given that I couldn`t alter my aperture, or my shutter speed, then (as I`m fond of saying, it would seem) it would be the ISO that has to give, but again, it`s already been shown to be coming out at too high an ISO - eps was right, I think most of them were coming out with ISO no lower than 3600, which made them VERY noisy.The metering has no f
king clue what you are shooting and is trying to blat it down to 18% grey. This works perfectly for 18% grey subjects. and not for the other 82%.... *
- well technically the other 99% of subjects but you only have so much control over exposure so one correct for 18% grey will be fine for %15 too %25 grey or whatever...
Edited by RobDickinson on Thursday 19th January 23:32
In that situation though, when the light is bad, but you`re shooting subjects outside, ie: wildlife, you can`t exactly whip the flash out, so what else can you do, what would you advise Rob ?
nomad63 said:
See, again GREAT advice Rob, as I had no idea about this with the meter, and pretty much took it to be gospel. I have started trying to get into the habit of checking my histogram after each shot - although "started" means literally the other day, after I had just bought the new lenses. The histogram was showing, actually, that my pics appeared to be somewhat underexposed, so given that I couldn`t alter my aperture, or my shutter speed, then (as I`m fond of saying, it would seem) it would be the ISO that has to give, but again, it`s already been shown to be coming out at too high an ISO - eps was right, I think most of them were coming out with ISO no lower than 3600, which made them VERY noisy.
In that situation though, when the light is bad, but you`re shooting subjects outside, ie: wildlife, you can`t exactly whip the flash out, so what else can you do, what would you advise Rob ?
Metering is interesting, as said its trying to expose for 18% grey ( roughly speaking a lawn etc). if your subject is whiter its going to look under exposed, if your subject is darker it'll look too bright.In that situation though, when the light is bad, but you`re shooting subjects outside, ie: wildlife, you can`t exactly whip the flash out, so what else can you do, what would you advise Rob ?
This is why when shooting people skiing most cameras (which are using metering) they end up being under exposed and grey looking. And when shooting in dark bars they look over exposed and kill the atmosphere.
Now that depends on how much of the scene you meter on, spot metering can change its expected exposure rapidly as you move the tiny spot from light to dark areas. Whereas evaluative will also include that cloud top left or bright rock bottom right to screw up your exposure
Whats the /right/ exposure is purely on your subject. So consider this when looking at the histogram.
If you have a white bird and a dark background , and the bird only take sup say 10% of the scene, its unlikely the metering system will get that right and will give you an over exposed image for the bird, but 'correct' for the scene as a whole.
Whereas the 'correct' exposure would be a few stops darker, without context that histogram would look wrong ( heavily weighted to shadows). You know better because you know what the actual subject is.
As for under exposure - its usually the 'safest' way to shoot esp on a modern nikon/sony sensor as you have plenty of headroom to push the image later ( increase the exposure). The flip side - over exposing and blowing detail is unrecoverable later.
Where you dont is when you have already shot at a higher ISO and pushing will increase noise.
When you have limited light and a moving subject is where you end up with higher iso.
Sorry cant check your exposures on flickr (I can see the images linked on here) so please post an example and the exif/shot details.
Though you are always making a compromise between the 3 aspects of the exposure triangle.
What I would check is that you are shooting at as fast an aperture as possible (given focal length and lens) which should be 300mm at f5.6 - in shutter priority I would assume you would hit this before the camera increases iso tho.
Also that you dont have excessive shutter speeds. That depends on subject but it might be worth risking some blurry shots for some better lower ISO ones. So instead of 1/1000th at ISO 3200 and getting every shot sharp but noisy, try 1/500th and ISO 1600, see how many keepers you get (review on camera zoom in), then take another step/stop to 1/250th at ISO 800 etc. See how well they hold up.
Theres no magic bullet here apart from faster lenses, better sensors and perhaps a flash ( people use them for birds quite frequently, also google better beamer).
