What do you want to understand better about photography? (1 Viewer)

[Citizen87645]

Patrick, you've been a great example of "doing the work." I remember when you were still snapping away with your point and shoots, and then you just hunkered down and really started doing and learning. I need to be more of a do-er, so thanks for being an example in my life.

The key to using on-camera and off-camera flash is to just get out there and do the work

 

[Patrick Sun]

Patrick, you've been a great example of "doing the work." I remember when you were still snapping away with your point and shoots, and then you just hunkered down and really started doing and learning. I need to be more of a do-er, so thanks for being an example in my life.

Ha! Probably helps that my time and resources aren't funneled toward kids and whatnot.

 

[Mike Frezon]

There have been a few times when I've taken my 80D to my granddaughters' church to shoot pix of them receiving awards up on the stage. This church has a worship band and all the expected staging to go along with that--including bright stage lights.

So, unfortunately, every time I have tried to shoot the girls in this environment (because I haven't had any instances in-between to practice) I have gotten pix with blown out faces and blurring. It's like there's too much light yet not enough to freeze the action.

Are there any simple all-encompassing remedies in this situation? What are the adjustments I need to make/consider?

 

[JohnRice]

There have been a few times when I've taken my 80D to my granddaughters' church to shoot pix of them receiving awards up on the stage. This church has a worship band and all the expected staging to go along with that--including bright stage lights.

So, unfortunately, every time I have tried to shoot the girls in this environment (because I haven't had any instances in-between to practice) I have gotten pix with blown out faces and blurring. It's like there's too much light yet not enough to freeze the action.

Are there any simple all-encompassing remedies in this situation? What are the adjustments I need to make/consider?

Please post a couple examples.

 

[Citizen87645]

It sounds like it's a metering issue, and hence an exposure issue. If you are too far away to make your granddaughters, who are under the spotlights, fill most of the frame, then the camera meter will be trying to include the surrounding, darker areas in the exposure, and thus blowing out the exposure for the girls. You actually want the meter to largely disregard the surrounding darker areas (i.e. whatever isn't in the spotlights) and just expose for the performers, or what's under the spotlights.

There are a few options for how to get the correct exposure in this situation (which is par for the course for photographing almost all professionally lit stage performances).

Probably the simplest to try is adjusting the exposure compensation setting, as that won't require you to change whatever metering mode you are using / comfortable with. You will want to move the exposure compensation to *underexpose," maybe by as much as -1 or more, depending on how bright and focused the stage lights are. Assuming you are shooting at the largest f-stop possible for your lens (or "wide open"), the result you should see is that the shutter speed will *increase* (or get faster), which will then help with the blurring issue. Take several test shots, if you can, before your granddaughters take the stage, so you can have this exposure locked in when it comes time for them to perform.

Other methods to expose for the performers would make you possibly switch your shooting mode to manual, change your metering mode to spot metering, or a combination of the two, as well as considering what ISO you are shooting at. But explaining all that gets more complicated.

Any more specific advice would also require a sample photo like John requested, so we can look at your ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop. Also, knowing what shooting mode and metering mode you used will provide additional insights.

There have been a few times when I've taken my 80D to my granddaughters' church to shoot pix of them receiving awards up on the stage. This church has a worship band and all the expected staging to go along with that--including bright stage lights.

So, unfortunately, every time I have tried to shoot the girls in this environment (because I haven't had any instances in-between to practice) I have gotten pix with blown out faces and blurring. It's like there's too much light yet not enough to freeze the action.

Are there any simple all-encompassing remedies in this situation? What are the adjustments I need to make/consider?

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'll post one up ASAP. Thanks, fellas.

 

[JimmyO]

I'll post one up ASAP. Thanks, fellas.

Please go ahead and do that Mike. I am a photography instructor by trade and am happy to help if I can. That of course doesn't mean I know more than anyone else here, but I am happy to share what I do know. Having a look at the EXIF data in any one of the shots that you view as problematic will help a lot.

As a core setup for this kind of shooting, I would select shutter priority to ensure that any action (even walking about on stage qualified as 'action') is appropriately frozen by you setting the shutter speed that's needed to freeze the action. 1/125 of a second is a good starting point. That shutter speed will most assuredly freeze people walking at their regular walking speed. Faster motion than this will require faster shutter speeds to freeze. Setting the camera to AUTO ISO will ensure that the camera has permission to raise the sensors' sensitivity to light is also super useful.

And as mentioned, exposure compensation can be dialed in if the shots over/under expose. One of the challenges is: is the light for the stage actually hitting the intended subjects? Or are the subjects backlit. Shooting in an artificial lighting situation where the lights are not actually set up to properly light up the subjects on stage is kind of frustrating.

