don't you mean 'broad' ??
I don't think he did. Compacts have broad DoF and it reduces the extent to which you can separate the subject by blurring the background.
Chat Forum
[closed]
First digital SLR? Simplicity would be good.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
don't you mean 'broad' ??
Don't think so.
Deep/broad DOF:
Shallow DOF:
No?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Broad is width side to side, deep is depth front to back. DoF is going to be best described by "deep/shallow".
i've not seen the need for the 6 shots a second bodies - surely, unless you're really going for a sequence, you'd be better off just timing your shot rather than mashing the button and hoping?
Try shooting anything that you only get one shot of and moves fairly quickly. Case in point - I was recently shooting Danny MacAskill at a show, he was doing the "final" drop of the day from 10ft, he hopped up onto his rear, round 180 and dropped. I got him at ~30 degree increments and was able to select the image with the best lighting and focus point.
When trying to catch the shallow DoF effect with a DSLR (doesnt really happen on a point and shoot) the AF often mis-focuses and that can make the image look bloody awful and be a wasted shot - a quick blast of 3 usually gets at least on as you want it without having to pose things/people or missing something fleeting.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Don't think so.
sorry Graham, I misread your post
Posted 2 years ago # -
you'd be better off just timing your shot rather than mashing the button and hoping?
unless the action is being repeated it's hard to guess beforehand what the best shot will be and by the time you can see it, it's already too late as brain/finger delay is at least 100mS
Posted 2 years ago # -
Also when taking shots of people - often their expression changes quickly or they close their eyes, or something. A burst of a few frames gives you a better chance of the optimum shot.
Posted 2 years ago # -
sorry Graham, I misread your post
No probs. I frequently confuse myself by talking about wanting more DoF, when I actually less of it.
brain/finger delay is at least 100mS
Hmm.. but if you are shoot 6 frames-per-second, then you're getting 166ms between frames. Longer if you include exposure time*.
So if you would miss the action at 100ms delay then surely catching it when shooting at 166ms intervals is going to be pretty hit and miss?
(* I have no idea how exposure time features in the 6 fames-per-second thing. Is that a theoretical maximum assuming zero exposure time?)
Posted 2 years ago # -
(* I have no idea how exposure time features in the 6 fames-per-second thing. Is that a theoretical maximum assuming zero exposure time?)
yes, except any speed above flash sync limit is effectively zero.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yes, except any speed above flash sync limit is effectively zero.
Why so?
Love frame two BTW, he looks like he's almost smiling as it his own impending calamity
Posted 2 years ago # -
So if you would miss the action at 100ms delay then surely catching it when shooting at 166ms intervals is going to be pretty hit and miss?
I think the point is that if you were to line up and take a single shot you'd need to predict it perfectly, but at 5 or 6 fps you have a better chance of getting a usable image very similar to the one you wanted, if not the exact one you wanted. Things like SFBs squence above, if he had lined up for a single shot he might have got one shot as the rider reached the edge, anticipating no problems. But with a burst you get to see the unexpected and to record it in fairly good rate.
Why so?
Because the frame rate is fixed at X fps by the sensor interface and memory, so so long as the shutter speed (and flash recharge if needed) is fast enough to fit between those points in time and does not last >166ms - a slight overhead, your frame rate is unaffected. If you're running 0.5 sec exposures then your frame rate drops to 2fps naturally.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm a Nikon user, so can only speak for their range. I have both a D200 and a D40. For more serious photography, the D200 is superb and has pretty much any controls that you could need. The D40 is lacking a few of the controls that the D200 has, but is about half the weight and half the size and so that is the camera I more often pick up to take a quick few snaps. If you're taking it out biking, the size and weight benefits of the D40 over the D200 could also be beneficial.
If you're just starting out with a DSLR, then I would get a second hand D40 (not the D40x, as this has higher resolution but less pixel sensitivity) for a couple of hundred quid with a lens and start playing with it. Once you find how many "pro" features you are missing then make a decision to go up the range at that point.
Buying new, a D90 will do pretty much anything you could want, without being in the semi-pro price, size and weight brackets. Next up the range for me would be the D300 and if I wanted/needed full-frame then the D700 would be on the cards.
Posted 2 years ago # -
yes, except any speed above flash sync limit is effectively zero.Why so?
The flash max sync speed is the lowest speed at which the rear shutter curtain doesn't start moving until the front curtain is fully open, so I think incorrectly I thought there would be no additional delay for faster speeds, but now I've changed my mind
Posted 2 years ago # -
Because the frame rate is fixed at X fps by the sensor interface and memory, so so long as the shutter speed (and flash recharge if needed) is fast enough to fit between those points in time and does not last >166ms
no, it's a mechanical thing, how fast the camera can:
lift mirror
stop down lens
open front curtain
close rear curtain
open lens aperture
drop mirror
retract both curtainswith my D300 it can go faster with an extra battery pack as more current is available for the motors. The sensors support video at 24fps
Posted 2 years ago # -
SFB - yup, there's a mechanical limitation too but...
The sensors support video at 24fps
At VASTLY reduced resolution. Even at HD resolutions you're looking at a TINY fraction of the data processing required per frame.
But regardless, my point was that it isnt the shutter opening duration that's particularly limiting until proper long exposures are needed, and then you'd not use a burst anyway.
Posted 2 years ago # -
At VASTLY reduced resolution. Even at HD resolutions you're looking at a TINY fraction of the data processing required per frame
Yummy!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mmmmm indeedy! Though clearly not an SLR!
I used to work with a camera that would capture normal vid at 30fps but, given the right software tweaks, run at 900fps. Unfortunately it was windowed to a 200x16 pixel area in 256 bit greyscale
Posted 2 years ago # -
Though clearly not an SLR!
No, but it can take Nikon lenses and shoot 12 megapixel RAW images at 120 fps!
T'is probably the future.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Love that sequence of shots
Does anyone know of any good books, websites etc that's a good starting point in learning how to use a DSLR effectively?
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
