I don't believe these things are relevant with digital, rather that correct exposure and White Balance play a bigger role.
If it were me I'd be shooting at f8/f11 to get rid of diffraction and find an exposure/WB that gave me what I was after.
Also, whilst a very long exposure can help achieve a particular effect, say to smooth the water, it will also blur anything that moves.
The shorter exposure would make bracketing easier too.
Still, if your method works for you, that's what counts.
I apreciate the help, it's something I haven't thought about using yet (White Balance) as I'm not advanced enough to take it off auto, but this now gives me the excuse to start seeing what it can do. I do like the effect some moving objects can give a photo, the below one was taken in Venice at the same time of evening, but the boats add some extra colours (even if it was at f14) but will definately play around with the WB when i'm not interested in what's moving.
Smallest bird in the UK.
Main diet is insects - population crashes when the winter is as bad as this one.
That's a fantastically sharp lens, I was going to get a bigger zoom (currently have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8) as I do love my motorsport shots, but I've started looking at the 2x teleconverters, would you guys recommend them?
I apreciate the help, it's something I haven't thought about using yet (White Balance) as I'm not advanced enough to take it off auto, but this now gives me the excuse to start seeing what it can do. I do like the effect some moving objects can give a photo, the below one was taken in Venice at the same time of evening, but the boats add some extra colours (even if it was at f14) but will definately play around with the WB when i'm not interested in what's moving.
Exposure is what will get you the rich colours and of course you can boost them in camera with 'vivid' settings or in post processing. Here's a link to an image from Umbria which may be up your street. Playing around with WB is easy if you shoot in RAW but of course requires extra work in processing.
WB Chart
Originally Posted by Buck Nasty
That's a fantastically sharp lens, I was going to get a bigger zoom (currently have a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8) as I do love my motorsport shots, but I've started looking at the 2x teleconverters, would you guys recommend them?
There's a couple of things to know about Teleconverters.
1) They degrade the IQ and reduce contrast. This may be acceptable if it gets you the shot.
2) They may only be compatable with certain lenses.
3) A x1.4 tele reduces aperture by one stop. That is a f/2.8 lens becomes f/4 and likewise an f/4 becomes f/5.6
4) A x2 tele reduces aperture by two stops. That is a f/2.8 lens becomes f/5.6 (an f/4 becomes f/8 and probably won't autofocus)
5) A x3 Tele is probably not worth it as it results in too much image degradation. You'd be as well to simply enlarge the image in software.
Thanks Peekayoh, that chart will come in very handy! as for the teleconverter, I'm disappointed they drop the image quality, but I guess it just means I'll have to start saving for the SAL70400G
Anyway, here's one I took at the Nurburgring in September last year.
Sony A200
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
f/14
1/125 sec
ISO100
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Peekayoh
