Professional Web Applications Themes

F stops - Photography

Recently I noticed somewhere (cant recall where now off course) that somebody had stated that the F stop in a digital is not as critical or does not match that of a "normal" camera. I own a cp5700 and the only issue I have with it is that it doesn't have an aperture range past f8.0. As I was intending to be a budding Ansel Adams I wondered if there is a difference in the aperture size and how do I compensate for not having a larger aperture range so that I can ensure a large depth of field. ps ...

  1. #1

    Default F stops

    Recently I noticed somewhere (cant recall where now off course) that
    somebody had stated that the F stop in a digital is not as critical or does
    not match that of a "normal" camera. I own a cp5700 and the only issue I
    have with it is that it doesn't have an aperture range past f8.0. As I was
    intending to be a budding Ansel Adams I wondered if there is a difference in
    the aperture size and how do I compensate for not having a larger aperture
    range so that I can ensure a large depth of field.

    ps remember we are not all as technically minded or informed as some so
    please keep the smart comments to a minimum.

    Look forward to being informed
    --
    Don


    Don Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: F stops

    > As I was intending to be a budding Ansel Adams .......
    ========================================

    I take it you have all his books and all his posters. Perhaps you might
    consider using a camera that can be controlled ?

    For the cost of the 5700 you could have bought a b&w film processing kit, a
    camera and a light meter.


    Miro Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: F stops

    "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote:

    G'day Don,
    > Recently I noticed somewhere (cant recall where now off course) that
    > somebody had stated that the F stop in a digital is not as critical or
    does
    > not match that of a "normal" camera.
    The apparent depth of field on a consumer digital camera (like the 5700) is
    much greater than a "normal" 35mm film camera, WHEN talking about the same
    field of view and the same f/stop.
    > I own a cp5700 and the only issue I
    > have with it is that it doesn't have an aperture range past f8.0. As I
    was
    > intending to be a budding Ansel Adams I wondered if there is a difference
    in
    > the aperture size and how do I compensate for not having a larger aperture
    > range so that I can ensure a large depth of field.
    You are fairly well assured of a large depth of field using the 5700 due to
    it's relatively small imaging sensor (CCD) and actual focal length of the
    lens, 8.9-71.2mm (35-280mm 35mm equiv. field of view)

    For example, say you are taking a photo of a tree 10 metres away using a
    50mm equivalent field of view, and an aperture of f4.

    At 50mm equiv. (12.6mm) The Nikon Coolpix 5700 would give a limit of
    acceptable sharpness of approx.:

    Near: 3.32m
    Far: Infinity

    compare this with a 35mm camera with a similar field of view:

    Near: 6.77m
    Far: 19.1m

    (Source: [url]http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html[/url])
    > ps remember we are not all as technically minded or informed as some so
    > please keep the smart comments to a minimum.
    >
    > Look forward to being informed
    Hope that helps,

    Regards, Ken


    Ken Chandler Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: F stops

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote:
    > "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote
    ** added back the name of the person Miro was quoting **
    > > As I was intending to be a budding Ansel Adams .......
    > I take it you have all his books and all his posters. Perhaps you might
    > consider using a camera that can be controlled ?
    Yes Don, Miro has offered a good suggestion, may I suggest something like
    the Coolpix 5700?

    It has Aperture priority, Shutter priority and Manual along with a whole
    bunch of other settings to play with.

    What? You have a Coolpix 5700? What was Miro talking about then? Maybe he
    was just being obtuse and intentionally argumentative again.
    > For the cost of the 5700 you could have bought a b&w film processing kit,
    a
    > camera and a light meter.
    He could have bought ~520 toothbrushes too, I'm guessing he didn't want 520
    toothbrushes though.


    Ken Chandler Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: F stops


    "Ken Chandler" <news_remove_.kenchandler.com> wrote in message
    news:3f10b4d4$0$31926$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote
    Ken I think you have the same mental condition that Mr Shutterbug has.
    Anyone that knows the work of Adams will be aware of his philosophy.

    Clearly Don wants to go beyond the cameras limits and clearly he is ing
    in the wind with a tool that is that limited.



    Miro Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: F stops



    Ken Chandler wrote:
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>"Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote
    >
    >
    > ** added back the name of the person Miro was quoting **
    >
    >
    >>>As I was intending to be a budding Ansel Adams .......
    >>
    >
    >>I take it you have all his books and all his posters. Perhaps you might
    >>consider using a camera that can be controlled ?
    >
    >
    > Yes Don, Miro has offered a good suggestion, may I suggest something like
    > the Coolpix 5700?
    >
    > It has Aperture priority, Shutter priority and Manual along with a whole
    > bunch of other settings to play with.
    >
    I don't think that is a good ogy to compare a small sensor digital
    camera with a 2/3 or full frame sensor.

