The Photography Discussion Thread

[John Thawley]

How do I go beyond the 30 second shutter time? I've been trying night photography lately, just trying things in the park and forest near my house, but it was so dark tonight that with 30", ISO 800, 1 camera flash and a maglite the image was still very dark. And on top of that the ISO made the pics look ugly.

I think the issue becomes heat with a sensor.

The ugly grain is more a condition of being underexposed. Have you tried shooting RAW. That will let you adjust up a couple of stops in post.

JT

[basman007]

Hm, in the old film days, you could expose a film more than once on the same position, so without transporting the film, is it not possible with digital cameras to re-expose a jpeg?

hmm, I don't think it works that way with data. I've heard people say "I've done a 5 minute exposure" before, so I think it is possible to keep the shutter open for 5 minutes straight.

[basman007]

I think the issue becomes heat with a sensor.

The ugly grain is more a condition of being underexposed. Have you tried shooting RAW. That will let you adjust up a couple of stops in post.

JT

I did try RAW, but it didn't look very nice.

Good point on the heat btw, I don't know much about that.

[Sauc3]

hmm, I don't think it works that way with data. I've heard people say "I've done a 5 minute exposure" before, so I think it is possible to keep the shutter open for 5 minutes straight.

You'd be using BULB setting for a 5 minute exposure. This is found, at least on my camera, under full manual or shutter priority and one click past 30 seconds. Once on BULB, you have to manually expose the image, so you hold the shutter button as long as you deem necessary. The problem with this is that your constant contact with the camera will result 999 times out of 1000 in camera shake, because you simply cannot keep your hand still whilst holding the shutter release. The best way to get around this is to buy a remote, I got mine for AU$90, so they're very cheap, and instead of holding the shutter button they have a locking mechanism, where you just lock the shutter button down and release it when you think the image has been exposed long enough.

One thing to watch out for when taking photos and walking away from the camera, keep an eye on it! A school mate was taking photos for an assignment, set up the camera at the mouth of an alleyway and proceeded to walk up and down the alley flashing as he went to illuminate certain bits of the alley. Upon his return, he found that camera and tripod were gone, and couldn't see anyone because he just didn't keep a track of his camera while flashing. Just a hint.

[basman007]

Thanks, found it after 30" in manual. We have the same cameras

[zeppelin]

So after a lot of shooting, and changing my mind between going wide-angle, fixed 50mm, macro and pretty much every option, I think I've decided on this (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) for my next purchase. I find that when I carry more than one lens, I rarely switch, and I really like the idea of versatility. 17mm is pretty good on for capturing a wide field of view, and 85mm is pretty rad. I rarely shoot farther than 100mm with my telephoto as it is.

So what I'd like to know, from you Canon users, is this lens worth it? I've been told it's exceptionally sharp; however I've never used an IS lens, how useful is it really? I'd also prefer if the aperture could be opened up more than f/4, but it seems any lenses that can have a significant price jump. The price is right though, with new examples going for under $400 on eBay, and the versatility makes it seem the most useful to me on paper.

[John Thawley]

So after a lot of shooting, and changing my mind between going wide-angle, fixed 50mm, macro and pretty much every option, I think I've decided on this (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) for my next purchase. I find that when I carry more than one lens, I rarely switch, and I really like the idea of versatility. 17mm is pretty good on for capturing a wide field of view, and 85mm is pretty rad. I rarely shoot farther than 100mm with my telephoto as it is.

So what I'd like to know, from you Canon users, is this lens worth it? I've been told it's exceptionally sharp; however I've never used an IS lens, how useful is it really? I'd also prefer if the aperture could be opened up more than f/4, but it seems any lenses that can have a significant price jump. The price is right though, with new examples going for under $400 on eBay, and the versatility makes it seem the most useful to me on paper.

I don't have personal experience with that lens in particular. But regarding to your desire for a faster lens, the IS will at least give you an extra stop of shooting capability in low light situations. It won't, however, give you the nice 'bokeh' that a f/2.8 will give you. For that, you'd need to go with the 24-70 and you'd be giving up range on both ends.

What you should understand though, is when you pick up range in zooms, you're going to inherit "softer" (all being relative) images. It's just the nature of the beast. To accomplish the range it requires additional elements (read: glass). The more glass you shoot through the more detail (and light) you're giving up.

For me, when it comes to short range, or walk around lenses, I'll always forego the telephoto end for the wide and normal. Consider this... if you're lens only goes to 70mm, to get the crop of 100mm, you only need to take three steps forward. Granted you don't get the compression effects of the longer focal length, but the reach is not a big deal.

At the end of the day, for walk-around shooting I want wide and fast. My Leica's equivalent is 28mm-90mm at f/2.0 -2.4 and it's stunning. Not sure what body you're on but that 17mm is yielding a 28mm on a 1:6 crop factored sensor.

Personally, I always recommend buying the very best glass you can afford. As you come along over the years, you'll see that your real photographic love affairs are with glass. Bodies come and go, but lenses become the true objects of desire. Lenses have characteristics and personalities that set themselves and the pictures they produce, apart from everything else.

Lenses are best investment you can make. Do whatever you can do to buy the best.

JT

[zeppelin]

I don't have personal experience with that lens in particular. But regarding to your desire for a faster lens, the IS will at least give you an extra stop of shooting capability in low light situations. It won't, however, give you the nice 'bokeh' that a f/2.8 will give you. For that, you'd need to go with the 24-70 and you'd be giving up range on both ends.

What you should understand though, is when you pick up range in zooms, you're going to inherit "softer" (all being relative) images. It's just the nature of the beast. To accomplish the range it requires additional elements (read: glass). The more glass you shoot through the more detail (and light) you're giving up.