Cameron's advice was excellent, I know I am somewhat echoing bits of it.

 

[mjcmt]

high prices lol

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'll post one up ASAP. Thanks, fellas.

Crap. It's been an exact year and I never did this. I come looking for help and then don't follow through. Bad on me, fellas. I'll fix that.

In the meantime, what brought me to this thread today is this.

I got this. For free. The main question I have is...is there any way for me to mount this with my Canon 80D?

I guess the other question is...what exactly is it and does it have much (if any) value?

Is there some type of converter which would allow me to make use of that screw mount?

 

[JohnRice]

Crap. It's been an exact year and I never did this. I come looking for help and then don't follow through. Bad on me, fellas. I'll fix that.

In the meantime, what brought me to this thread today is this.

I got this. For free. The main question I have is...is there any way for me to mount this with my Canon 80D?

I guess the other question is...what exactly is it and does it have much (if any) value?

Is there some type of converter which would allow me to make use of that screw mount?

Mike, that’s probably a “T Mount” and yes, there should be a T to EOS adapter. Whether it can be used on your camera I don’t know. It’s a “preset” lens and not all cameras can be used with them. For instance, my Nikon D500 and Z5 can use it, but not my D5500.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Mike, even if it can (technically) be mounted (w/ adapter) and used on your Canon DSLR, I'm guessing it'd probably only be usable in fully manual mode, which might be extra tricky as a long tele lens (that also looks rather lightweight and probably not great in general). Not sure that's really something you wanna bother messing with, hehheh -- I suppose it might be alright for a little astrophotography perhaps, if you happened to need a long tele for that and can't spend any real $ for now...

There was apparently a similar question about a 600mm version of this lens on dpreview's forums roughly a year ago (just googled), and this particular reply goes a bit more into/along my sense of it...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Mike, even if it can (technically) be mounted (w/ adapter) and used on your Canon DSLR, I'm guessing it'd probably only be usable in fully manual mode, which might be extra tricky as a long tele lens (that also looks rather lightweight and probably not great in general). Not sure that's really something you wanna bother messing with, hehheh -- I suppose it might be alright for a little astrophotography perhaps, if you happened to need a long tele for that and can't spend any real $ for now...

There was apparently a similar question about a 600mm version of this lens on dpreview's forums roughly a year ago (just googled), and this particular reply goes a bit more into/along my sense of it...

_Man_

I've used lenses like this, though not with a mount adapter, on my D500. I will also use them on my Z5. I actually have two or three "dumb" (as I call them) lenses, which have zero connections between the camera and lens. So, not only is there no communication, the aperture doesn't close down automatically when you take a photo. It closes down as you change the aperture setting on the lens. If it works with your camera, then it should be usable in a modified aperture priority. The camera doesn't know what the aperture is, but will automatically set the corresponding shutter speed. I've actually done some fairly complicated photos with one of my preset lenses.

I don't know the Canon DSLR line, but I suspect you can use this lens on your camera. In the Nikon line, everything from the 7xxx series on up can use it, as far as I know. That's basically their entire line except the 3xxx and 5xxx series. I'm guessing in the Nikon mirrorless line, everything except the Z30 probably works with it.

 

[Citizen87645]

I have a similar 400mm screw-mount tele handed down from my dad. I put it on my 7D at one point, and got some moon shots, but the optics weren't great. Comparatively, my more modern 70-200 equivalent was sharper even though it only had half the range.

 

[JohnRice]

As I've been driving myself crazy nit-picking me journey into mirrorless, I was looking for info on the resolution of the Nikon Z7ii in DX mode, when I came across THIS THREAD. I don't know why it still amazes me that a fairly simple question can explode into a complete disaster of misinformation. As usual, the most misinformed respondents are the most adamant they are right.

So, the basic question was if there is a loss of image quality by shooting a Z7ii in DX mode, vs using a D50. There are a lot of dynamics that can be considered, but the simple answer is, you can shoot DX, or FX and crop in post. Same basic result. The difference is that if you really know you don't want the FX area, you can save storage space by shooting DX in this situation. What I find absolutely amazing is the insistent responses that shooting a Z7ii in DX mode sacrifices dynamic range. Yeah, you lose total resolution, but the sensor is the same, the pixel size is the same, there's just fewer of them being used. Clearly these people are confused by the fact that the difference between a DX camera of a given resolution and an FX one of the same resolution is not the same as just using fewer pixels in an FX camera.

This is something I've been considering as I make the move to mirrorless. I've decided I'm going to get rid of DSLR entirely.

Anyone want to discuss this topic?

 

[Citizen87645]

Not sure I need a discussion as what you described makes sense to me.