How good is good enough?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
JerArdra said:
I looked among my stuff and the forum and couldn't find it.

LOL Jery, two links were provided to that same information earlier in this topic (one by Ron and one by me). I guess you missed them.
 
Tom,

It's my fault that I missed it.  We're way up in Newfoundland now and for the last week or so we have been using our SLOW Verizon cell phone 14.4KB connection so I have been quickly scanning the forum.  If we encounter a faster WiFi it will be nice. 

So far our MotoSAT TV dish can still pick up the DirecTV satellites but it's vertical; it does not tilt back at all. 

JerryF
 
JerArdra said:
.... I have been quickly scanning the forum.

I figured you were scanning quickly, but couldn't resist teasing you.

Would love to hear about Newfoundland and see a few photos when you get to a faster connection.
 
Jeff Cousins said:
What would be a great help is a resource for a simple discussion of F-Stop settings and their effect when using the zoom function of the camera and tricks for light control (Olympus allows me to move the light target around-is this of any practical value?)

Hi Jeff -- sounds like you may be getting hooked on this stuff. ??? I recall an article on Ansel Adams where the author described Adams as a photographer that didn't "take" pictures, he "made" them. This was discussing his ability to look at a scene and decide just how he wanted the resulting picture to look like. At that time they were talking about film cameras, and how film does not see the image the same way our eyes see the image. So by being able to manipulate the characteristics of the available light plus other tools such as shutter speeds and f-stops, he could make the resulting photo the way he wanted it to be. The digital "sees" better than film -- however, in straight point and shoot mode, we may disagree with what it sees, but have the ability to adjust the settings to have the picture look more like what we want it to look like.

Not sure what you are looking for in your question. Your camera has a maximum f-stop of 8.0 at the maximum optical zoom of 10x. Using that would give you the maximum depth of field -- if that's what you wanted. However, the picture that I linked to earlier had less DOF so the individual would stand out more against the background. Is that the kinda stuff you were looking for?

"Moving the light target around" is a term I am not familiar with. You can set the white balance of your camera for different lighting situations. For example, if you know the light source is a florescent light, you can tell your camera to adjust that to white light. You can also move the metering focus around to look at light as reflected off different objects in an image to set the white balance for the entire shot.

Anyway, am I helping point the discussion in a good direction for you????
 
Jeff,
To understand f/stops, think of the film as a bucket you must fill with water to properly expose it, and the f/stop as the inverse size of the pipe you are filling it from. The larger the pipe (lower f/stop; like 2.0), the faster the bucket will fill. Conversely, the smaller the pipe (larger f/stop; like 22) the longer it will take. Both settings will fill the bucket, but the smaller pipe will require the faucet to be turned on (shutter held open) much longer than the larger pipe. The f/stop is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture of the lens and the focal length of the lens. For a 50mm lens, f/2 is saying that the diameter of the aperture is 25mm. 50/2=25. Using our calculation for the area of a circle - (pi X the radius squared) - the aperature would be 12.5 x 12.5 x 3.14159265 = 490 sq. mm. Here's a table showing the various areas of the aperature for a 50mm lens at full f-stops:

f/stop Aperture  Radius    Area
f/1.0   50.0       25.0 1,963
f/1.4   35.7       17.9 1,002
f/2.0   25.0       12.5   491
f/2.8   17.9         8.9   250
f/4     12.5         6.3     123
f/5.6   8.9         4.5     63
f/8     6.3         3.1     31
f/11     4.5         2.3     16
f/16     3.1         1.6       8
f/22     2.3         1.1       4

63 sq. mm, for example, is f/5.6 only with a 50mm lens. If your lens is a 35mm, or an 85, or a 300, the ratio changes and therefore the exposure. 63 sq. mm works out to about f/4 on a 35mm lens,, f/9.5 on a 85mm, and f/32 on a 300mm. Looking at it another way, for you to get an f/2.0, 300 mm lens, The front element would have to be HUGE to gather enough light to be able to utilize the same fast shutter speeds as, say, an f/2.0, 50mm lens. 
 
Back to the issue of a UV filter for the FZ7. I've just realized that the Leica lens on this camera will not accept a filter. There is a threaded area at the extreme inner circumference, which is where I was trying to screw in a 55mm and 52mm filter. But the moving part of the lens goes right past where any filter would be screwed into that thread! Furthermore, the moving part does not have any way to accept a filter.

Update: The FZ7 user manual shows that any filter would be attached to the lens hood. So it appears that a filter cannot be used without the lens hood.
 
Bob Buchanan said:
Hi Jeff -- sounds like you may be getting hooked on this stuff. ??? I recall an article on Ansel Adams where the author described Adams as a photographer that didn't "take" pictures, he "made" them. This was discussing his ability to look at a scene and decide just how he wanted the resulting picture to look like. At that time they were talking about film cameras, and how film does not see the image the same way our eyes see the image. So by being able to manipulate the characteristics of the available light plus other tools such as shutter speeds and f-stops, he could make the resulting photo the way he wanted it to be. The digital "sees" better than film -- however, in straight point and shoot mode, we may disagree with what it sees, but have the ability to adjust the settings to have the picture look more like what we want it to look like.

