|
marks
Mar 7, 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #1 of 4
(1038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 376
|
what are the disadvantages/advantages of using a smaller or larger shutter size?
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 7, 2003, 11:14 PM
Post #2 of 4
(1038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
use a smaller aperture (larger f-stop number, say, f/8 or f/16 or f/32) when you want things to be sharp from close up to very far away, or are taking picutres of small things very close to the front of the lens. This will often require putting the camera on a tripod, since you'll be using lower shutter speeds.
Almost invariably when you are shooting sports (climbing, etc.) and action, you will find that a larger aperture (f/2, f/2.8, f/4) will produce more pleasing results, by keeping the subject sharp, and throwing stuff outside the focal plane into a blurry background. It is very hard to always get rid of busy backgrounds in action shots, so a fast (large-aperture) lens can be a huge asset in minimizing their distracting impact.
Faster lenses cost more, but at least for wide angles and normal (35-60mm) lenses, I believe that they are worth it. Beyond about 100mm you start having to deal with the weight penalty of lugging around all that glass, and then I'm not so sure it's worth it.
So, in general, for action and PJ shots, faster (larger aperture, smaller f/stop number) is better, whereas for landscapes and macro work, slower/smaller-aperture gives more pleasing results. Experiment and see what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
shank
Mar 7, 2003, 11:14 PM
Post #3 of 4
(1038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 541
|
other than the obvious of leting in more light a large aperture will make the depth of focus shallower, objects in the fore and back ground will be blurred, while a small aperture will increase the depth of focus, objectsin the fore and background will become clearer. Other than that I don't really know, but I am a nuby.
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Mar 8, 2003, 6:39 AM
Post #4 of 4
(1038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
faster lenses are well worth the money and weight because they are BRIGHT! Composing a picture with a 400mm lens is much easier when it's f4 as opposed to f8. I used to use a slower zoom (f.3.5-5.6) and switched to faster primes and am now very satisfied. When you open a lens right up to say f2 or f1.4 you really get the viewer's attention: the only thing in focus is the subject. Go for the good, fast glass and you'll never look back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