    IMO they are hopeless to achieve a successful result compared to 35mm film.

    rm

    ops Guest

  7. #7

    Default was F stops - now exposure

    Thanks, for all the good oil. On a separate note, I have a Pentax 35mm with
    all the bells and whistles but prefer using the CP5700 for "in training"
    shots as I can bolt back home and throw the shots on to the monitor to see
    how I went.

    Today is a classis example. I went looking for some moving water in a creek
    to shoot hoping to get the milky smoothness that I have seen in various
    mags. Had to shoot upstream and into the sun. Ended up with in excess of
    100 shots. None of them any good. Tried bracketing, slow shutter, large
    aperture, grey card, auto, manual, etc etc. Still ended up with overcooked
    water no matter what settings I used. Only thing I didn't try that I can
    think of was a polariser or neutral density focus. Just couldn't get the
    exposure correct. List below of various exposures (all 100ISO):

    1/1,000 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0 ev
    + & -
    1/30 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0
    ev + & -
    1/7.5 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0
    ev + & -
    1/60 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0
    ev + & -
    1/15 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0
    ev + & -
    1/120 f3.1 fl 14.7mm (bracket all around this ranging from .3ev to 2.0
    ev + & -
    and more at the same f-stop and focal length, then tried different stops
    7.9, 7.4, 7.1, 8, 4 etc etc.
    just couldn't nail it. either over exposed or under. The site was a gully
    with creek in middle, lots of trees, clouds (got the white balance down well
    on virtually all shots (used auto white bracketing). Spot metering and
    matrix. All shots on same focal length. Some of the shots were of a point
    and shoot snap, standard. However I am hoping for better.

    Any suggesting (of merit please)

    regards

    Don






    "Ken Chandler" <news_remove_.kenchandler.com> wrote in message
    news:3f10b213$0$31921$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote:
    >
    > G'day Don,
    >
    > > Recently I noticed somewhere (cant recall where now off course) that
    > > somebody had stated that the F stop in a digital is not as critical or
    > does
    > > not match that of a "normal" camera.
    >
    > The apparent depth of field on a consumer digital camera (like the 5700)
    is
    > much greater than a "normal" 35mm film camera, WHEN talking about the
    same
    > field of view and the same f/stop.
    >
    > > I own a cp5700 and the only issue I
    > > have with it is that it doesn't have an aperture range past f8.0. As I
    > was
    > > intending to be a budding Ansel Adams I wondered if there is a
    difference
    > in
    > > the aperture size and how do I compensate for not having a larger
    aperture
    > > range so that I can ensure a large depth of field.
    >
    > You are fairly well assured of a large depth of field using the 5700 due
    to
    > it's relatively small imaging sensor (CCD) and actual focal length of the
    > lens, 8.9-71.2mm (35-280mm 35mm equiv. field of view)
    >
    > For example, say you are taking a photo of a tree 10 metres away using a
    > 50mm equivalent field of view, and an aperture of f4.
    >
    > At 50mm equiv. (12.6mm) The Nikon Coolpix 5700 would give a limit of
    > acceptable sharpness of approx.:
    >
    > Near: 3.32m
    > Far: Infinity
    >
    > compare this with a 35mm camera with a similar field of view:
    >
    > Near: 6.77m
    > Far: 19.1m
    >
    > (Source: [url]http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html[/url])
    >
    > > ps remember we are not all as technically minded or informed as some so
    > > please keep the smart comments to a minimum.
    > >
    > > Look forward to being informed
    >
    > Hope that helps,
    >
    > Regards, Ken
    >
    >

    Don Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: was F stops - now exposure

    "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote:

    [snip]
    > Today is a classis example. I went looking for some moving water in a
    creek
    > to shoot hoping to get the milky smoothness that I have seen in various
    > mags.
    The moving water should also bubble or tear in areas of white eg over rocks
    etc, it is these white areas that will convey the movement over a prolonged
    exposure. If the water is flowing without many visual clues then capturing
    the movement on film is going to be tough.
    > Had to shoot upstream and into the sun. Ended up with in excess of
    > 100 shots. None of them any good. Tried bracketing, slow shutter, large
    > aperture, grey card, auto, manual, etc etc. Still ended up with
    overcooked
    > water no matter what settings I used.
    Generally for a long exposure you are going to want to be in a darker area
    or otherwise have enough neutral density filters to reduce the light enough
    for you to get the shutter time you are after at the aperture range you have
    to work with.

