If I was looking for a camera, it would be a deal breaker for me. I like to use fast lenses but I'm not a big fan of ND filters so I like stacked sensors. This just kills it for me but to each his own.
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
If I was looking for a camera, it would be a deal breaker for me. I like to use fast lenses but I'm not a big fan of ND filters so I like stacked sensors. This just kills it for me but to each his own.
One of the big perks of my FULLY stacked (not the marketing stacked) sensor camera is shooting my f/1.2 glass wide open midday with no ND needed. My $1200 camera can do work at 1/8000
I was curious, so looked in my Lightroom catalog at that statistic. Out of +30k photos, if I exclude for iPhones, 500-ish were at 8k shutter speed and less than 20 were above, and most of those 520 it's because I was a bonehead and had my iso set above 1600 because I was just grabbing the camera and forgot I had it in manual. This is just my sample, so recognize everyone is different.
In bright sunlight you need 1/6400 seconds at f/1.4 @ ISO 100. Any reduction in sunlight requires a slower shutter speed. At f/1.2 you are looking at 1/8700, but how often are you going to encounter this situation? Now stopping a bullet in midair, or totally freezing a humming birds wings might require a much shorter shutter speed, but if this is what you are shooting, you have the wrong camera, or need flash.
If you actually _need_ faster speeds than 1/8000, then you need a different camera, right?
If you feel like you might, maybe, sometime, possibly want to go faster, then you have to balance that feeling against other pluses and minuses of this camera and alternatives. (If it just bothers you that another camera is faster…)
Speaking for myself, it doesn’t seem like a problem, but that could depend on the kinds of photography you do and how you approach them.
Donzo98 wrote:
This is 28-70 @ 56mm F2... and 1/8000. If it was 1.2 or 1.4... 1/8000 would not have been enough.
https://donzo98.com/2026Pics/2870-5.jpg
But it wasn’t at f/1.2. You discovered the advantage of longer focal lengths at f/2.0. !/8000 has you covered at f/1.4… My 50-150mm f/2.0 is far sharper wide open at 150mm than any fast 35mm, or 50mm at f/1.2-1.4.
bwcolor wrote:
In bright sunlight you need 1/6400 seconds at f/1.4 @ ISO 100. Any reduction in sunlight requires a slower shutter speed.
I have plenty of low-vignette lenses that need more than 1/8000 at f1.4 in the bright Texas sun on a cloudless day. Not all lenses have the same light transmission/T stop at f/1.4 aperture.
Donzo98 wrote:
How's that? it's already 1/8000 @ F2. 1.4 would be 1/16000 (although I could have dropped to ISO 50
“ I could have dropped to ISO 50
Heh. You answered your own question!
(What ISO did you use for this shot?)
- - -
Using the old “sunny 16 rule” as a starting point, at ISO 100 f/16 would typically be about right in midday sun. That would be 1/6400 at f/1.4 and right around 1/8000 at f/1.2.
If your subject happened to contain some reflections and you choose to underexpose to deal with them (a reasonable option) then you might be out of headroom… if you required f/1.2 and cold not drop to ISO50. You could also stop down to f/1.4 or even f/2. (Few portraits are done in full midday sun, nor do they actually need f/1.2.)
My point is not that there are NO situations where 1/8000 would not be sufficient and 1/3200 would be. Just that they are pretty rare — so much so that most of us won’t encounter them. But if your photography is specialized enough that this is a significant issue…
… then you get a camera that has a faster shutter speed. For example, if you thing is doing flash-fill portraits in super bright sun with subjects that include reflective highlights…
Or get a couple NDs for when you occasionally run into such issues.
