Support NeoGAF

[Jangaroo]

Any of you guys sent your Canon lenses to Canon for focus tweaking? My 50mm and my 35mm have been coming out kind of soft. If you don't have warranty on them will they cost a buttload?

 

[Rentahamster]

I wanted to do low light photos, like take night time shots of the city, nature, etc.

I thought it might be possible to find something very portable:|

You can very much do that without a tripod. You just need to find stuff out there to rest your camera on. Or stick a gorilla pod to. I just can't be arsed to bring a tripod. Personal preference. I've managed to do 30 sec. exposures just fine without one.

Practice in your own town right now. Try to do long exposures without a tripod. If you can't manage it, then you probably should get one.

 

[Damaged]

I wanted to do low light photos, like take night time shots of the city, nature, etc.

I thought it might be possible to find something very portable:|

I'm currently looking at the manfrotto befree for a travel / compact tripod, reviews seem positive just need to save up some cash for it.

Edit: sorry thought this was the camera equipment megathread,.. Must never post half asleep again...

 

[mrkgoo]

Any of you guys sent your Canon lenses to Canon for focus tweaking? My 50mm and my 35mm have been coming out kind of soft. If you don't have warranty on them will they cost a buttload?

Do you know if it is the lenses that are out? or the camera?

It's one reason why I invested in a dSLR that has adjustment allowance in the body.

 

[phisheep]

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't bring tripods on travel trips because fuck me if I'm going to be lugging around that thing all over the place. I don't think the small utility a tripod brings would justify the inconvenience of carrying it around.

This.

Like, I guess, most newbies I bought a tripod - through reading too many of the wrong websites probably.

Don't get me wrong, I love the tripod. It's a Manfrotto 055PROB thing, and I use it a lot for indoor and studio-type stuff, but except for a few days right at the beginning I nearly never take it out of doors, and definitely not on a trip. Too darn heavy.

Take the hamster's advice and work around it some other way. Only outdoor value it has to me is low-light architectural stuff and only then if if it is in a short walk of home.

 

[mrkgoo]

This.

Like, I guess, most newbies I bought a tripod - through reading too many of the wrong websites probably.

Don't get me wrong, I love the tripod. It's a Manfrotto 055PROB thing, and I use it a lot for indoor and studio-type stuff, but except for a few days right at the beginning I nearly never take it out of doors, and definitely not on a trip. Too darn heavy.

Take the hamster's advice and work around it some other way. Only outdoor value it has to me is low-light architectural stuff and only then if if it is in a short walk of home.

Pretty much my opinion as well.

I have a good tripod, but I hardly ever used it. I did take it out at the beginning and pretty much just discovered that ISO sensitive is so good I didn't really need it most of the time.

It only became actually necessary when I was taking specific night style shots like light trails and the like.

I mean it's useful, but as stated, lugging it around wasn't worth it for the 5% of the time I actually needed it. I found it much better to be free and just become creative with leaning on things.

That said I barely use my dSLR any more. It's all mirror less for me now.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Pretty much my opinion as well.

I have a good tripod, but I hardly ever used it. I did take it out at the beginning and pretty much just discovered that ISO sensitive is so good I didn't really need it most of the time.

It only became actually necessary when I was taking specific night style shots like light trails and the like.

I mean it's useful, but as stated, lugging it around wasn't worth it for the 5% of the time I actually needed it. I found it much better to be free and just become creative with leaning on things.

That said I barely use my dSLR any more. It's all mirror less for me now.

Agreed on the DSLR. I only use it when I need I'm on a job.

 

[roddur]

my lens is f1.8 45mm. took some shots of my mom and my niece. picture came really good, but what bothered me is one face was very sharp but other was not even if those 2 faces were close to each other.

i dont have the exif info right now, but i think it was f1.8. should i increase the f number to get deep depth of field?

 

[phisheep]

my lens is f1.8 45mm. took some shots of my mom and my niece. picture came really good, but what bothered me is one face was very sharp but other was not even if those 2 faces were close to each other.

i dont have the exif info right now, but i think it was f1.8. should i increase the f number to get deep depth of field?

Quick answer is yes.

Better answer is try it out (because you learn more that way). Lie a long tape measure on the floor and stand something close to it to focus on, then take shots at different apertures and see what the depth of field is like from how much of the tape is in focus. Try focussing at different distances from the lens too.

 

[roddur]

Quick answer is yes.

