Early attempts at aquatic photography - new pics added 5-11-13

[houseofcards]

Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens.

Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp? That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.

[zdnet]

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Why do you keep harping on the CA Levels and other technical aspects. Even if some of that is technically true, the lens is still very capable of taking sharp images. One just has to go to flickr and type in the lens.

I guess you are not interested in getting a sharper exposure.

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?

Plenty! With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult.

One important factor is the speed of the lens' focusing mechanism. Take for example, the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G ED N. It is a short lens and I had to get very close to have a good magnification. And yet I kept getting sharp exposures at 1/60. Why? The focusing of that lens is very very fast. I just pointed at an object and pressed the shutter. Very little time, if any, was spent on focusing.

In contrast, rozdaboff's lens (Nikon 105mm D micro) spends a lot of time hunting. Therefore, by the time the camera decided that it was in focus, precious time had already been wasted and the object had moved on. Even though TickleMyElmo said such a lens was "perfectly fine", I say it is NOT suited for the task. Of course, there are people who insist on doing manual focus.

Originally Posted by houseofcards

That seems to be more important then the amount of CA, etc.

Not all CA can be removed by post-processing. It therefore poses an upper bound on the degree of sharpness. In contrast, one can easily raise the shutter speed. From that perspective, CA is much more important than shutter speed.

[houseofcards]

Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.

[zdnet]

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60, but your keeper rate goes up as you increase shutter speed, especially for someone one new to this as the thread title is "Early Attempts at Aquatic Photography" Also not everyone has a fast lens, so your information might be correct, but will not help many.

Really?

The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).

If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.

[houseofcards]

Originally Posted by zdnet

Really?

The OP's lens is in fact among the fastest Nikon micro (at f/2.8).

If by fast, you meant the focusing mechanism, then all of today's Nikon micro 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm have that fast focusing mechanism.

It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience. Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little. you definitely taught me something. Look forward to the pics.

[zdnet]

Originally Posted by houseofcards

It still doesn't mean he'll be as proficient at taking pics at 1/60 as someone with more experience.

Well, he can be... if he is wise on choosing and using equipments while the more experienced person is not.

For example, some people insist on doing backward things like always using manual focus even though today's lens are superb in autofocus. Relying on Nikon's silent wave motor to do autofocus is much more likely to have sharp exposure on a live object.

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Anyway speaking of experience you sound like a real pro, can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.

I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.

To have a sharp 1/60 exposure on fish, as what rozdaboff was trying to do, is not that difficult.

First, get rid of the Achilles' heel - the lens' slow focusing mechanism. That way there is no need to jack up the shutter speed to compensate for the time wasted by the slow focusing mechanism.

Then use a low CA (chromatic aberrations) lens whose CA can be further improved by stopping down the lens.

With a high CA lens, you are doomed to a much less sharper exposure, regardless of what you do. Therefore, very very important to have a low CA lens.

When the CA can be improved by stopping down the lens, you get the added help from DOF. Thus, further improve the chance of getting a sharp exposure.

[houseofcards]

I don't disagree with some of your technical points, but when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th your response was:

Originally Posted by zdnet

Plenty! With a good understanding on the technical aspects involved, it is not difficult..

Now you say you don't have any phased in a different way:

Originally Posted by zdnet

I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little. Shutter speed IS important. Just that we are not talking about using 1/60 exposure to freeze motion a fast moving object.

Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.

[zdnet]

Originally Posted by houseofcards

when I asked you if you had pics of fast moving fish at 1/15th to 1/60th

Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Anyway how many pictures do you have of moving animals at 1/60 are tack sharp?

As you can see from above, the question did not mention the slower speed of 1/15 or the word "fast". Therefore, when you later made the request:

Originally Posted by houseofcards

can I see some of your pics of fast moving fish at let's say 1/15th to 1/60th sounds like shutter speed means very little.

and I responded by saying:

Originally Posted by zdnet

I don't have any images showing that shutter speed means very little.

I was completely consistent with what I'd said all along.

