RichardLavigne Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #18 · Am I asking too much of a 50d plus 70-200 f/2.8 | |
volyrat wrote:
So what happens in circumstances where I need f/2.8 to achieve SS?
I've heard this suggestion before, and while it would likely improve the sharpness, I'm one who thinks that if a lens is F/2.8 and has the L label, it should actually work at f/2.8.
Gochugogi wrote:
If it was me, I'd shoot at F4 or F5.6 for increased DOF. In this light you still have plenty of headroom for a fast shutter speed.
At the risk of sounding overly snarky... are you not aware that photography is all about making choices for your exposure... all of those choices require have advantages and disadvantages and you have to make concessions for what you are trying to accomplish in your image and your exposure.
Let's look at the argument another way and see if it makes sense... Imagine someone posted the exact same picture, but told you they had shot it at ISO 1600, 1/3200, f/8 and they were complaining that they thought the the noise in the shot was excessive... Your first reaction would be, "well, why'd you shoot it at ISO 1600?" and if that person then said, "well I have a 1 series and there is still some noise present. I think that a 1 series professional camera should be able to shoot at 1600 just as good as it does at 100".. you'd say, this guy is crazy, he obviously doesn't understand that there are drawbacks and consequences that will result from that decision. We all understand this when it comes to ISO... i'm sure you do too... when you push equipment to its absolute limit... even the best professional equipment you are going to have some drawbacks... in the case of aperture, you are going to lose some sharpness. As others have said... you have plenty of room in terms of shutter speed, so you could shoot that at ISO 400, 1/800 and f/5.6 have still stop all of that motion with a sharper image... why does it HAVE to be shot at f/2.8?
|