Better answer is try it out (because you learn more that way). Lie a long tape measure on the floor and stand something close to it to focus on, then take shots at different apertures and see what the depth of field is like from how much of the tape is in focus. Try focussing at different distances from the lens too.

thanx, will do.

 

[peteykirch]

I'm still rubbish at doing fireworks. No matter what I did I just couldn't get that "WOW" shot.

 

[StopMakingSense]

my lens is f1.8 45mm. took some shots of my mom and my niece. picture came really good, but what bothered me is one face was very sharp but other was not even if those 2 faces were close to each other.

i dont have the exif info right now, but i think it was f1.8. should i increase the f number to get deep depth of field?

1.8 will have and extremely thin DoF plane.

 

[phisheep]

I'm still rubbish at doing fireworks. No matter what I did I just couldn't get that "WOW" shot.

Ah, now that's one of the things where you *do* need a tripod, and a long, manually-controlled exposure (open up when it goes "whoosh" and stop after the lights go out).

(And probably take an establishing shot when there are no fireworks about so you can photoshop it in afterwards.)

 

[peteykirch]

Ah, now that's one of the things where you *do* need a tripod, and a long, manually-controlled exposure (open up when it goes "whoosh" and stop after the lights go out).

(And probably take an establishing shot when there are no fireworks about so you can photoshop it in afterwards.)

I did use a tripod, and a wireless remote.

I figure the "easy" way was to go about f/8, 2-3 seconds, 100ISO

 

[phisheep]

I did use a tripod, and a wireless remote.

I figure the "easy" way was to go about f/8, 2-3 seconds, 100ISO

So how did that work out for you?

I haven't shot a lot of fireworks, but I'd guess - depending where you are standing - that f/8 is a bit wide (given that there's nothing really to set your focus on) and that 2-3 seconds is a bit slow to grab the whole shebang.

There's probably another way to do it being as fireworks are so bright, shoot handheld at very short shutter speeds (with the ISO up a bit) and keep varying the focus? Never tried it but it might work, so long as you are not concerned about any background. You'll have to throw a bunch of shots away but a few might work.

 

[peteykirch]

So how did that work out for you?

I haven't shot a lot of fireworks, but I'd guess - depending where you are standing - that f/8 is a bit wide (given that there's nothing really to set your focus on) and that 2-3 seconds is a bit slow to grab the whole shebang.

There's probably another way to do it being as fireworks are so bright, shoot handheld at very short shutter speeds (with the ISO up a bit) and keep varying the focus? Never tried it but it might work, so long as you are not concerned about any background. You'll have to throw a bunch of shots away but a few might work.

It worked out "okay"

Some shots were alright, others were meh.

I did a couple with like 10, 20, or 30 second exposures.

I focused on the Castle all the way in the background, that was the only thing lit up prior to the fireworks.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm still rubbish at doing fireworks. No matter what I did I just couldn't get that "WOW" shot.

Change your composition. Zoom in or move closer, if possible. You have way too much external stuff in the frame.

Adjust your white balance to get different colors.

Do longer exposure times, like 15+ seconds.

You can add photos together in Photoshop by using the "screen" layer blend.

 

[peteykirch]

Change your composition. Zoom in or move closer, if possible. You have way too much external stuff in the frame.

Adjust your white balance to get different colors.

Do longer exposure times, like 15+ seconds.

You can add photos together in Photoshop by using the "screen" layer blend.

Yeah I was just using a 35mm 1.8 so I really couldn't get close, as the fireworks were across the lagoon.

 

[StopMakingSense]

I did use a tripod, and a wireless remote.

I figure the "easy" way was to go about f/8, 2-3 seconds, 100ISO

Go with a smaller aperture like f11-f16, or even 22 if you need longer exposures. You have a lot of highlights needlessly blowing out too much, like the smoke clouds. That composition / location and lens combo just isn't working. Also, from that location, from that angle the fireworks looks very awkward. Need the fireworks fuller frame, lot of extraneous detail. Use a better white balance for capturing the color.

 

[phisheep]

Some shots were alright, others were meh.

One technical problem maybe worth mentioning. That second shot you showed looks like it has some consistent up/down camera shake - either open the exposure earlier (while it is still dark) or lock your mirror up or expose a bit longer. Or something.

Otherwise, I'm with the the other guys. Second shot is pretty well ok except you are standing in the wrong place (about a mile too far away probably), or if you can't get that close maybe try a longer lens, or crop it a lot, or use a much longer exposure to grab multiple rockets in one frame. It's mostly composition stuff.