    If there is a large difference between say a bright sky and a river in
    shadows you may require a graduated neutral density filter to bring the
    whole scene within the range your camera can deal with.
    > Only thing I didn't try that I can
    > think of was a polariser or neutral density focus. Just couldn't get the
    > exposure correct. List below of various exposures (all 100ISO):
    [snipped large sample of settings]
    > just couldn't nail it. either over exposed or under. The site was a
    gully
    > with creek in middle, lots of trees, clouds (got the white balance down
    well
    > on virtually all shots (used auto white bracketing). Spot metering and
    > matrix. All shots on same focal length. Some of the shots were of a
    point
    > and shoot snap, standard. However I am hoping for better.
    Perhaps post a link to a sample of the scene you were trying to capture so I
    (we?) can get a better idea of what you had to work with.

    Here is one of my earlier attempts:
    [url]http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/photodisplay.asp?photoid=309881[/url]

    Regards,

    Ken


    Ken Chandler Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: was F stops - now exposure


    "Don" <mackie.donbigpond.com> wrote in message
    news:Tm8Qa.552$k57.23510newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
    > Today is a classis example. I went looking for some moving water in a
    creek
    > to shoot hoping to get the milky smoothness that I have seen in various
    > mags. Had to shoot upstream and into the sun. Ended up with in excess of
    > 100 shots. None of them any good.
    Its good to experiment but I think the idea of shooting is to think before
    you press the button. Unless it is sport there is no need to shoot first and
    think second.

    Have you read Adams's books ?


    Miro Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: F stops


    "Lionel" <nopalt.net> wrote in message news:berhfs$23l$0pita.alt.net...
    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:23:20 +1000, in
    > <3f10b4d4$0$31926$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.au> , "Ken Chandler"
    > <news_remove_.kenchandler.com> said:
    >
    > >What? You have a Coolpix 5700? What was Miro talking about then? Maybe
    he
    > >was just being obtuse and intentionally argumentative again.
    >
    > Or he was being just plain stupid, as usual.
    " It has Aperture priority, Shutter priority.........." - is this the same
    as manual control ? Idiot.


    Miro Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: F stops

    The CP5700 has full manual controls too.

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3f11541b$0$1209$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.au ...
    >
    > "Lionel" <nopalt.net> wrote in message news:berhfs$23l$0pita.alt.net...
    > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:23:20 +1000, in
    > > <3f10b4d4$0$31926$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.au> , "Ken Chandler"
    > > <news_remove_.kenchandler.com> said:
    > >
    > > >What? You have a Coolpix 5700? What was Miro talking about then? Maybe
    > he
    > > >was just being obtuse and intentionally argumentative again.
    > >
    > > Or he was being just plain stupid, as usual.
    >
    > " It has Aperture priority, Shutter priority.........." - is this the same
    > as manual control ? Idiot.
    >
    >

    Ubiquitous Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: F stops


    "Ubiquitous" <diliffiinet.net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f115847$0$23615$5a62ac22freenews.iinet.net. au...
    > The CP5700 has full manual controls too.
    >
    And they are highly constrained in range.


    Miro Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: F stops

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> writes:
    > "Ubiquitous" <diliffiinet.net.au> wrote in message
    > news:3f115847$0$23615$5a62ac22freenews.iinet.net. au...
    > > The CP5700 has full manual controls too.
    > >
    >
    > And they are highly constrained in range.
    Really? are the shutter speed options more highly constrained than,
    say, a Leica? Looks like 1/4000 to 8s on the specs I can find. That's
    a lot better than one of those 'constrained' Leicas.

    Sure, the aperture range isn't as much as you might like but that's a
    lot to do with effective DoF and diffraction limits.

    Glad to see you're giving the full story as usual, oh great idiot.

    B>
    Bruce Murphy Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: F stops

    ....<chomp>...
    > At 50mm equiv. (12.6mm) The Nikon Coolpix 5700 would give a limit of
    > acceptable sharpness of approx.:
    >
    > Near: 3.32m
    > Far: Infinity
    >
    > compare this with a 35mm camera with a similar field of view:
    >
    > Near: 6.77m
    > Far: 19.1m
    >
    > (Source: [url]http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html[/url])
    Without wanting to be drawn into a good Miro-bashing (well, not today)
    so without wandering into an actual discussion, that's a very handy
    website, Ken.

