•  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4(current)
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Your favourite feature of the D850?
#31
Of course you need a tripod for long exposure, regardless of if you use low ISO, ND filters or stack images.

Editor
photozone.de

#32
Quote:Yup. Something like this:

 
 

Clever mst, don't inlcude the EXIF, otherwise somebody might get the idea you could do this kind of stuff in dark fair situations as well with ISO 200, IBIS and f/16

 

[Image: _DSC1971-XL.jpg]

 

That one was at ISO125, f/11, 1/10 in daylight (although not very bright daylight like in Sahara or the Arctic)

 

Handheld and OIS switched ON. I think, abreathing workshop could do more than an ISO 6 body  Rolleyes Ooooohhmmm...
#33
That wasn't intentional. And no, I don't think a breathing workshop would have helped. Nor would IBIS (or VR)

 

Especially for you: Nikon D7200, AF-S DX 16-85 VR at 52 mm and f/7.1, ISO 400, 5 sec exposure. ND 3.0 filter and Leica tabletop tripod with tiny Markins ballhead.

 

I'm not sure what your point is by now, mine was just: shots like this would require a little less effort with a camera that could do really low ISO. I wouldn't have to remember taking the ND filters (the right sizes), wouldn't have to compose the scene first, focus, do a test shot, then mount the filter, adjust exposure and shoot. With low ISO, I could save some time and (most notably) still have a usable viewfinder image.

Editor
photozone.de

#34
Quote:Of course you need a tripod for long exposure, regardless of if you use low ISO, ND filters or stack images.
 

Tripod for

 

low ISO âœ”


ND filters or ✔


stack images ✖


 

:lol:

 

You've seen my handheld focusstack? Lemme show u:

 

[Image: Bru%CC%88cke-L.jpg]

 

If the software already has to work, it can as well also align the pictures... but of course it's better not to need that step. And a tripod is helpful in each way. Just not needed for stacks...
#35
Quote:That wasn't intentional. And no, I don't think a breathing workshop would have helped. Nor would IBIS (or VR)

 

Especially for you: Nikon D7200, AF-S DX 16-85 VR at 52 mm and f/7.1, ISO 400, 5 sec exposure. ND 3.0 filter and Leica tabletop tripod with tiny Markins ballhead.

 

I'm not sure what your point is by now, mine was just: shots like this would require a little less effort with a camera that could do really low ISO. I wouldn't have to remember taking the ND filters (the right sizes), wouldn't have to compose the scene first, focus, do a test shot, then mount the filter, adjust exposure and shoot. With low ISO, I could save some time and (most notably) still have a usable viewfinder image.
 

And the shot is where...?

 

My point is: Instead of stretching a modern sensor beyond it's possibilities, I rather prefer a soft- or firmware solution, keep base ISO at 64 and also the max ISO - I'm rather afraid, your highly specialized ultra low ISO sensor would do just these low ISO pretty well and suck at "normal" ISO like the Sigmas do. No free lunch...

 

And if you (or I) need a second body with a more universal sensor, all the "don't need to think about or transport ND filters and their holder" benefits would be lost.

#36
That's focus stacking. I was talking about exposure stacking. Which I prefer to do myself (not have it done in a black box device) and for that, perfect alignment is a must.

 

And I'm perfectly fine with it, I don't mind using a tripod. That wasn't my point.

Editor
photozone.de

#37
Quote:And the shot is where...?
In post #29...
Editor
photozone.de

#38
I have to add another thing. 5 seconds on a fair balcony can add (and is a risk for anyway) some motion blurr to the otherwise static cars, depending what's and who's going next to you. I never tried to stack and align short time exposures to a long time collection. Okay, once I did - when shooting film and the perforation was too weak, so the frame kept in place... I really wonder what the transition time zone between two shots would do to the picture. At worst some kind of stroboscopic effect.

 

Oh and thank you for your exposure data. Let's see: ISO 400? Not the lowest you can get from a D7200? f/7.1? Not the closest one can get (but you were aware of diffraction, I think, and tried to avoid it?) + ND3.0 = 10 stops.

 

At 5 secs you need a tripod - so no changes in exposure time needed. The ND filter is like an aperture of f/150 (roughly 10 stops down from f/7.1) or ISO 1.5 (again, 10 stops down form ISO 400). Going "only" down to ISO 6, you'd get away with f/16. And again, diffraction kicks in. But no ND filter needed.

 

So I keep on thinking: Wether there is an ISO 6 setting (with decent enough quality) or a long exposure stack: Both could be in camera (that was the reason to show a handheld focusstack, which is much more complicated to blend over), both would allow to leave ND filter at home. Additionally, the stack (if the software is up to perfect alignment) could also save the tripod. I don't see a reason why that should be a worse thing than ISO 6.

 

There's pixel shift in various models, there's Photoshop coming up with AI for composings, selections and contextsensitve image repair , Arsenal also is based on AI. and modern phones' cameras imitating bokeh. It might as well be we could not detect the software-manipulation. After all, a long time exposure itself is already a kind of reality distortion we never will be able to see if it was no camera involved (as well as ultra-highspeed shots).

#39
Oh my... you're really in smartass mode today, aren't you? Wink


Sorry, no offense, but seriously: I didn't claim "I want ISO 6 in-camera"... 6 is just the setting which that Kodak, that Toni and me remembered, offered. But yes, it would have made that shot possible, too, to some extent. But that sample image was not meant to say "look, I could have done this without ND if I had ISO 6", it was simply an example of what kind of shots I sometimes wish I had in-camera low iso.


On your thoughts about the shot: I only had the ND3.0 available, so no way to adjust things there. Aperture was chosen to avoid diffraction, true, and 5 secs to get the amount of motion blur I was looking for. That only left me with ISO to adjust exposure a little, that's why it's at ISO 400 and not a lower setting.

 

Edit: and no, I don't think you can do exposure stacking handheld with reasonable quality. For focus stacking, the software can pick parts of the images from each shot and combine them into a new one. For exposure stacking, you want the same parts of the image at different exposures and blend them. To me, that's something different.

 

Anyway, as already said, I definitely don't mind using a tripod. Certainly the best way to get the best performance out of your glass, still Smile

Editor
photozone.de

#40
Quote:Oh my... you're really in smartass mode today, aren't you? Wink
 

 

Yeah, it's my smartass-Tuesday [Image: lehre21x18.gif] why are you asking?  ^_^

 

Basically you know that I agree about tripods and glass and don't leave too much to software. But I also made some tests with tripods and I also got slightly blurred tripod shots because there was wind, tiny vibrations, kind of shutter slap or one of Saturn's moons was a bit in rampage mode.

 

I think, I just want to find out if there are different paths to the goal longtime exposure as in "it's good to have a choice". And pointing out the downsides I'm seeing with a ultralow ISO camera doesn't mean it couldn't be done - it just means "where's the hot pepper in that idea, which leaves the marketing dudes breath fire?"
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4(current)
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)