For me, when it comes to short range, or walk around lenses, I'll always forego the telephoto end for the wide and normal. Consider this... if you're lens only goes to 70mm, to get the crop of 100mm, you only need to take three steps forward. Granted you don't get the compression effects of the longer focal length, but the reach is not a big deal.

At the end of the day, for walk-around shooting I want wide and fast. My Leica's equivalent is 28mm-90mm at f/2.0 -2.4 and it's stunning. Not sure what body you're on but that 17mm is yielding a 28mm on a 1:6 crop factored sensor.

Personally, I always recommend buying the very best glass you can afford. As you come along over the years, you'll see that your real photographic love affairs are with glass. Bodies come and go, but lenses become the true objects of desire. Lenses have characteristics and personalities that set themselves and the pictures they produce, apart from everything else.

Lenses are best investment you can make. Do whatever you can do to buy the best.

JT

Thanks for all your input. I do agree that having a lens with a better f-stop would be nice, it only seems most lens at f/2.8 become more expensive than I can realistically afford for any time in the future. My reasoning for having a more versatile zoom is that I do a lot of architecture photography, and often I see interesting patterns that are hard to zoom into from the ground. Then again even with the 17-85mm, I'd probably still need my telephoto anyway. And I suppose with a lower zoom, but good enough lens I could crop my final shot, as I rarely use or process the full-sized images. This is where clarity comes into play, and I'd really like to get the sharpest lens for my money. Perhaps I should think about giving up some zoom and pick a more focused lens. Also, right now I'm using a 350D (Rebel XT) and its kit lens is just not doing it for me anymore (18-55mm EF-S, basic lens).

[John Thawley]

My reasoning for having a more versatile zoom is that I do a lot of architecture photography, and often I see interesting patterns that are hard to zoom into from the ground.

For shooting architecture, I'd be VERY careful with my selection of wide angle lenses.

Obviously, they're an advantage for shooting indoors and fitting things in, but you're going to inherit considerable barrel distortion. Remember, although your Rebel thinks a 17mm is a 28mm in magnification, it will still inherit the barrel distortion of a 17mm... not a 28mm. So, you might want to see if you can find a lens that has a better correction factor.

There are trade-offs in zooms.... they have issues that are simply inherent by design. Slower, potential to be soft, heavier... even slower auto focus. It's no accident that the 70-200 is such a great zoom. It's a great length but over the scale of focal lengths, it doesn't try to over reach and it resides in a very neutral place regarding focal length characteristics. The 70mm doesn't bend at all and the 200mm end isn't overly compressed.

You might do better with a good comfortable prime.

Pick wisely.

JT

[zeppelin]

When it comes to a lot of general architecture shots, I actually like the warp of the wide angle. Granted not always, but often I like the exaggerated sense of scale it gives to some buildings. I appreciate your tips though, I think I'll spend some more time researching a lens to pick now.

[drakkie]

Seriously considering to get the Sigma 10-20 mm lense one of these days. Anybody have an opinion about these ? Any experiences ?

[DBR9]

When it comes to a lot of general architecture shots, I actually like the warp of the wide angle. Granted not always, but often I like the exaggerated sense of scale it gives to some buildings. I appreciate your tips though, I think I'll spend some more time researching a lens to pick now.

I have the lens you are on about it came as a kit lens with my 40D id rate it as good, it does have one or two issues though.

Positives
- Light
- Fast autofocus also quiet.

Disadvantages
- I tend to find my lens doesn't manage too well under low light conditions but if you are outdoors you should be fine.

My advice would be if you are determined to buy a lens i would recommend this one however if you were willing to save and wait i would save up for say for a f2.8 lens or if you could wait a while and find a way id look at a second hand 24-105 f4L.

[DBR9]

On a seperate note from the above post, i have a canon 40D and have recently been selecting the af point with my multicontoller for specific photos but now when i got into the menu and change it back to normal it still only uses the focus point i selected normally when i change away from point selection it uses all the points to determine focus but it just won't anyone know how to resolve this issue?

[Rasmus]

So after a lot of shooting, and changing my mind between going wide-angle, fixed 50mm, macro and pretty much every option, I think I've decided on this (EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) for my next purchase. I find that when I carry more than one lens, I rarely switch, and I really like the idea of versatility. 17mm is pretty good on for capturing a wide field of view, and 85mm is pretty rad. I rarely shoot farther than 100mm with my telephoto as it is.

So what I'd like to know, from you Canon users, is this lens worth it? I've been told it's exceptionally sharp; however I've never used an IS lens, how useful is it really? I'd also prefer if the aperture could be opened up more than f/4, but it seems any lenses that can have a significant price jump. The price is right though, with new examples going for under $400 on eBay, and the versatility makes it seem the most useful to me on paper.

Do not get the 17-85. Get the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Trust me on this one, I've had both, and the 17-55 is by far worth the extra cash. It really is that good! It does everything better than the 17-85 (except for maybe go beyond 55mm). Heck, it even outperformed the 24-70 I had for a while when it came to contrast and wide open sharpness. I've talked a few people into getting this lens and they have all been more than happy with it. The few that went with the 17-85 have since upgraded.

If you want a wide angle lens, the Sigma 10-20 is a good pick, but I would probably favor the Canon 10-22. Again, not that big of a difference but merely down to personal preference.

Currently I only have two zooms; the 17-55 and the 70-200. The rest is made up of primes.

Get the very best piece of glass you can afford. You may buy a new camera body or two over the course of some years but the good glass you keep.

[John Thawley]

On a seperate note from the above post, i have a canon 40D and have recently been selecting the af point with my multicontoller for specific photos but now when i got into the menu and change it back to normal it still only uses the focus point i selected normally when i change away from point selection it uses all the points to determine focus but it just won't anyone know how to resolve this issue?

Make sure you're not in Automatic mode.

JT