I tend to get in close and shoot upwards (but that's just an accident).

 

[FunnyBunny]

I need help photo GAF!

I own a Canon EOS 50D and shoot primarily with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Pictures I take at f/5.6 are razor sharp, so much so my wife hates having her portrait taken with my camera. It will pick up microscopic hairs on her forehead!

Shooting wide open is a different story, however.

My pictures are coming out softer than I prefer, the AF struggles to focus on what I want and my eyesight isn't good enough to focus manually with such a narrow depth of field. Do any of you here have tips for shooting at low apertures?

 

[StopMakingSense]

I need help photo GAF!

I own a Canon EOS 50D and shoot primarily with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Pictures I take at f/5.6 are razor sharp, so much so my wife hates having her portrait taken with my camera. It will pick up microscopic hairs on her forehead!

Shooting wide open is a different story, however.

My pictures are coming out softer than I prefer, the AF struggles to focus on what I want and my eyesight isn't good enough to focus manually with such a narrow depth of field. Do any of you here have tips for shooting at low apertures?

Their should be a focus indicator in the viewfinder, so set your focus to spot and move the focus points around on where you want focus to be. 1.8 is incredibly narrow depth of field and difficult to shoot at.

Manual focus on a crop screen is very difficult with good eyes. Check out to see if there is a diopter adjustment knob on the viewfinder too, to help with the eyesight.

Also, know that even with correct focus, at 1.8 the lens will just be softer than at 5.6.

 

[FunnyBunny]

Their should be a focus indicator in the viewfinder, so set your focus to spot and move the focus points around on where you want focus to be. 1.8 is incredibly narrow depth of field and difficult to shoot at.

Manual focus on a crop screen is very difficult with good eyes. Check out to see if there is a diopter adjustment knob on the viewfinder too, to help with the eyesight.

Also, know that even with correct focus, at 1.8 the lens will just be softer than at 5.6.

Thanks for the quick reply and tips, especially the softness of the lens. There's some great work on Flickr at 1.8 and 1.4 that makes me jealous.

 

[FunnyBunny]

Awesome!

I had an eureka moment about the technical process of taking pictures, stopped trying to shoot at the extremes of my lens and learned to use the live view to zoom into my composition to make subtle adjustments to focus.

I took this picture at f/2.2 this morning. My dog's eye is in focus and for the first time, I have a firm understanding of what I did (and need to do) to focus while shooting wide open.

I also discovered DOF Master and played with hyperfocal distances. Snapped this while on a hike this afternoon at f/7.1.

 

[phisheep]

Posting across from the equipment megathread

What's a good starting point for learning how to use my camera? 5DM3

OK, let's give this a go. First of all, so as I don't do the grandmother-sucking-eggs thing can we fill in a bit of background please?

Have you done any photography before? Using what camera? Are you comfortable with handling exposures (aperture/shutter speed/ISO)?

What sort of things do you like shooting/want to shoot? Indoors or outdoors? Sports/portraits/still life/landscape etc?

Do you play any musical instruments? (not quite so stupid a question as it sounds - we might get onto this later).

What lenses do you have?

Except for the shutter release - which I'm taking for granted, which (if any) of the buttons and dials etc on the 5D do you know how to work? Anything in particular that's confusing you right now? Or do we need to start from scratch?

I've got a bit of time available today, so we can probably make a start if you are around.

 

[hEist]

I need help photo GAF!

I own a Canon EOS 50D and shoot primarily with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Pictures I take at f/5.6 are razor sharp, so much so my wife hates having her portrait taken with my camera. It will pick up microscopic hairs on her forehead!

Shooting wide open is a different story, however.

My pictures are coming out softer than I prefer, the AF struggles to focus on what I want and my eyesight isn't good enough to focus manually with such a narrow depth of field. Do any of you here have tips for shooting at low apertures?

like StopMakingSense already mentioned it is "hard" to manually focus by hand on f1.8 and f1.4.

What i can advise, to all peeps, who struggle to get the focus right on f1.8 etc to switch the focusing screen with an EG-S. Since GAF Photo threads people know, that i do most of my shots with an Walimex 35mm 1.4 (manuall lens) i instantly switched the focusing screen.

With this screen you can see the "true" picture in the viewfinder, like it will be after you took the photo, where the focus is and you can control your DOF etc.

 

[Blue Ninja]

One of the optional courses at school this semester was a photography class. Taking it, I realized I like taking pictures a lot. :lol Own a Nikon D3100. My dad just got me a tripod for Christmas.