Not sure what you are looking for in your question. Your camera has a maximum f-stop of 8.0 at the maximum optical zoom of 10x. Using that would give you the maximum depth of field -- if that's what you wanted. However, the picture that I linked to earlier had less DOF so the individual would stand out more against the background. Is that the kinda stuff you were looking for?

"Moving the light target around" is a term I am not familiar with. You can set the white balance of your camera for different lighting situations. For example, if you know the light source is a florescent light, you can tell your camera to adjust that to white light. You can also move the metering focus around to look at light as reflected off different objects in an image to set the white balance for the entire shot.

Anyway, am I helping point the discussion in a good direction for you????

Bob:

Yes, depth of field is one of the big issues, the other is setting light when shooting a bright background that darkens the photo. Our camera allows you to record average light settings or to pick a particular spot to set F setting; just  have to learn how and the affect it has on shot.
 
Jeff Cousins said:
Yes, depth of field is one of the big issues, the other is setting light when shooting a bright background that darkens the photo. Our camera allows you to record average light settings or to pick a particular spot to set F setting; just? have to learn how and the affect it has on shot.

Well -- not sure where you want to go with Apertures, so let's play around with bright backgrounds for now. As a portrait photographer plus doing weddings to support my need to add equipment, that situation was always pretty common. The first rule of thumb is to go somewhere else to take the shot. Don't ever shoot a people shot in the bright noon day sun unless it can't be avoided. Bright, even, shade is much better. The old advice was that if the sun was to the shooter's back, everything would be fine. Not true.? :) Harsh highly contrasted shadows on ones face makes a lousy shot. And fill flash doesn't help much.

As discussed earlier in this thread, the number of stops across an image determines whether it will be a good shot. If the range is too few, the pic will be flat without depth. If too many, one side or the other will be void of texture. However, if the background is very bright versus the foreground, there "are" a few things you can do.

Center weighted (or with my Rebel XT, a 7 point system) will see that background and say, "Wow", it's really bright and stop down the aperture. That in turn will make the foreground very dark. So much for point and shoot settings. OR, you can meter for the foreground only to have the background over exposed. If the situation cannot be avoided, filters, reflector, or flash can be used to balance the foreground with the background -- or let Karl do magical stuff in his digital darkroom. 8)

The attached three pics are an example of how I balance with flash. If I spend the time, I can balance the two perfectly -- the objective being to not know a flash was used. Note the 1st one first, then compare it to the second. I did this yesterday afternoon about 1:00PM. My XT manual reads that it will automatically do all this for me. It WILL do a better job than the first pic, but going to manual is a better solution.

First, I zoomed so only the bright outside was in my VF while in "shutter" priority. I wanted the maximum shutter speed that the XT can sync (1/200) -- and the corresponding aperture. It turned out to be f9.0. I then put my XT into manual mode and dialed in those setting.

Next I UNZoomed so the VF image covered all of what you see -- and focused on the items on the little table in front of me. My rule of thirds went all to hell -- but that wasn't the purpose of this test. :) I also set the flash to fire even if it was told it wasn't needed. This then is the second attached pic. The result is that the camera is metered and shooting the lighting outside the rig -- and the flash is shooting the foreground inside the rig.

You can set the flash to over or under shoot as necessary. I have another larger flash that I have a rheostat to dial in the intensity. So with more time, I could perfectly balance the two. Am hoping to add a pro flash soon by Canon that will give much greater power and TTL flexibility. On camera flash is almost always useless for my needs.

The third pic is the same setup with my focus on the bottle of Diet Green Tea. I wanted it to stand out and draw the viewers eye before anything else -- while having a more pleasing but less in focus background than the 1st pic.


 

Attachments

  • BackLiteTest2.jpg
    BackLiteTest2.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 23
  • BackLiteTest1.jpg
    BackLiteTest1.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 20
  • GreenTea.jpg
    GreenTea.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 20
Thanks Bob,

I've got the first shot down pat, now I have to work on the next two. :D
 
Tom,

Here is how to fix the NO THREADS for a filter.  I had this same problem when I had an FZ-20.  My new FZ-30 has the threads that Panasonic forgot on the FZ-20. 

From Hong Kong I bought a very high quality (it looked very professional) 1" long aluminum extender and screwed it on.  This extender has threads for a filter so I left it on permanently.  That is why I bought the Olympus leather case that was originally for the Olympus C-2100 and C-2500.

This worked very well because this 1" extender was JUST long enough so when I turned on the FZ-20 and the the lens telescoped out the extender was just long enough so the telescoped lens fit within it with the UV filter screwed on.  This made the camera 1" inch longer even when the lens was retracted but I was able to protect the good Leica lens with a UV filter.

Richard Sharp has that FZ-20 now so you might ask him how he likes it with the extender installed.

JerryF
 
Thanks Jerry. The FZ7 came with two lens hoods, one of them being approx 1" long with theads to accept a filter. The latter will do the same thing as the extender you mentioned. I just need to go back to the store and buy that 52mm filter again.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
132,733
Posts
1,399,992
Members
138,369
Latest member
pollakandslepian
Back
Top Bottom