Nikon D5 and D500 official (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

I kind of figured. In those situations, I find the loss of light outweighs the benefits.

I've never shot an air show, so am not familiar with the shutter speeds needed. For whale watching, as long as the shutter speed is 1/1000sec I'm good. The most difficult aspect is locating the whale when it surfaces (you are never sure where they will surface), locking the auto focus and composing the frame in the brief time the whale is visible So,the light loss from a CPL is usually not a problem - it just cannot affect AF performance.

 

[JohnRice]

With something like an airshow, it depends on the effect you want on specific shots. You can use a slower shutter speed and go for a motion pan, or you can do like the shots Sam has posted so far and freeze everything. In that case, if you use a pol, you'll be forced to kick up the ISO, especially since you're usually using a focal length that requires f/11 or more. Those long zooms usually don't hit their best image quality until f/11 anyway.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Yes, I did know that panning shots do not require nearly as fast a shutter speed. It was more the shots that Sam posted where I didn't know how fast a shutter speed was required.

As for really needing to close down the aperture, I find that is not as necessary with more modern telephoto zooms. I have no issue with shooting wide open when required with either my 100-400L v2 or 70-200L f/4 IS. For wildlife, I rarely shoot slower than f/8 with the 100-400, which has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm.

 

[JohnRice]

I was oversimplifying, but when I have a little more time, I'll explain the dynamics a bit more. There are a lot more variables than most people take into account.

 

[Sam Posten]

I learned from last year: Don't mess with Aperture Priority. I had it set on Shutter priority and kept it above 1/2000th of a second all day long. Usually 1/2500.

I would think that having to monkey around twisting a circular polarizer would be way worse than the stops of light.

 

[Sam Posten]

Blue Angels added to the set.

17-OCAirshow-4069 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr

[/url]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/UF5Muo]17-OCAirshow-3281 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-3101 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-3040 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-2977 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-2789 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-2519 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr[/url]

 

[JohnRice]

I learned from last year: Don't mess with Aperture Priority. I had it set on Shutter priority and kept it above 1/2000th of a second all day long. Usually 1/2500..

Definitely shutter priority, and maybe auto ISO, though I've never actually used that. I take it you didn't try any pan shots.

 

[Sam Posten]

Nope, straight shots, going for low blur. Wasn't always possible with the fast movers =)

F-22 Raptor uploaded, album complete.


17-OCAirshow-5357 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-5292 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-5297 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-5091 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-4821 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-4806 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-4804 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr


17-OCAirshow-4748 by Sam Posten III, on Flickr

 

[JohnRice]

Love those near supersonic shots.

 

[Sam Posten]

They are wing vortices, caused by lift and humidity, not near supersonic flight. =)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices

 

[JohnRice]

They are wing vortices, caused by lift and humidity, not near supersonic flight. =)

I thought it was the same thing. I read a few articles, and I still haven't been able to figure out if it is or not.

From the article linked above: "The visual effect is created by moisture trapped between crests in a sound wave at or near the moment a jet goes supersonic."

 

[JohnRice]

As for really needing to close down the aperture, I find that is not as necessary with more modern telephoto zooms. I have no issue with shooting wide open when required with either my 100-400L v2 or 70-200L f/4 IS. For wildlife, I rarely shoot slower than f/8 with the 100-400, which has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm.

I think there's such an emphasis on shallow depth and large apertures these days that it tends to be taken too far in some situations. Even though optics have definitely improved in recent years, the old rule of a "sweet spot" at 2-3 stops down still applies. How much of a difference will depend on the quality of the lens. The better the lens, the less of a difference it will make, but it still makes a difference.

One thing is, a lot of the time the depth is SO shallow with very long lenses, even at f/8, that it's easy to miss focus. Cameras are producing incredible results at higher ISO, so I think it can often be an improvement to bump the ISO a stop and try f/11 instead of f/8. If nothing else, it gives you more focus leeway, which is a good thing with fast moving subjects like jets.

Scott, even though you're happy with the results from your 100-400 at 400mm f/8, and I bet it does look great, f/11 (at 400mm with maximum aperture of 5.6) probably will be a little sharper. Just give it a try. You need to remember that f/11 on a lens with an f/5.6 maximum aperture isn't like f/11 on other lenses. The image won't be degraded by refraction like it will with an f/1.4 lens at f/11. From that perspective, it's basically like shooting an f/1.4 lens at f/2.8, which I suspect you wouldn't hesitate to do.

