Road Train !!!!!!!!!!

by Russell McMahon

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

Lifting the relevant section from another answer of mine: Basically, the larger the aperture is, the larger the angle of light rays on the outside of the lens has to change: Look at the image and imagine that D increases while f stays the same - it should be clear that the light rays then need to "bend" more. And making optics that refract light rays at ...


0

Maybe thinking of it as the square root of powers of 2: sqrt(1) = 1 sqrt(2) ~= 1.4 sqrt(4) = 2 sqrt(8) ~= 2.8 sqrt(16) = 4 sqrt(32) ~= 5.6 sqrt(64) = 8 sqrt(128) ~= 11 sqrt(256) = 16 Personally, though, outright memorization seems the easier route. :D


2

If your goal is to minimize star trails then the wider aperture is always preferred. The wider angle lens will allow you to get more of the milky way in a single shot, but if you are comfortable and willing to stitch multiple images together then it doesn't matter much. See: How do I capture the milky way?


1

If you have the lens, make test pictures on a normal day of a very far (almost at infinity) point-like object, like an antenna. Use a tripod, use fast shutter, low ISO, compare the images. You cannot get better comparison than actually doing it yourself! :-)


1

You can get more data about how these rounded values were derived here. The page contains a table called "Tables for Aperture F/stop, ISO, Shutter Speed Values - in Full, Third and Half stops" - because steps and rounding is different based on whether you are using 1/1, 1/2 or 1/3-stop resolution.


-2

Experimentation, tips from many talented mentors a pile of garbage images and some pure luck has resulted in a default starting setup / checklist for any Landscape, Panorama Stitch during Daytime or at Night... This also works as Middle Exposure in any HDR Bracket. Heavy Tripod (Keep legs and neck extension to a minimum) F-Stop -3EV from the Full Closed ...


2

If the question is meant literally f/1.4 vs f/16, then I would say 16, because there are only handful of lenses that are good enough at f/1.4 to shoot landscape type of photography in great technical quality. But my mindset about setting aperture (for these types of shots or others) is different. In this kind of photography you should set your aperture to: ...


7

If so, which would be more advisable? Assuming you don't have stability or motion issues and depth of field is not a concern then f/16 would be more advisable than f/1.4 as ultra-fast lenses show several image degrading aberrations when the aperture is wide open. However f/5.6 would probably be better still, as diffraction starts to kick in past this ...


3

The distance of the objects is not a factor on your decision on the shutter speed. Their relative movement velocity related to the camera as well as your composition intentions and the available light is what really matters. The fact that you ask the question hints that you don't know about the artistic differences between a large aperture and a small one ...


13

f/16 will give you sharper image than f/1.4. Yes, diffraction does kick-in at f/16, but it's still not as bad as the optical flaws that are pronounced at f/1.4 in pretty much every f/1.4 lens out there. (see: tests of your particular lens, resolution charts) Also lens coma and astigmatism are worse when lens is wide open than when it's stopped-down. That's ...


3

Assuming you are using a tripod, the shutter speed will make little difference in itself. If you are hand-holding, a faster shutter speed will help to eliminate shake. You also have the consideration of any moving objects in the scene, like trees, water, or clouds - a slower shutter speed will blur them. However, image quality is rarely at its best at ...


0

The Bayer array doesn't help the issue of diffraction. Blue light has the shortest wavelength and thus suffers less from diffraction than green or red. The highest resolving "conventional" sensor would be sensitive to blue light. But in addition to losing color the images would look a bit weird because blue only contributes about 10% to luminance. If you ...


2

In theory there is no limit if the number of collected photons can be arbitrarily large and the object is stationary. The diffraction limit and lens imperfections can be circumvented by deconvolution. The limitations due to the finite pixel size can be dealt with using superresolution methods. Here you make multiple exposures where the camera is shifted such ...


4

In addition to Michael's excellent answer on diffraction, there are a huge number of other effects which are going to limit your resolution; here's just a brainstormed list: What are you using to record the image? The practical answers here are either film, which has a finite grain size and thus a finite resolution, or a digital sensor, which has a finite ...


4

Diffraction limits the ability of a lens to resolve adjacent image details separately. Exposure length or combining separate images cannot overcome this. Basically, due to diffraction, a point source of light (i.e. a small image detail) will produce this signal on the sensor: Two details that are just far enough apart to be resolved as separate: But ...



Top 50 recent answers are included