The simple version, is the f-stop is lens focal length divided by aperture diameter.
We killed a homeless man on this bench. Me and Dru. Those were good times. You know, he begged for mercy, and you know, that only made her bite harder.
Spike ,'Sleeper'
Buffistechnology 3: "Press Some Buttons, See What Happens."
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
NoiseDesign - Jun 25, 2008 11:23:32 am PDT #6763 of 25501
Our wings are not tired
megan walker - Jun 25, 2008 11:24:10 am PDT #6764 of 25501
"What kind of magical sunshine and lollipop world do you live in? Because you need to be medicated."-SFist
The simple version, is the f-stop is lens focal length divided by aperture diameter.
Even that makes my brain hurt.
§ ita § - Jun 25, 2008 11:25:04 am PDT #6765 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I do a fair amount of portraiture, candids and action, so speed is of the essence--when shooting film I'd happily go up to 1600 in black and white. Even sometimes for architecture too.
NoiseDesign - Jun 25, 2008 11:26:40 am PDT #6766 of 25501
Our wings are not tired
Because you can barely take pictures anywhere with those speeds! Or with any zoom lenses...
So totally not true! When I used to shoot on film I used tons of 64 and 100 speed film. It's amazing outdoors. I've also done great work with those speed films and a good flash setup. You do have to use higher quality telephoto lenses with slower speed film, and true telephoto and not zoom lenses are also much better with show speed film.
Jon B. - Jun 25, 2008 11:27:45 am PDT #6767 of 25501
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Oooh, this is a timely discussion for me. I lost my camera this weekend, so I'm looking for a new one. It was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 which had some good features, but lacked in others. The thing I liked least about it was that it was difficult to take good pictures in low light. For example, I could either take this without a flash, which is grainy and blurry, or this with a flash, which washes out all the stage lights. Compare those to, say this photo, taken by someone else with a Nikon D80.
Are there cameras that will take low light photos near the quality of the D80, but that will fit in my pocket like my Panasonic did (its dimensions are 4.1 x 1.4 x 2.3 inches)?
megan walker - Jun 25, 2008 11:27:51 am PDT #6768 of 25501
"What kind of magical sunshine and lollipop world do you live in? Because you need to be medicated."-SFist
Given that I'm still on a Pentax K1000 I think we can safely assume speed is not of the essence for me! My only complaint is manually focusing; I hate that.
NoiseDesign - Jun 25, 2008 11:29:42 am PDT #6769 of 25501
Our wings are not tired
I do a fair amount of portraiture, candids and action, so speed is of the essence
Huh, I used to shoot indoor theatrical shots with 800 speed film. Very low light. I'd have to be careful to have a stable shooting platform, but I always got lots of very good shots. Certainly not every shot, but that's why I'd always shoot lots of coverage.
Tom Scola - Jun 25, 2008 11:30:44 am PDT #6770 of 25501
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
dcp had a TZ-3 at the F2F. He was complaining about the poor low-light performance, too.
NoiseDesign - Jun 25, 2008 11:31:45 am PDT #6771 of 25501
Our wings are not tired
Are there cameras that will take low light photos near the quality of the D80, but that will fit in my pocket like my Panasonic did
I tried to find some and never really did. I had to move up to the Rebel XTi for really good low light stuff.
Vortex - Jun 25, 2008 11:32:00 am PDT #6772 of 25501
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
The simple version, is the f-stop is lens focal length divided by aperture diameter.
Even that makes my brain hurt.
sits next to Megan, hands her the open bottle of aspirin.