You guys probably know I have mostly Sigma lenses. The 18-35mm f/1.8 and 50-150mm f/2.8 both totally rock wide open, like any top grade Nikon or Canon lens will. So, they're great for using at those apertures, but they will still be sharper stopped down a bit, usually hitting their sweet spot a couple stops down. It's a trade-off. Like I said before, there is this bizarre obsession with shallow depth of field these days, and I frequently see people touting the shallow depth of field of some outrageously expensive, fast lens they just got. When I see the shots a lot of the time, I think the depth is TOO shallow. It becomes about the equipment more than the photo.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Scott, even though you're happy with the results from your 100-400 at 400mm f/8, and I bet it does look great, f/11 (at 400mm with maximum aperture of 5.6) probably will be a little sharper. Just give it a try. You need to remember that f/11 on a lens with an f/5.6 maximum aperture isn't like f/11 on other lenses. The image won't be degraded by refraction like it will with an f/1.4 lens at f/11. From that perspective, it's basically like shooting an f/1.4 lens at f/2.8, which I suspect you wouldn't hesitate to do.

John, I'm sure that my 100-400L is a little better at f/11 than f/8, but I'm at the point with my lenses where I tend to not worry about sharpness (too open) or refraction (too closed) that much. I try to focus more on what's appropriate for the shot I am taking. I'm sure I have some wildlife shots at f/11 or more, as I usually shoot in shutter priority mode for wildlife in motion. If I'm taking still shots of wildlife (or most of what I take at the zoo), then I tend to shoot in aperture priority mode and just keep an eye on my shutter speed. That's when I tend to hover around f/7.1 or f/8, or will drop down to f/5.6 if the lighting is poor.

I do agree that with the high ISO performance on modern bodies, you can really push things. This is probably the biggest reason that I've never bought into the faster f/2.8 zoom lenses, which are larger, heavier and more expensive than my f/4 lenses (16-35L, 24-104L, 70-200L) or 100-400L f/4-5.6. I can even use my 70-200 f/4 to shoot indoor ice hockey (@ f/4, 1/1250, ISO 6400), something I would never have considered trying with my first couple of digital SLR bodies. For those few times I need something faster, I have a couple of prime lenses (50 f/1.2 and 135 f/2).

I'll even shoot stopped way down to f/22 if I need to really increase my depth of field, slow down my shutter speed to blur moving water, etc.

 

[JohnRice]

I'll even shoot stopped way down to f/22 if I need to really increase my depth of field, slow down my shutter speed to blur moving water, etc.

I've played around a little with focus stacking, but not enough to use it for anything. I've been wanting to play around with time exposures and got several NDs, up to 10 stops, but haven't done much with them yet. I was so wrapped up in photography my entire life, and I got seriously burned out about ten years ago and had to go away from it as a career. So the motivation to shoot tends to come and go in extremes.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Focus stacking does look interesting, but I have not tried it. So far, my post processing has been almost completely confined to what can be accomplished in Lightroom.

I have several ND filters (as well as grad NDs). I have one screw-on ND, and everything else (including a 10-stop ND) is part of the Lee system. I used the filters quite a bit for the first few years after I acquired them, but recently I've left the Lee system grads at home on our last few trips in order to save space in my travel bag. I will probably take everything when we head to Maine via Canada this summer, though. It's a driving trip, so I will have the room. I may get some interesting effects along the shore in Acadia National Park.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John, I'm sure that my 100-400L is a little better at f/11 than f/8, but I'm at the point with my lenses where I tend to not worry about sharpness (too open) or refraction (too closed) that much. I try to focus more on what's appropriate for the shot I am taking. I'm sure I have some wildlife shots at f/11 or more, as I usually shoot in shutter priority mode for wildlife in motion. If I'm taking still shots of wildlife (or most of what I take at the zoo), then I tend to shoot in aperture priority mode and just keep an eye on my shutter speed. That's when I tend to hover around f/7.1 or f/8, or will drop down to f/5.6 if the lighting is poor.

I do agree that with the high ISO performance on modern bodies, you can really push things...

Not sure if recent Canons have implemented similar auto-ISO functionality as Nikons, but on the Nikons, you can use auto-ISO in "manual" mode (and apply some basic criteria, including an upper limit on ISO) -- you can even tweak auto-ISO to choose faster or slow shutter speeds (than the commonly used 1/focal-length value), which is useful for aperture priority mode.

Nikon's auto-ISO in "manual" mode works well if you're pretty sure you won't end up w/ overexposure (if the camera chooses lowest ISO)...

_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Not sure if recent Canons have implemented similar auto-ISO functionality as Nikons, but on the Nikons, you can use auto-ISO in "manual" mode (and apply some basic criteria, including an upper limit on ISO) -- you can even tweak auto-ISO to choose faster or slow shutter speeds (than the commonly used 1/focal-length value), which is useful for aperture priority mode.

Nikon's auto-ISO in "manual" mode works well if you're pretty sure you won't end up w/ overexposure (if the camera chooses lowest ISO)...

_Man_

If I recall from what I've read, Auto ISO in manual mode for Canon is a little wonky and not as well implemented as Nikon. I haven't tried it, although I do use it in my "action configuration" I have assigned to custom mode 2 -- but that is setup using shutter priority (Tv), not manual, mode. It works pretty well in Tv mode.