I was reading about crop factor from various places on the internet, and the general idea that kept building in my mind was that full-frame cameras are good for wide-angle shots but not that good for tele-photo. In Wikipedia it’s written:
[…] a 200 mm lens on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5 has the same angle of view as a 300 mm lens on a full-frame camera. The extra “reach”, for a given number of pixels, can be helpful in specific areas of photography such as wildlife or sports.⁶
It makes sense, but how high would the level of detail be on a full-frame with 300mm compared to the other example?
The Bauhaus was a German art, craft, and design school which operated between the World Wars. I was recently at an exhibit of works — mostly paintings, architectural drawings, and sculpture — which had a small selection of photographs and a caption which read:
The New Photography
Photography played a central role in construction the Bauhaus image by documenting the school’s buildings and design objects, but it also served as an important means of pure artistic expression. There was no dedicated department at the Bauhaus until 1929, when professional photographer Walter Peterhans joined the faculty. The medium nonetheless captivated both teachers and students, who drew inspiration from sources ranging from constructivism and avant-garde film to illustrated newspapers and magazines.
The photographs in the collection I saw, however, seemed primarily of interest as documents of the school’s buildings and of some of the created objects (as the first sentence of the caption). Online, I found these Walter Peterhans images, some of which are easy to see as related to the aesthetic of many of the Bauhaus painters. For example, this:
doesn’t look so far off from Klee:
The Bauhaus artists had an enormous impact on design and especially on architecture. Many of them are — well, if not household names, you’d recognize their most famous works if you saw them on a dorm room poster. What about the photographers? Particularly, did their work exhibit new ideas and influence in the technical or artistic world of photography itself, beyond capturing and reflecting the ideals and aesthetic of Bauhaus painters, architects, and designers in other media?
I’m from Ukraine, and I know where I can shoot here and when. I had few trips to USA where I know it’s very difficult to shoot on the street, without encroaching on someone else’s private life.
I plan a travel to some of the European countries soon, but I don’t know what I can shoot, and what can I not?
Is there any proper information (e.g. government website or article) about photography rules in European countries? Is there any difference between photography rules in, for example, Germany and the Czech Republic?
I am currently looking for solutions to take high resolution photos of objects via a dedicated software. (The software will be developed by myself.) Therefore I am looking for ideas for cameras, where:
- The camera has a full API (settings, focus, exposure, etc…) available in C/C++. (Similar to the Canon EOS-SDK)
- The camera supports an optical zoom via the API. (The objects vary between 3m and 0.5m in size, I would like to zoom in for the smaller objects to capture them with max resolution)
As far as I know the Canon cameras (EOS) do not support optical zoom via their API, all I would be able to do is to crop the image in the SW hence simulating a digital zoom.
Do you have any suggestions, which products I should look at closely? (I am not much of a photography expert)
Thanks in advance,
I own a Nikon D3500. I want to buy a lens so I can take photos of products (Flowers – Bouquets – Plants) to upload to my e-shop. I am working on a flower shop. I already have a white studio 90cm X 90cm and lights 4000K. I know the lights are not perfect… I was thinking of buying one of these lens (35mm – 40mm Micro – 50mm). How do I choose which lens to get?
I use my mobile phone for photography. Normally when I notice anything interesting, I take a picture with the point of interest somewhere near the region I want it to be. But I do this with the clear assumption that the final composition after I edit it using Snapseed might be completely different. I do this because I feel that I get a greater level of freedom and convenience when I compose offline, when I am sitting somewhere comfortably.
My question is whether this is a common practice among photographers? Or maybe traditional photographers do the composition when they capture?
More specifically, is offline composing considered as cheating or something?
Example of my offline composition
It wasn’t me who added the “ethics” tag. And honestly I wasn’t thinking of ethics when I used the word cheating. What I meant is taking shortcuts. Technology has made it very easy to take good pictures. A better phrasing of the question would be whether offline composition is frowned upon by traditional photographers?
I take photos as an outlet of my creativity. I don’t intend to make money with it or use it for promoting anything. I just upload it to 500px.