Still make the occasional errors that result in my image not being exactly sharp, like with this Santa here. Not exactly sure what went wrong, though. Figured it was my shutter speed, but that was at 1/125, which should be fine for a shot like this.

Overall, though, I'm pretty happy with the stuff I can produce already. A lot of it is luck, but still.

 

[mrklaw]

like StopMakingSense already mentioned it is "hard" to manually focus by hand on f1.8 and f1.4.

What i can advise, to all peeps, who struggle to get the focus right on f1.8 etc to switch the focusing screen with an EG-S. Since GAF Photo threads people know, that i do most of my shots with an Walimex 35mm 1.4 (manuall lens) i instantly switched the focusing screen.

With this screen you can see the "true" picture in the viewfinder, like it will be after you took the photo, where the focus is and you can control your DOF etc.

If I recall correctly (at least on canon cameras), you can still half press the shutter release in manual focus mode, and the focus confirmation will beep/light up as you adjust the focus manually. Can be a help

 

[RangerX]

I never knew this thread existed! I've always been interested in photography but never knew where to start. I'll be poring over this thread for sure.Sweet.

 

[Porcile]

This thread reminds I've really let my photography slip a little over the past couple months. I pretty much went full in with film photography since last September, and got some stuff I'm damn proud of. I'm a little burned out but I'll get back into it when the weather picks up a little bit.

 

[EYEL1NER]

I need to pay more attention to these camera threads here on GAF. I only just bought a 3100 off a coworker recently and have gone out a couple times to take pics. There is a lot I don't know about my camera and photography in general though. I bought a guide about my camera that someone recommended to me and am waiting for it to get here. They have classes up here on base, but I miss all of them by working nights. They even had a 4 classes over the span of a month on low-light and long-exposure photography, but I couldn't go to a single one. Some of the people up here are phenomanal photographers too. One Danish guy has a ton of gear and a ton of knowledge, he's been here for years and has quite the portfolio.
The guy who sold me the camera has been trying to be patient with me though. We've gone out to some ice caves and done some hiking up mountains and stuff. He has quite a bit of knowledge too I guess. He's starting to get into the stock picture game.

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, since I am still a newb, but I really want to take some astrophotos. I want to get some steel wool and a whisk and do some long-exposure stuff as well. The big thing I really want to do though is when I get back to the US. I want to do one of the long-exposure shots while driving at night, where the camera is mounted to the passenger seat pointed at my head and out the window and I drive a while.

Anyway, seems like some good stuff in this thread to read while at work. I wish I could take my camera to work with me though, 12 hours to sit around and play with it. But no cameras allowed in the building

 

[pottuvoi]

If I recall correctly (at least on canon cameras), you can still half press the shutter release in manual focus mode, and the focus confirmation will beep/light up as you adjust the focus manually. Can be a help

There is also a Magic Lantern Add-On for firmware which has Focus Peaking ability to have some idea where the sharp area is. (and plenty of other features, for video shooting, exposures etc.)
http://www.magiclantern.fm/index.html

On negative side it does take additional hit on battery life and some space on SDHC card.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I am thinking about buying the Fuji X100S but I'm unfamiliar with their upgrade/new camera cycle. Is there any upgrade that I should just wait for or should I just buy the X100S?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Is there any good apps on the Mac that allow you to quickly preview an image and see its EXIF info?

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Is there any good apps on the Mac that allow you to quickly preview an image and see its EXIF info?

Besides Preview that's built in?

 

[Maninthemirror]

how do I get rid of the orange hue that I get when choosing tungsten white balance setting and even if I use f1.8 on the 50mm. pictures just come out orange.

 

[phisheep]

how do I get rid of the orange hue that I get when choosing tungsten white balance setting and even if I use f1.8 on the 50mm. pictures just come out orange.

It's nothing to do with the lens or the aperture. Just plain white balance probably (unless you've left a filter on front of your lens). None of the white balance presets will work perfectly in all conditions. For example, if you're using flash in a tungsten-lit room then the white balance you need depends on the exact mix of flash/tungsten you have.

Three main ways of dealing with this (there are other ways, but they involve fiddling with lights and filters and suchlike):

1) Shoot in Raw, then you can play with the white balance settings in postprocessing - and more importantly, learn which ones work for you.

