Thursday, December 1, 2011

What mm lens for distance shots?

Question

If I am looking to take landscape and wildlife shots and some of those shots being from a decent distance what mm lens would I need? I am not sure what else I should be adding here, I am just looking for decent quality above all else.

Answer

The mm of a lens is the focal length. To take close-up shots of things far away, you need a "long" focal length, which means high mm.

An entry or mid-level Canon camera has an "APS-C" sized sensor. The sensor size is really what determines what the meaning of the focal length is — focal length and sensor size together give you angle of view. (See my visual exercise for understanding that.)

To get another visual idea of what all this means, look at the answers to How can I visualize or simulate the effect of different focal lengths?, particularly the one that points to Nikon's web-based lens simulator. As mentioned, the numbers are slightly different from Nikon to Canon (choose Nikon's "DX" format to be closest to an entry-level Canon), but close enough that it really doesn't matter for basic purposes. Drag the slider at the bottom to see the effect of a focal length ranging from 10mm to an extreme 600mm.

After playing with that, come back here to read some explanation of what all this means:

Canon's APS-C is slightly smaller than that from Nikon, Sony, or Pentax. This isn't a big deal, but for those systems the numbers below should be a few percent larger for the same meaning. All of the definitions are rough categories, though, so it's close enough that it really doesn't matter.

Anyway, on Canon's APS-C, a focal length of about 27mm is considered normal — that means when printed at normal size, you get a perspective that seems natural and about what you might expect your memory of the scene to be.

Focal lengths in somewhere in that neighborhood are also considered normal: probably up to 40mm or so, and down to about 22mm.

Once you get smaller than 22mm, you're into wide angle. Wide angle won't be terribly flattering for portraits (it will cause features to be exaggerated if your subject is close enough to fill the frame), but the more-normal end of the wide range is pretty common for street photography. And, wide angle is very common for the landscape shots you mention.

Down below 15mm, it's "ultra-wide", where perspective distortion starts to be a key feature of the way the lens sees. This can be used for landscapes, but you have to be very aware of the distortion and the field of view of the lens — see this question on ultra-wide composition.

On the other side, there's the telephoto range. Telephoto has a technical meaning, but generally we use it to just mean a lens with a relatively long focal length (high mm). The range from around 50mm to 85mm is considered short telephoto or portrait — the latter because, well, it's a good range for flattering perspective for portraits, and it's not so narrow that you have to stand hundreds of feet from your subject.

Beyond that is the real telephoto range. This is generally what people want for action and wildlife shots, because they enable you to get right into the action without actually being close.

Consumer-priced telephoto zooms usually go to 200mm, 250mm, or 300mm. Lower-cost lenses in this range tend to have less ability to let in light — they are "slow lenses". The fancier, "faster" lenses in this range used by professionals and enthusiasts for sports and wildlife cost one to two thousand dollars. And for fast lenses beyond 300mm, you could pay several times that, even.

But that's probably not what you're looking for right now. It might be — one advantage of just getting the nicer equipment to start is that you can forget about buying stuff for a while and just go out and enjoy while you grown into your gear, rather than growing out of it soon and wasting money trading up. So if you know a 70-200mm f/2.8 pro lens is right for you, it's not a mistake to just start there.

However, it's likely that you'll feel most comfortable starting out with a standard two-lens zoom kit. This isn't a bundle as sold by those shady camera stores: it's something from the camera makers. Almost all entry-level SLRs come with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (note that the numbers go from wide angle at 18mm up through normal to portrait length at 55mm — this is a very versatile range, which is why it's the default). Many are also offered in two-lens kits with a 50-200mm telephoto zoom — or else, a 50-200mm lens is available separately cheaply. Sometimes, there's "upgrade" options like a 55-300mm zoom, also usually of lower-end features and quality for a similarly-reasonable price. You won't go wrong buying a setup like this from any of the top handful of brands.

What is a “2.2X Pro Telephoto” lens?

Question

I am looking to enter the world of SLR cameras and learning some more about lenses. I came across a package that has a 2.2X pro Telephoto what exactly does that mean and how does it work? (Please explain it in lay terms I am new to the lingo here)

Answer

'm assuming you mean this: Raynox DCR-2025, Pro 2.2x Telephoto Lens for Digital Still Cameras. In this case, beware of the word "pro", as it doesn't mean anything — Raynox just sticks that on all of their similar products to make them sound fancier. It's also disingenuous and confusing for Raynox to call this a "telephoto lens", because it isn't really.

This isn't a stand-alone lens, but is rather a "teleside converter" made to increase effective focal length of a "real" lens. It's made to give additional options for digicams and camcorders without interchangeable lenses, and it works by using lenses to increase the width of the incoming beam of light. You could conceivably use this on an SLR lens, but I don't think you want to.

In general, they're not really a good deal, since even when you can't change lenses, you can often get better image quality just by cropping. That's because the additional optics destroy detail, so you loose image quality. Might as well lose image quality for free by cropping the image to just the detail you're interested in.

If you really want to use a teleconverter, the kind which goes between your primary lens and the camera usually offers better image quality, although that kind also restricts the effective aperture. But I think probably what you actually want is a real telephoto lens.

How do different aperture and shutter settings affect a photo with the same overall exposure?

Question

Ok, here's my doubt. Suppose I want to get a certain exposure for an image. Keeping the ISO constant, there are two tentative possibilities here:

  1. Put the camera at f 1.4 (say) and at 1/1600 shutter speed (suppose).
  2. Put aperture at f 8.0 (say) and shutter speed at 1/50 (suppose).