I don’t go to places to take photos. I take pictures of interesting stuff I find in places that life takes me. Being an introvert, I am not comfortable carrying a big camera and tripod etc in crowded places and attracting attention. So I prefer a phone with good camera specs(LG G6) now. And I prefer taking pictures fast and not sticking around. That’s why I prefer to compose later. Of course I do minimum composition when I capture.
Even though I got the answers I need, I am finding it very hard to select the most appropriate answer here. Should I wait for a few days and select the answer with the highest votes?
I’ve recently bought a Pentax K-50 and I’m looking to move beyond the 18-55mm kit lens. I’m a beginner hobbyist and my main aim is to take beautiful photos of Tokyo, where I live. So mostly street scenes and landscapes, and a lot of night photography, sometimes in the rain. From some reading around the subject, it seems like what I need for these things is a fast “standard” prime lens.
I understand “standard” to mean around 30mm on an APS-C like the K-50. The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be an affordable prime in this range, with the exception of the Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 AL. This lens is very cheap, but as a beginner I don’t know whether this is because it has significant limitations. Once I buy a lens for this purpose I’m unlikely to ever buy another one, so I want make sure this will be the right purchase in the long term.
My specific questions:
At f/2.4, the maximum aperture is not as wide as many other prime lenses provide, and I’m wondering if that will limit me when it comes to night photography. I am a beginner and have no experience to judge this; I’ve only used the kit lens, whose maximum aperture of f/5.6 does make it hard to get the shots I’d like.
Initially, before I fully understood how focal length relates to field of view I had my eye on the Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4, which is just about within my budget and is weather sealed. Is there a similarly-priced lens that I’ve missed that has the advantages of this lens (very fast, well-regarded optics and preferably also weather sealed) but with a wider field of view?
Alternatively, is the DA* 55mm F1.4 itself a reasonable choice for what I want to do? Its field of view is similar to my kit lens when fully zoomed in, and it feels to me like that’s too narrow, but maybe once I’m more practiced at composition that will be less of a problem, I really don’t know.
In short, I’d like to know whether the DA 35mm F2.4 AL is suitable for my purposes as I’ve described them, and if not, what the alternatives might be.
For sports, I know that a faster lens would usually be considered more important than image stabilization, but what if, after selecting your shutter speed, your camera is picking apertures that don’t require a super-fast lens?
Here’s my specific example: I bought a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 lens for my D90 thinking that I would need the F2.8 in order to shoot at my daughter’s Figure Skating club. I chose the Sigma over the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 because the Sigma had full-time manual-focus and a built in auto-focus motor and was about $ 100 less expensive. The Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 with VR was well beyond my budget.
Now, having used the Sigma a few times, I am pretty happy with the shots I am getting. I set the camera for a shutter speed of 1/500s and ISO-800 and let the camera pick the aperture. However, it turns out that most of the shots I am taking end up with the camera choosing an aperture of F4 to F5.6 (the lighting in the rink must be better than I thought).
So, my question is, would I be better off returning the Sigma 70-200mm, and getting the much less expensive Nikon 70-300mm with VR (saving almost $ 500 that I could put into another lens or a tripod). The aperture range of 4.5-5.6 on the 70-300m is around what I am shooting at, plus the lens has VR (I know it doesn’t help with moving subjects, but I am shooting hand held at 1/500s for the moment).
I could even bump the ISO up to 1600 to maintain or increase the shutter speed with the 70-300mm. On the other hand, in a different arena, the lighting might not be as good, and I’ll be wishing I still had the F2.8.
I tend to use my current camera, Canon PowerShot SX20 IS w/ a Class 10 SDHC card and for being the camera it is get very decent photo results. I’m looking to upgrade to something more powerful in the future and looking for input on the type of camera that others recommend for this kind of photography use.
Most of the racing done around here is autocross (one car at time on low-speed courses) and ice racing (snow + sun, and up to 10 cars at a time on ice going approx 60mph).
I am from sri lanka. I want to photograph milky way.
Canon 750D EFS 18-135 lens
I know that i should increase aperture & increase iso.
What should be the shutter speed for this camera to capture milky way without startrails ?