2) Use manual white balance, taking a shot of a plain white card in the same lighting conditions to set the camera's expectations right (it'll be in the instruction book somewhere how to do it

3) Just do colour correction in postprocessing anyway, though that doesn't really help you get things right for the future and it's too easy to get in the habit of doing it and not learn anything

 

[Maninthemirror]

It's nothing to do with the lens or the aperture. Just plain white balance probably (unless you've left a filter on front of your lens). None of the white balance presets will work perfectly in all conditions. For example, if you're using flash in a tungsten-lit room then the white balance you need depends on the exact mix of flash/tungsten you have.

Three main ways of dealing with this (there are other ways, but they involve fiddling with lights and filters and suchlike):

1) Shoot in Raw, then you can play with the white balance settings in postprocessing - and more importantly, learn which ones work for you.

2) Use manual white balance, taking a shot of a plain white card in the same lighting conditions to set the camera's expectations right (it'll be in the instruction book somewhere how to do it

3) Just do colour correction in postprocessing anyway, though that doesn't really help you get things right for the future and it's too easy to get in the habit of doing it and not learn anything

Thanks. I just saw the trick on youtube to use a white paper for doing custom white balance but I have seen some people do it with black and grey cards as well, what does that do to white balance

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Thanks. I just saw the trick on youtube to use a white paper for doing custom white balance but I have seen some people do it with black and grey cards as well, what does that do to white balance

You can use any neutral colour to set white balance in-camera or in post. 18% grey cards are commonly used for exposure metering so they are also commonly used for white balance.

 

[FunnyBunny]

I wanted a wider angle lens, as my camera came with a 28-135mm kit lens. Considering the crop factor, I essentially couldn't get below 42mm.

I bought the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II of Amazon, new, for $100. I know it's a kit lens as well but I'm broke right now and couldn't afford higher quality glass.

That said, I'm thrilled I got it so cheaply and can't wait to get shooting!

 

[grap3fruitman]

OK, let's give this a go. First of all, so as I don't do the grandmother-sucking-eggs thing can we fill in a bit of background please?

Have you done any photography before? Using what camera? Are you comfortable with handling exposures (aperture/shutter speed/ISO)?

What sort of things do you like shooting/want to shoot? Indoors or outdoors? Sports/portraits/still life/landscape etc?

Do you play any musical instruments? (not quite so stupid a question as it sounds - we might get onto this later).

What lenses do you have?

Except for the shutter release - which I'm taking for granted, which (if any) of the buttons and dials etc on the 5D do you know how to work? Anything in particular that's confusing you right now? Or do we need to start from scratch?

I've got a bit of time available today, so we can probably make a start if you are around.

I've had a few SLRs but I've basically just used them as higher-end point-and-shoots. I had a Rebel XT and the kit lens, then I bought a 60D recently but was unhappy with the low light performance on it so I got a 5DM3 with a kit lens.

Besides that, I have two zoom lenses, one that's 55-250 (I think) and the other one does up to 300 and a 50 prime (not the nicer one, the cheaper one).

What do I want to shoot? I don't know. All those things you said other than sports sounded appealing.

Instruments? No. I couldn't even figure out the recorder in high school.

I'm not really comfortable with anything. I play around with them, like the dial for the exposure (is that the right thing?) and the ISO but I really don't know what either those really do or how to take them to my advantage.

Edit: I've also got a tripod and a shotgun mic.

Edit2: Here's my Flickr. There's a lot of crap (and a lot of pick-up post thread pics).

 

[MilesWebber]

I got a book called "Light Science and Magic" for Christmas. It's a guide to lighting and goes into scientific detail about reflections, light and the family of angles. It has lighting setups with diagrams and everything. It's pretty awesome. I would highly recommend for anyone interested in advanced lighting but doesn't know where to start. The best part is most of the setups don't require a TON of lights so they are easy to duplicate.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240812255/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[RayStorm]

I've had a few SLRs but I've basically just used them as higher-end point-and-shoots. I had a Rebel XT and the kit lens, then I bought a 60D recently but was unhappy with the low light performance on it so I got a 5DM3 with a kit lens.

Personally when I got my first DSLR I very soon thereafter started using the Manual mode, setting ISO, aperture and shutter speed. I also got a fast lens as my first purchase, mainly to limit the ISO needed. Also it's quite fun to play with bokeh.

I'm not really comfortable with anything. I play around with them, like the dial for the exposure (is that the right thing?) and the ISO but I really don't know what either those really do or how to take them to my advantage.

In that case if you google "aperture exposure iso" there is a nice amount of pages explaining very well what does what. At a quick glance this explanation has good pictures that do a lot of explaining already.

