Photography question: How to get "more light"?

[ndee]

I was at an Auto Show today ( http://pics.airlock.ch/geneva04 ) and took some pics. The settings on the Camera was always on "Auto" (Exposure Time: 1/50 about 99% of the time and the F was at F2.0). I know that a low F-number means that more light gets to the sensor, also does a longer exposure time. Now if I had a DSLR camera with a better lens, could I cut down the exposure time even more? With a longer exposure time, pictures tend to get blurry which kinda sux. What kinda lens would I need for a camera to reduce the exposure time?

Thanks in advance

 

[notfred]

buy faster film.

 

[crab]

Jack up the ISO speed.

 

[ndee]

I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

 

[Mark R]

Your options are:

1) Increase the ISO setting on the camera
2) Use a longer shutter speed (with appropiate stability aids - e.g. tripod or image stabilised lens - IS lenses are normally only found on long focal length lenses, because that is where they are most useful - they are expensive)
3) Use a faster lens (e.g. Nikon 50 mm f 1.2 - note that only zoom lenses tend to have poor maximum apertures; fixed focal length (or 'prime') lenses can be much faster. Note that the very fast lenses (f 1.2 or even f 1.0) are very specialised and very, very expensive - f 1.4 is a reasonable compromise)

 

[crab]

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Your options are:

1) Increase the ISO setting on the camera
2) Use a longer shutter speed (with appropiate stability aids - e.g. tripod, image stabilised lens)
3) Use a faster lens (e.g. Nikon 50 mm f 1.2)

Thanks for the info How small can the F-number get?

 

[crab]

1.0...but its $$$

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: crab
1.0...but its $$$

I see

 

[crab]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

Try supporting yourself somehow...a wall, a vehicle...anything stationary, really.

 

[ndee]

OK, my camera can go to F2.0(that's the lowest number). How come that a lens which costs a couple hundred dollars can only do F4.0? I'm looking at Canon lenses.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

Try supporting yourself somehow...a wall, a vehicle...anything stationary, really.

ah ok, I thought you mean a 2 second pic with only your hands, no assistance

 

[randomlinh]

cause they are really nice lenses.

and hell, 1.4 can cost some big ones too

and i would really like to meet the person who can handle 2 sec hand held shot... that'd be some amazingly steady hands.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: crab
1.0...but its $$$

Actually it can go quite a bit lower than that. As far as I know there's no physical limitation, but actually building the thing is where it gets tricky. At any rate Zeiss made a 50mm f/0.75 (Yes that's right) a long time ago. Stanley Kubrick actually modified one and shot some scenes in Barry Lyndon with it. But for an auto-focus SLR the fastest lens you can possibly buy is Canon's 50mm f/1.0 L USM, and it's been out of production for a couple years. (If you know where I can get one PM me )

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: ndee
OK, my camera can go to F2.0(that's the lowest number). How come that a lens which costs a couple hundred dollars can only do F4.0? I'm looking at Canon lenses.

Because a couple hundred dollars isn't much money when it comes to quality optics There are lenses that cost more than some cars.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

If its in the budget, get a carbon fiber mono-pod. You should be able to shot at 1/30. A tight F-stop(F-5.6) will give better depth of field. Use a flash with a diffuser cover to eliminate hot spots. At car shows fill the frame with the car as
backgrounds hold little interest. Ask the showgirls to pose with the product for your shot, most are more than happy to do it. Macro shots of logos work well when placed next to pics of the car.

Generally,slower films have smaller grain structure and better color saturation.

BTW your pics are good

Some shows discourage the use of flash

 

[Ornery]

Those shots are nice. Be happy there was enough available light to shoot at that speed. Invest in a flash with decent reach, and you'll LOVE the difference. Canon's 'Speedlite' series can meter through the lens, and sync at faster shutter speeds. I'd opt for one of those.

 

[Idex]

Use a tripod if you can.

 

[ndee]

Thanks guys

galvanizedyankee: I don't like the pictures that I take with a normal flash, the pictures look so unnatural IMO.

Ornery: Do you have one of those Speedlite flashes? Cuz I'm wondering how the pictures will look with such a flash. Not that I buy that Flash and the pictures still look so unnatural like they do with the normal flash.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ndee
OK, my camera can go to F2.0(that's the lowest number). How come that a lens which costs a couple hundred dollars can only do F4.0? I'm looking at Canon lenses.

F-stop number is not an absolute, but a ratio. It's the ratio of focal length to aperture size. So a telephoto lens will have a higher F-stop number for the same inner diameter than a wide-angle lens. Making a long lens with a very low F-stop number requires a huge diameter. My 160 mm lens goes from F4 to F22, while my 55 mm lens is F1.7 to F16.

ZV

 

[slydecix]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

normally, anything slower than 1/30 will come out blurry unless you have a tripod

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Elitebull
normally, anything slower than 1/30 will come out blurry unless you have a tripod

Depends on the lens. General rule of thumb is that for non-mounted shooting you need to use a shutter speed at least the inverse of the focal length or faster. E.g. if you're using a 60 mm lens, you need a 1/60 second shutter speed or faster; if you're using a 250 mm lens, you need a 1/250 second shutter speed or faster.

ZV

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Elitebull

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

normally, anything slower than 1/30 will come out blurry unless you have a tripod

Yeah. Even that's pretty slow..

But it has to be pretty dark to require that low a shutter speed. I got some pics from the beach that I'm going to post in a few, and I was in the 1/800 - 1600 and f/4.8 - 8.0 @ ISO 50 range in many of them, because it was so bright...

But that's a good thing, especially for macros.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Elitebull

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: crab

Originally posted by: ndee
I'm using a digital camera notfred.

crab: But then the pictures gets grainy, no?

Yes. You can either do that, use artificial light, or raise the shutter speed...if it creates blur, use a tripod or stay still. I've seen two-second hand held photos come out clear.

I'm really impressed! Cuz I can take a picture with 1/8 and it will get most of the time blurry.

normally, anything slower than 1/30 will come out blurry unless you have a tripod

Yeah. Even that's pretty slow..

But it has to be pretty dark to require that low a shutter speed. I got some pics from the beach that I'm going to post in a few, and I was in the 1/800 - 1600 and f/4.8 - 8.0 @ ISO 50 range in many of them, because it was so bright...

But that's a good thing, especially for macros.

Yeah, I also have some pics while skiing and from the beach. I had it set to F8.0, ND Filter and the shutter speed at about 1/250. The colors look awesome with the ND Filter IMO