    I admit that this is completely beyond me in terms of optics and
    calculations, but:

    Does anyone know how they determine 'acceptable' sharpness? I can see
    how it's calculated based on Circle of Confusion, but wouldn't the CoC
    size differ based on display/print size/pickiness?

    It seems to be based on a CoC for 35mm film of 0.030 mm - anyone know
    if this corresponds to a particular print size?

    Or am I completely misunderstanding the whole CoC concept somehow?

    Cheers,

    Danny
    Danny Smith Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: F stops

    [email]dsmithsiroccoresources.com.au[/email] (Danny Smith) writes:
    > Without wanting to be drawn into a good Miro-bashing (well, not today)
    Coward! :)
    > so without wandering into an actual discussion, that's a very handy
    > website, Ken.
    >
    > I admit that this is completely beyond me in terms of optics and
    > calculations, but:
    >
    > Does anyone know how they determine 'acceptable' sharpness? I can see
    > how it's calculated based on Circle of Confusion, but wouldn't the CoC
    > size differ based on display/print size/pickiness?
    There is an implicit assumptions that any given print size will have a
    'normal viewing distance' which is based on its linear
    size. Basically, your distance from a print when viewing it will be
    directly proportional to the size of the print (I recall one example
    being 'approximately the diagonal length away from it').

    This permits the CoC definition to stand and solves the issue you spotted.
    > It seems to be based on a CoC for 35mm film of 0.030 mm - anyone know
    > if this corresponds to a particular print size?
    >
    > Or am I completely misunderstanding the whole CoC concept somehow?
    B>
    Bruce Murphy Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: F stops

    Made sense to me.....
    But then I'll get flamed as a top poster probably......

    T.
    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3f116e9a$0$1212$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.au ...
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > And they are highly constrained in range.
    >
    > Here miro says "it's not manual control because shutter speed and
    > aperture are highly constrained in range"
    Yes I recall now ... this is Bruce Murphy style in action. Random splices of
    English like DNA in a blender muddled and jumbled - SEND.

    Do you follow the thread of this conversation at all or does it now have to
    conform to your preferences.

    Naturally you are hijacking the thoughts again ..... may we speak now ?



    Thomas Houseman Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: F stops

    "Thomas Houseman" <thomashousemanhotmail.com> writes:
    > Made sense to me.....
    > But then I'll get flamed as a top poster probably......
    Even if you top-post (which is an abomination under the eyes of
    USENET) you should still make sure your client marks quote text by
    indenting it with '>' so that people know what *you* wrote withing
    having to compare it against the previous post.

    B>
    Bruce Murphy Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: F stops


    "Lionel" <nopalt.net> wrote in message news:bet9jv$n1c$4pita.alt.net...
    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:02:21 +1000, in
    > <3f115847$0$23615$5a62ac22freenews.iinet.net.au >, "Ubiquitous"
    > <diliffiinet.net.au> said:
    >
    > >The CP5700 has full manual controls too.
    >
    > Jeez! - Surely you don't expect Miro to have to check the actual *facts*
    > before making one of his obnoxious comments? The poor bugger wouldn't
    > be able to post at all!
    >
    You really do have a "special" problem I sense. The poster is complaining
    about the lack of f-stop range. Is that somehow lost on your ADD mind.


    Miro Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: F stops


    "Thomas Houseman" <thomashousemanhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:betk2p$8n2s9$1ID-90831.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > Phew,
    > At least I didn't get flamed for not trimming the previous post. (maybe
    this
    > time)
    > T.
    Beg for your life. You may not adress Sir Murphy directly.


    Miro Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: F stops

    >
    > Does anyone know how they determine 'acceptable' sharpness? I can see
    > how it's calculated based on Circle of Confusion, but wouldn't the CoC
    > size differ based on display/print size/pickiness?
    >
    > It seems to be based on a CoC for 35mm film of 0.030 mm - anyone know
    > if this corresponds to a particular print size?
    >
    > Or am I completely misunderstanding the whole CoC concept somehow?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Danny
    DoF calcs are "normally" based on a print size of 10x8 inches.


    Russell Stewart Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FMS Service STOPS!
    By TheBimmer in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 19th, 06:56 PM
  2. Acronbat Pro 7 stops STOPS Acrobat printer in 10.4.7
    By Julian_R_Yates@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 3rd, 06:13 AM
  3. i want it stops
    By el_ganso in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 16th, 11:38 PM
  4. ASP Processor Stops
    By avram in forum ASP
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 19th, 12:51 PM
  5. ids stops
    By Bill Hamilton in forum Informix
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 12th, 10:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139