And then you may want to familiarize yourself with the histogram to get a quick idea on how well you are technically doing with your set values. Refer to you camera manual on how to see it once you took a picture.

 

[phisheep]

I've had a few SLRs but I've basically just used them as higher-end point-and-shoots. ...

Thanks for getting back grap!

I can see from your Flickr stream that you have a lot to learn. The good news is that nearly everything there is sort of in focus and has decent colours and contrast. The bad news is that your settings are all over the place, which suggests to me that you're relying rather a lot on auto settings (and in particular auto-ISO). That's fine so far as it goes, but it doesn't help you learn what is going on and how to fix it. A few of the interiors have the wrong white balance too.

I'll mention just this once - because you've come in for a bit of ribbing on the other thread and someone is bound to mention it here - that none of this is down to the difference between the XT/D60/5DMk3. It's about what you do with it. You've got a way more expensive camera than you actually need at this stage. Nothing wrong with that and good luck to you, but you might get the odd raised eyebrow from time to time.

Now. There's really about four ways of learning this sort of stuff. All of them involve taking lots of pictures and learning from them. You could (a) take a photography class (b) learn from a book or online (c) learn from a friend who knows this stuff already or (d) we can try do it here in this thread and see what happens.

Trouble with books and online is they tend to bombard you with information and it takes a lot of self-discipline to slow down and experiment your way through it. I can't help you with classes or friends.

But if you want to try learning the basics here then do this for lesson 1:

1) Set up a still life. Plain white flat surface about desk-sized with 3-4 things on it - contrasting things, like a statuette/cuddly toy/fruit/radio. Spread them apart so there's about 3 feet front to back. Put a light nearby from front-right or front-left - any sort of light.

2) Put the 50mm prime on the camera, turn image stabilisation OFF, set ISO to 100. Handhold the camera (no tripod). Focus on an object somewhere in the middle.

3) Set the camera to shutter priority (Tv) and take ONE shot at each of the White Balance settings on your camera. Now set your White Balance to whichever of them worked best.

4) Still on shutter priority (Tv), take ONE shot at each of various shutter speeds from about 1/4 sec to about 1/1000 sec - be sensible though, you don't need to do every single little increment!

5) Switch to aperture priority (Av) and take ONE shot at each of various apertures from about f/1.8 to f/16, again be sensible.

Post those pictures somewhere along with the settings, and we'll take it from there. At least some of them will be rubbish. Don't worry about that, the idea is to be able to work out WHY they are rubbish.

Purpose of this exercise is (a) to get you in the habit of experimenting with the basic settings (shutter, aperture, ISO, white balance) (b) to get some controlled-condition results so we can see what to do next, and (c) to get you in the habit of looking at your own photos critically so you know what to do different.

Want to play?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Question : Is it possible to set a certain shutter speed and aperture, and then have the ISO change on its own when changing the aperture in order to maintain the same exposure? Imagine if your camera didn’t produce noise even at high ISO, would that work?

 

[vapor]

Question : Is it possible to set a certain shutter speed and aperture, and then have the ISO change on its own when changing the aperture in order to maintain the same exposure? Imagine if your camera didn’t produce noise even at high ISO, would that work?

It's often called Auto-ISO, you should be able to find it on your camera. Some cams will let you set high + low bounds for the ISO range as well.

 

[Deku Tree]

Good read. Thanks!

 

[Ether_Snake]

Another question, on my camera my lens has a manual and auto focus mode. For some reason, if I use manual focus, it doesn't matter how sharp it looks in the viewfinder when I adjust the focus ring, the result is very blurry.

Any idea what could be wrong? Only happens in autofocus. I think it might be related to some setting for people who have bad vision, maybe I messed something up?

 

[phisheep]

Another question, on my camera my lens has a manual and auto focus mode. For some reason, if I use manual focus, it doesn't matter how sharp it looks in the viewfinder when I adjust the focus ring, the result is very blurry.

Any idea what could be wrong? Only happens in autofocus. I think it might be related to some setting for people who have bad vision, maybe I messed something up?

Possibly it is the dioptre adjustment. On a Canon it is a tiny little wheel mounted on the eyepiece. If your vision is OK, set the little wheel to zero.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Possibly it is the dioptre adjustment. On a Canon it is a tiny little wheel mounted on the eyepiece. If your vision is OK, set the little wheel to zero.

Yep! Took me a bit to figure this out when I came across Snake's problem a while back