May be you'd misinterpreted my answer "Plenty!" to mean the claim "shutter speed means very little". Thus, you wanted pictures for proof. I can't give you any because I'd never made that claim. But in response, you complained. That means you were trying to hold me responsible for the claim that you yourself made up. Point one.

Point two, in response to my answer "Plenty!", you wrote:

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Not to say you can't get sharp images at 1/60

That means you were interpreting my answer "Plenty!" to mean plenty of images at the shutter speed of 1/60.

But when you asked to see images to prove your made-up claim of "shutter speed means very little", you imposed additional stringent conditions (the slower shutter speed of 1/15 and the qualification of "fast"). In my response, I did not call attention to your added conditions. I just let them passed, focusing on the original shutter speed of 1/60. Now you insist by repeating those additional conditions which were not in the original discussion. What games are you trying to play?


Anyway, two suggestions for you:

First, when you complain about people's response to what you had written, remember to quote your original text. Do not try to rewrite your past as you have tried to do here. If you are going to hold others responsible for their action, hold yourself responsible for your own action first!

Second, learn to take responsibility for your own interpretation. I've never said that "shutter speed means very little". It is your own interpretation. Rather than taking your interpretation as the reality out there, seek confirmation that the interpretation (in your own mind) is in fact a truthful representation of the reality (outside of your mind). You can ask, for example, "Are you saying that shutter speed means very little?" But that is assuming you are not playing games. What game?

There is the game that some people play by intentionally misinterpreting what others had said and then try to hold them responsible for the misinterpretation. I give you the benefit of a doubt and won't speculate on your intent. I hope you have enough integrity to stay away from such game of deceit. Reach your hand over to your back and see whether you can find yourself a spine.

Originally Posted by houseofcards

Point I'm making most don't get that into all the technical aspects and they're dealing with the three basics (Aperture, SS and ISO). They're are many more 'keepers' at 1/200 then there are at 1/60 or less.

No one disputed the general observation that a higher shutter speed tends to yield more keepers.

[houseofcards]

Originally Posted by zdnet

Not true. When I responded with "Plenty!" it was to the question:



As you can see from above, the question did not mention the slower speed of 1/15 or the word "fast". Therefore, when you later made the request:



and I responded by saying:



I was completely consistent with what I'd said all along.

May be you'd misinterpreted my answer "Plenty!" to mean the claim "shutter speed means very little". Thus, you wanted pictures for proof. I can't give you any because I'd never made that claim. But in response, you complained. That means you were trying to hold me responsible for the claim that you yourself made up. Point one.

Point two, in response to my answer "Plenty!", you wrote:

That means you were interpreting my answer "Plenty!" to mean plenty of images at the shutter speed of 1/60.

But when you asked to see images to prove your made-up claim of "shutter speed means very little", you imposed additional stringent conditions (the slower shutter speed of 1/15 and the qualification of "fast"). In my response, I did not call attention to your added conditions. I just let them passed, focusing on the original shutter speed of 1/60. Now you insist by repeating those additional conditions which were not in the original discussion. What games are you trying to play?


Anyway, two suggestions for you:

First, when you complain about people's response to what you had written, remember to quote your original text. Do not try to rewrite your past as you have tried to do here. If you are going to hold others responsible for their action, hold yourself responsible for your own action first!

Second, learn to take responsibility for your own interpretation. I've never said that "shutter speed means very little". It is your own interpretation. Rather than taking your interpretation as the reality out there, seek confirmation that the interpretation (in your own mind) is in fact a truthful representation of the reality (outside of your mind). You can ask, for example, "Are you saying that shutter speed means very little?" But that is assuming you are not playing games. What game?

There is the game that some people play by intentionally misinterpreting what others had said and then try to hold them responsible for the misinterpretation. I give you the benefit of a doubt and won't speculate on your intent. I hope you have enough integrity to stay away from such game of deceit. Reach your hand over to your back and see whether you can find yourself a spine.

No one disputed the general observation that a higher shutter speed tends to yield more keepers.

I'll take that as a no. LOL You don't have any pics of tack sharp moving fish at 1/60 or slower.

[rozdaboff]

New pics added in original post