Both would get me the exact same exposure. Yes, for the latter, I may have to use a tripod. But the question being, what would be the difference in the image thus obtained? I can fairly interchange the settings for the same shot (theoretically). Or can't I?

Answer

Different shutter speeds have an obvious different effect: more motion-blur. (That includes both subject motion and blur from any motion of the camera itself.)

Different apertures also produce different results; most notably that depth of field increases as you stop down. So, f/8 gives you a much deeper in-focus area than f/1.8. This effect is lessened on a smaller sensor (or, if for some reason you just crop out the center part of the image and blow it up), to the point where it's basically a non-factor on most point & shoot cameras.

But there are other effects of changing as well: lens sharpness, contrast, and vignetting characteristics change, usually improving significantly when you stop down a bit. (For a certain look, though, that technical improvement may not, in fact, be what you want.)

That's assuming perfect reciprocity — the idea that aperture and shutter speed really are perfectly interchangeable for exposure. With film that's not strictly true as you get to extremes — see this question on reciprocity failure. But for digital, it's not meaningfully a factor.

What are some typical angles to place the sun at in outdoor portraiture photography?

Question

I know there are few common light positions for studio photography. For example, a key light positioned 45 degrees horizontal and slightly above the subject. I was wondering if there were any common positions to place the sun in while doing outdoor portraiture. Especially with the aim to eliminate any harsh shadows.

If I can make the question a little more comprehensive, I'd like to know angles during midday, sunset, and with/without a reflector for fill.

Thanks!

Answer

As a very general guidance, you should place the sun at the 3/9/12 o'clock position of the subject, and try to avoid the 6 o'clock position.

That is, the left, right, or behind the model (back lit), and try to avoid direct sunlight straight onto the model's face.

Why not straight on?

  • the model will have a VERY hard time keeping their eyes open, and their facial expression looks like they are about to be punched in the face
  • the light is flat and harsh, with hard shadows under the chin

Why from the sides? (I mean side lit in general, so 2,3,4,8,9,10 o'clock positions are perfectly fine)

  • Gives a full sense of dimension of the model's face, a 3D lighting
  • However shows blemishes
  • Works very well with a simple reflector to balance out the shadow side

Why from behind?

  • Usually a good lighting for hair
  • The model's face is softly and evenly lit (when you expose for the face)
  • You can easily control the amount of light that falls on the model's face by a reflector
  • The popup flash can be used as a fill flash (when all you have is the popup flash, this is one of the best way to get amazing results)

What's a free alternative to SlideShowPro?

Question

I'm looking for a free alternative to SlideShowPro for a client, preferable open source and a solution that doesn't use Flash, but rather use JavaScript with deploy similar techniques as on Flickr for protecting (c) material?

I have taken a peek on Gallery which looks very interesting. Any other options?

Thank you.

Answer

There are a lot. Here are a links to a few pages of interest:

Transfer photos from one Lightroom installation to another?

Question

I've recently started using Lightroom 3 on my desktop computer, where I have all my photos on a large RAID disk (with regular backups!). Now, if I go on holiday I'll only have my laptop with me, which has only limited disk space.

Is it possible to use Lightroom during vacation on my laptop and then transfer all photos (and metadata) to my desktop computer, when I'm back home?

Answer

I do this quite a bit when I travel. How you do it is up to you, both have their advantages and disadvantages. You could keep a "Travel Catalog" on your laptop's hard drive and then import that into your "Master Catalog" on the RAID system. You also can just have your "Master Catalog" have multiple directories in it, some on your laptop hard drive and the majority on the RAID system. The catalog needs to live on your laptop though.

I have found that the more consistent system is to keep one single "Master Catalog" that has multiple directories in it. The reason I chose that approach is that I have found my keywording and labeling is much more consistent that way. Since I have one set of Keyword collections and one set of actions and preferences everything works the same.

The key for this style to be effective is to do all of the file management and moving in Lightroom, none in the operating system whether it is Mac or Windows. Doing it all within LR keeps the locations and database synchronized. Yes, it is possible to manually locate the files if you move items outside of LR; however it can be irksome.

What I do is have a directory on my laptop hard drive called "Lightroom Local Images" I know creative name. When on the road and disconnected from my external hard drive, I import all my images in to there in the Master Catalog. I do a year>month>day folder structure but have previously used it with other structures as well. In the Master Catalog you will notice that the folder for the external storage will be listed but all the images will be unavailable with question marks. That is normal. When you reconnect to the external storage it will attach correctly.

When you are ready to move your images from your local drive to the external storage, within the Lightroom Module you can simply drag the directory from location to location. You will typically get a pop-up window that indicates and confirms the move you are doing.

I can provide more information or an example once I get connected to my external hard drive if you have more question.

Does the Nikon D5100 have true auto bracketing and how do I use it?

Question

There is a bracketing feature on Nikon D5100 but it does not seem to work as it does on other cameras such as D90.

There is also a separate feature called HDR on D51000 and I am guessing Bracketing is being confused with it. HDR is totally different and should not be called bracketing, should it? Can someone clarify this to me you can take 3 multiple shots with different exposure on Nikon D5100 and view them seperately?

Answer

The D5100 can bracket for exposure, which is what I suppose you call true bracketing. Technically this is AEB which stands for Auto-Exposure Bracketing.

It can also bracket for WB or Adaptive D-Lighting which is what people refer to as a virtual bracket because the camera takes ONE shot and saves it 3 times, with different WB or Adaptive D-Lighting setting.

There is ALSO a separate HDR feature which takes 3 shots of bracketed for exposure (AEB) but blends them together into one tone-mapped shot right in the camera. In this case only one image is saved onto the memory card. Technically this is closer to Exposure-Fusion but HDR is a better known acronym so most products say HDR instead.