Thanks for the very lengthy reply Rob, much appreciated as your typing fingers must now be sore LOL !
Exif:
ƒ/6.3 300.0 mm 1/1000 9000 Flash (off, did not fire) Hide EXIF
As you can see Rob, ISO at a whole 9000, so before I set to work on it in Photoshop, the background especially was very noisy.
Cheers
Exif:
ƒ/6.3 300.0 mm 1/1000 9000 Flash (off, did not fire) Hide EXIF
As you can see Rob, ISO at a whole 9000, so before I set to work on it in Photoshop, the background especially was very noisy.
Cheers
Edited by nomad63 on Friday 20th January 00:43
Nice, we usually only need the basic exif 
1/1000th f6.3 iso 9000.
The results look good, but the bird is static so you likely could have got the same shot at 1/250th ?
f6.3 is near wide open ( thought the nikor was f5.6?) that wont make much difference.
Sometimes with cameras whole ISO stops work better, ( 1600,3200,6400, 12800) so that might have been better at 6400 and pushed a little in post (which is what the camera is likely doing internally anyhow).
Apart from possibly getting away with a slower shutter speed though thats fine, and the results look good. Sometimes you have to embrace the noise
1/1000th f6.3 iso 9000.
The results look good, but the bird is static so you likely could have got the same shot at 1/250th ?
f6.3 is near wide open ( thought the nikor was f5.6?) that wont make much difference.
Sometimes with cameras whole ISO stops work better, ( 1600,3200,6400, 12800) so that might have been better at 6400 and pushed a little in post (which is what the camera is likely doing internally anyhow).
Apart from possibly getting away with a slower shutter speed though thats fine, and the results look good. Sometimes you have to embrace the noise
RobDickinson said:
Nice, we usually only need the basic exif
1/1000th f6.3 iso 9000.
The results look good, but the bird is static so you likely could have got the same shot at 1/250th ?
f6.3 is near wide open ( thought the nikor was f5.6?) that wont make much difference.
Sometimes with cameras whole ISO stops work better, ( 1600,3200,6400, 12800) so that might have been better at 6400 and pushed a little in post (which is what the camera is likely doing internally anyhow).
Apart from possibly getting away with a slower shutter speed though thats fine, and the results look good. Sometimes you have to embrace the noise
LOL, encyclopaedic version of Exif now deleted 1/1000th f6.3 iso 9000.
The results look good, but the bird is static so you likely could have got the same shot at 1/250th ?
f6.3 is near wide open ( thought the nikor was f5.6?) that wont make much difference.
Sometimes with cameras whole ISO stops work better, ( 1600,3200,6400, 12800) so that might have been better at 6400 and pushed a little in post (which is what the camera is likely doing internally anyhow).
Apart from possibly getting away with a slower shutter speed though thats fine, and the results look good. Sometimes you have to embrace the noise
Yeah, the newest version of this lens, the AF-P, is now f4.6 - 6.3 - why, I`m not sure, so the lens was wide open when I shot it.
I will bear in mind though re the whole ISO stops...
Like you say, a slower shutter-speed would have been much better, but I was always conscious of him moving off just as I hit the shutter. I do know compromises have to be made though, but again, you`ve really made me think about relying too much on the exposure meter now, or auto-ISO, which can only be a good thing.
Maybe need to rely more on the what the histogram is telling me - and my eyes LOL; we`ll see.
Turning in now bud, work beckons as always.
Many thanks again Rob, much appreciated.
nomad63 said:
LOL, encyclopaedic version of Exif now deleted
Yeah, the newest version of this lens, the AF-P, is now f4.6 - 6.3 - why, I`m not sure, so the lens was wide open when I shot it.
I will bear in mind though re the whole ISO stops...
Like you say, a slower shutter-speed would have been much better, but I was always conscious of him moving off just as I hit the shutter. I do know compromises have to be made though, but again, you`ve really made me think about relying too much on the exposure meter now, or auto-ISO, which can only be a good thing.
Maybe need to rely more on the what the histogram is telling me - and my eyes LOL; we`ll see.
Turning in now bud, work beckons as always.
Many thanks again Rob, much appreciated.
Some great advice here from the chaps as usual. Just to clear up any confusion (I know Rob is a Canon man and may be bewildered by the murky world of Nikon lenses), the lens linked to earlier, the Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-f5.6 is a few years old and is a full frame lens, and very nice it is too. Yeah, the newest version of this lens, the AF-P, is now f4.6 - 6.3 - why, I`m not sure, so the lens was wide open when I shot it.
I will bear in mind though re the whole ISO stops...
Like you say, a slower shutter-speed would have been much better, but I was always conscious of him moving off just as I hit the shutter. I do know compromises have to be made though, but again, you`ve really made me think about relying too much on the exposure meter now, or auto-ISO, which can only be a good thing.
Maybe need to rely more on the what the histogram is telling me - and my eyes LOL; we`ll see.
Turning in now bud, work beckons as always.
Many thanks again Rob, much appreciated.
The lens you have bought nomad63, is the brand spanking new 70-300 AF-P DX lens as you say. It's not a new version of the above as such as it is a DX lens but from what I gather it is very good and probably a lot lighter than the FX version too. Sounds like it's working out nicely.
Edited by Gad-Westy on Friday 20th January 16:19
The logical error nomad63 made was to think 'Birds move very quickly therefore I need a high shutter speed' - whereas I think you'll find that whilst they make sudden fast jerky movements, in-between those they are fairly still. So the main factor in the shutter speed is the focal length of the lens, and our old friend the reciprocal rule (plus a bit for a crop sensor). In this respect VR can help significantly.
Actually I said this on page 1, just after I suggested the 70-300VR
Actually I said this on page 1, just after I suggested the 70-300VR
Gad-Westy said:
Some great advice here from the chaps as usual. Just to clear up any confusion (I know Rob is a Canon man and may be bewildered by the murky world of Nikon lenses), the lens linked to earlier, the Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-f5.6 is a few years old and is a full frame lens, and very nice it is too.
The lens you have bought nomad63, is the brand spanking new 70-300 AF-P DX lens as you say. It's not a new version of the above as such as it is a DX lens but from what I gather it is very good and probably a lot lighter than the FX version too. Sounds like it's working out nicely.
Cheers bud; cleared that up very nicely for me thanks, and yes, the lens is brilliant - can`t wait to get out with it again now !The lens you have bought nomad63, is the brand spanking new 70-300 AF-P DX lens as you say. It's not a new version of the above as such as it is a DX lens but from what I gather it is very good and probably a lot lighter than the FX version too. Sounds like it's working out nicely.
Edited by Gad-Westy on Friday 20th January 16:19
Simpo Two said:
The logical error nomad63 made was to think 'Birds move very quickly therefore I need a high shutter speed' - whereas I think you'll find that whilst they make sudden fast jerky movements, in-between those they are fairly still. So the main factor in the shutter speed is the focal length of the lens, and our old friend the reciprocal rule (plus a bit for a crop sensor). In this respect VR can help significantly.
Actually I said this on page 1, just after I suggested the 70-300VR
Yeah, absolutely Simpo - you did mention this at the start, and you`re quite right. My main reason for setting s/speed that high was in case they move off, but when thinking about it logically, they move off so quickly (especially the small ones) when they go, you`ve a job to keep up with them anyway !Actually I said this on page 1, just after I suggested the 70-300VR
Probably better just to concentrate on getting a good, quality shot when they aren`t moving, rather than to try and cover every scenario !
Again, good food for thought this one Simpo, and sometimes it just needs somebody to offer a different view-point to make you re-think something again...
I`m also aware of the focal length + crop factor, so I`ll be sticking to that one for when they`re stationary, which will no-doubt make the ISO tumble !
Thanks again mate; really appreciate all the advice.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff