1/2000 versus 1/4000 Shutter Speed [Archive]

View Full Version : 1/2000 versus 1/4000 Shutter Speed

Roan

03-30-2001, 04:08 AM

I'm in the process of hunting down a decent SLR AF/M camera and I think I've narrowed it down to a few nice cameras.

Can someone tell me if I can "get by" with a 1/2000 shutter speed for taking action shots? I'm not talking race cars or anything, but moving horses et al.

If I can use a 1/2000 rather than 1/4000 then there are more brand choices and I can plunk more money into getting good macro and telescopic lenses.

Speaking of which, anyone have any info on Sigma 400mm?

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 06:08 AM

Unless you are using 400 asa or 800 asa film, you can live with 1/2000th second shutter speed. That's about the only time I've used it - when going from dark to bright scenes with a high speed film. I do use ASA 50 or 100 films nearly exclusively. CLosing the aperture and/or using an ND filter (or a polarizer) will lower your shutter speed should you ever find the camera calling for faster than 1/2000th.

Below is an image with the Sigma APO 400 Macro - the lens is very sharp. The one's prior to the APO Macro are said to be not as sharp (but that's from internet posts - I have not used the earlier one.)

Mike

<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Mar-2001/Img0022.jpg" border=0>

Roan

03-30-2001, 08:36 AM

Mike,
Please bear with me, I'm a camera idiot http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Originally posted by MLFLY:
Unless you are using 400 asa or 800 asa film, you can live with 1/2000th second shutter speed.

Ugh! I ALWAYS get film speeds fubar'd! Lower the number the less light needed, right? So, you are saying that you can get action shots at 1/2000 if you use a low-light film?

That's about the only time I've used it - when going from dark to bright scenes with a high speed film. I do use ASA 50 or 100 films nearly exclusively. CLosing the aperture and/or using an ND filter (or a polarizer) will lower your shutter speed should you ever find the camera calling for faster than 1/2000th.

okay, I'm lost -- ND filter? Not heard of that. I'd planned on buying a polarizer and a UV as a basic -- this right?

I keep reading that sentence about shutter speed and it keeps getting stuck in the right side of my brain. Are you saying that
if I want to use a filter, such as those you've mentioned, that I'd be better off with the 1/4000 because it slows down the shutter speed?

Below is an image with the Sigma APO 400 Macro - the lens is very sharp. The one's prior to the APO Macro are said to be not as sharp (but that's from internet posts - I have not used the earlier one.)

Wow. Nice pic!

I think I've narrowed my choices down to either the Nikon N70 or the Nikon N80. The N70 sounds more 'stupid oriented' and has several modes such as sports, night scene (which I'm REALLY interested in) and so forth. Both of those are 1/4000 and expensive -- to me.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of places that carry the N70 that make any sense to a photography newbie such as I. They don't list ALL the accessories that go with the camera and seem to expect you to find the correct lenses on your own. This would be fine, IF they listed the:

a) lens mount type
b) lens filter size

many DON'T!

I also get the feeling that some of these sites are trying to foister manual instead of AF lenses on people by not listing the specs. I want -- no, need -- AF.

Man, and I thought I was a dummy http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Have you seen either of those cameras? The N80 has gotten rave reviews. Consumerreviews.com has it as 4.17/5. The N70 I can't find any reviews on http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/frown.gif

I was hoping to buy at Focus Camera -- we purchased all our filters and eyepieces for our 7" LX200 Maksutov-Cassegrain there, but they don't carry the N70.

The best price I can currently find -- that doesn't seem to be a rip off -- is at TriState.com:
<PRE>
N70 KIT W/28-80 LENS KIT (58mm) $449.00
58MM BASIC FILTER KIT $54.95
Pheonix
100-300/5.6-6.7
F/NIKON AF (55MM) $149.95
55MM BASIC FILTER KIT $49.95
</PRE>

Grand total of: $705 or so. I haven't even priced a bag and stuff. Sigh. I want another easel, too!

The Sigma 400mm was at Focus Camera. Any comments on this Pheonix?

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

[This message has been edited by Roan (edited March 30, 2001).]

RickLee

03-30-2001, 09:11 AM

Roan... the higher the ISO number of the film the less light that's needed. 400 speed film is "faster" (needs less light) than 100 speed film. That's 2 stops difference. There is 1 stop difference between 100 and 200... and 2 stops difference between 100 and 400. 1/2000th of a second is extremely fast for a shutter speed. You'll be fine with that. For years and years there were no shutter speeds faster than 1/1000th and somehow professional photographers got by. :-) I rarely, rarely use anything faster than 1/500th of a sec.

------------------
Rick Lee www.rickleephoto.com (http://www.rickleephoto.com)
Instant Messenger ID: RickLeeFS

[This message has been edited by RickLee (edited March 30, 2001).]

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 09:47 AM

First let me say that we are remarkably on the same road to whereever the heck we are going http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Pastels, astronomy and photography are my primary hobbies, as they clearly are for you also.

It could take a book to explain this but here's the easiest explanation I've used that seems to make any sense.

Several things give you an exposure - amount of light available, film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. You can't control the amount of light available (well, you can, but it takes artificial lighing, reflectors, etc. Right now, for outdoor/nature work, pretend you cannot amend the light). So, you must work with the light you are given. With less light: faster film, larger fstops and slower shutter speeds all allow more light to strike the film. Conversely, when light is brighter: slower film, smaller fstops and faster shutter speeds reduce the amount of light hitting the film.

It is rare, in the best light (early and late in the day) that you are trying to reduce shutter speeds. So, as the other poster said, 1/1000 is even enough. If it's not then you can use your polarizer to cut the amount of light. And, yes, your polarizer and UV filters are a good place to start. I personally do not like to polarize my sky. I use that filter for two purposes, with rare exception: 1) to reduce light - say, to slow down water on a bright day so it has a milky look to it. And, 2) to cut reflections.

Mike

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 10:01 AM

Next, on the issue of the equipment you are buying, I encourage you not to buy the Phoenix lens. This is purely IMHO and it most certainly is better to have a lens than not have one, but I don't believe you will be happy in the long run.

The N70 or N80 with the 28-80 is just fine. The 400 Sigma is also fine. Try to see if Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma are offering anything in the 70-210 range, particularly if you are going to get a 400mm. You don't need the 2.8 lenses - the 4.5/5.6 will work fine.

Depending on the results you expect from yourself, handholding a 300 will take some practice and shutter speeds of at least 1/250th and that's with experience. The 70-200 will be much easier to handhold.

Having said that, you will also want a tripod, particularly with the 400 and, once you are used to it, for nearly everything. I cannot tell you the last time I shot anything serious, without flash, handheld. The tripod and head are a part of me now, not my equipment http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

The problem is, now you have a body, good normal lens, good mid-range zoom and a decent telephoto. Add the tripod and head and it's a serious investment in money and in hassle - because you have to set it up and you have to carry it.

I don't have a solution for that - it can be helped but not cured. But, the very best way to improve your photography is with the use of a good tripod and then with such practices as using slow, fine-grained film, remote shutter release (not for action), and photograph earlier and later in the day. You don't have to be a professional to get professional results but it does take care and time.

But, I know you are a pastelist. If your photography is simply for reference only and family photo's, you can handhold and use a good slide film (Provia F 100 - even try Provia 400, both Fuji) for natural colors. When shooting for prints, try Kodak Gold 100 or 200 when the light is lower.

Mike

Roan

03-30-2001, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by RickLee:
Roan... the higher the ISO number of the film the less light that's needed. 400 speed film is "faster" (needs less light) than 100 speed film. That's 2 stops difference. There is 1 stop difference between 100 and 200... and 2 stops difference between 100 and 400. 1/2000th of a second is extremely fast for a shutter speed. You'll be fine with that. For years and years there were no shutter speeds faster than 1/1000th and somehow professional photographers got by. :-) I rarely, rarely use anything faster than 1/500th of a sec.

Stops! Stops? STOP! OW! My brain hurts! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/wink.gif

Man, this is worse than buying eyepieces for a telescope http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

You'd think that 20mm would be SHORTER (view the moon) and 60mm LONGER (Eagle Nebula), but NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! It's the other way around! OW!

Anyhow, to your points, Rick:

Tapadh leibh for responding, much appreciated!

Although I'm rather lost on the stops stuff (as you can tell!), I do understand about the shutter speeds.

Why then do they make these 1/4000 cameras? Marketing?

As for the film, sigh, I thought it was the other way around. I DID have that memorized at one point, and was taking some wonderful pictures of my daughter and her friends, but after leaving off using the camera for a while I forgot and blew a couple rolls of film. Now I know why http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

I just have to share this photo that I took before I got my film muddled:
<IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/30-Mar-2001/the_helmet3.jpg" border=0>

Not the best nor the best photo. I took this with the manual focus 200mm. It's hard to focus manually fast! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/frown.gif The photo's colors are also very rich and some got lost in the scan. I love the expression, tho http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Another question, how does one take an action shot in very low light? Some arenas are very dark and it's hard to get a good shot. Flashes are ludicrious in that setting, too. Not only could you spook the horse if it goes off in his face, but the arena is so big it's pointless.

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

[This message has been edited by Roan (edited March 30, 2001).]

Roan

03-30-2001, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by MLFLY:
First let me say that we are remarkably on the same road to whereever the heck we are going http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Pastels, astronomy and photography are my primary hobbies, as they clearly are for you also.

ROFL! Where the heck ARE we going, anyhow? http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Several things give you an exposure - amount of light available, film speed, shutter speed, and aperture. You can't control the amount of light available (well, you can, but it takes artificial lighing, reflectors, etc. Right now, for outdoor/nature work, pretend you cannot amend the light).

No problem here! Except for taking shots of my artwork, I can't http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

So, you must work with the light you are given. With less light: faster film, larger fstops and slower shutter speeds all allow more light to strike the film. Conversely, when light is brighter: slower film, smaller fstops and faster shutter speeds reduce the amount of light hitting the film.

That makes a lot of sense, but if you slow the shutter speed down on a moving target, then it will "fuzz" on the film, no?

It is rare, in the best light (early and late in the day) that you are trying to reduce shutter speeds. So, as the other poster said, 1/1000 is even enough. If it's not then you can use your polarizer to cut the amount of light. And, yes, your polarizer and UV filters are a good place to start. I personally do not like to polarize my sky. I use that filter for two purposes, with rare exception: 1) to reduce light - say, to slow down water on a bright day so it has a milky look to it. And, 2) to cut reflections.

Nod nod! I added the polarizer to cut the light a bit. It never fails that most of the classes I want to shoot at horse shows seem to fall between 11am and 4pm.

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 08:40 PM

Let me say this first - with a shot like the one of the little girl, you need no help from me http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Very nice!

Yes, if the shutter speed drops too low, you will get fuzzy, particularly if you are drinking. But, there are things you can do about it - fast lenses amd fast film, for example. And, you can reasonably learn to handle a lens at fairly slow speeds - your soon to come 28-70 is probably an f4 to f4.5 lens. At ASA 100 on the film, you can do f11.5 and 1/125th of a second - lots of depth of field and plenty of shutter speed.

I can't answer the question, "Where are we going?" If I could, I would have followers and plenty of money!

Mike

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 08:44 PM

If you haven't bought the camera yet, look at the Canon's and a 28-105 EF lens. I'd suggest starting at B&H's site:
www.bhphotovideo.com (http://www.bhphotovideo.com) (extremely trustworthy mailorder company). So is www.adoramacamera.com. (http://www.adoramacamera.com.)

Mike

Roan

03-30-2001, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by MLFLY:
Next, on the issue of the equipment you are buying, I encourage you not to buy the Phoenix lens. This is purely IMHO and it most certainly is better to have a lens than not have one, but I don't believe you will be happy in the long run.

Two other people in the Consumer Reviews photography forum said the same thing. Phoenix is apparently a "no name" and it's best to shy away from it.

The N70 or N80 with the 28-80 is just fine. The 400 Sigma is also fine. Try to see if Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma are offering anything in the 70-210 range, particularly if you are going to get a 400mm. You don't need the 2.8 lenses - the 4.5/5.6 will work fine.

I've decided to definitely go with the N80. The N70 has been discontinued, which is why several places do not carry it anymore.

One sec, I have a spreadsheet of the equipment I'm considering:

Nikon N80/F80 D QD Black 35mm SLR Body (I) #NIKF80DB $409.00
Nikon 28-80/3.5-5.6 AF-Dn Nikkor (I) #1994I $99.99
Magic Lantern Guide f/Nikon N80/F80 #H143 $19.98
Nikon DK9 Eyecup #2969 $11.95
Focus Value 58mm Circular Polarizer #FILCP58 $28.95
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD 1:2 Macro f/Nikon AFD 62mm $199.00
Nikon Natures Grip Autumn Theme Neckstrap $17.99
CR123a (DL123a) 3v Lithium Batteries 2-Pack #BAT1232 $11.99

Total: $798.85

Hope that came out okay. What I'm also considering is substituting both the 28-80 and the 70-300 for a

Sigma 28-300/3.5-6.3 DL HZ f/Nikon AFD
or
Vivitar 28-300/4-6.3 Ser 1 f/Nikon AF

The reason for this is because I often need to change lenses in mid-roll. It's a real pain to do this and I've ruined film by trying.

What's your opinion on that?

Depending on the results you expect from yourself, handholding a 300 will take some practice and shutter speeds of at least 1/250th and that's with experience. The 70-200 will be much easier to handhold.

Having said that, you will also want a tripod, particularly with the 400 and, once you are used to it, for nearly everything. I cannot tell you the last time I shot anything serious, without flash, handheld. The tripod and head are a part of me now, not my equipment http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Yep, I have two tripods sitting here. One's for my camcorder and it's pretty good. Doubt I can really use one at a horse show, though. Sometimes getting into a good position is an exercise in itself http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

The problem is, now you have a body, good normal lens, good mid-range zoom and a decent telephoto. Add the tripod and head and it's a serious investment in money and in hassle - because you have to set it up and you have to carry it.

Yah, I doubt I'll carry a tripod around unless I'm taking "set" shots (like of a house or some other still type thing).

Last horse show I went to I lugged around 1 manual SLR with two lenses and assorted junk, 1 digital and assorted junk, 1 aux camera and my purse. My shoulder was sore for a few days http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

I don't have a solution for that - it can be helped but not cured. But, the very best way to improve your photography is with the use of a good tripod and then with such practices as using slow, fine-grained film, remote shutter release (not for action), and photograph earlier and later in the day. You don't have to be a professional to get professional results but it does take care and time.

Sigh. For what I'm going to be mainly using this for I guess I had better develop some damn good skills cause I can't really rely on any of that http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

But, I know you are a pastelist. If your photography is simply for reference only and family photo's, you can handhold and use a good slide film (Provia F 100 - even try Provia 400, both Fuji) for natural colors. When shooting for prints, try Kodak Gold 100 or 200 when the light is lower.

Thanks for the tips on films! That will really come in handy.

Oh! Someone else recommended to me -- nice money saver -- to use a step-up ring and share filters between lenses. Didn't know they made such a beastie and it's a great idea.

Thanks Mike!

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

[This message has been edited by Roan (edited March 30, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Roan (edited March 30, 2001).]

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 09:01 PM

Eyepieces, huh? That's even more confusing than cameras or pastels.

I do not at all mean to criticize your choices but perhaps I can nudge you:

Nikon N80/F80 D QD Black 35mm SLR Body (I) #NIKF80DB $409.00
Nikon 28-80/3.5-5.6 AF-Dn Nikkor (I) #1994I $99.99
Magic Lantern Guide f/Nikon N80/F80 #H143 $19.98
Nikon DK9 Eyecup #2969 $11.95
Focus Value 58mm Circular Polarizer #FILCP58 $28.95
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD 1:2 Macro f/Nikon AFD 62mm $199.00
Nikon Natures Grip Autumn Theme Neckstrap $17.99
CR123a (DL123a) 3v Lithium Batteries 2-Pack #BAT1232 $11.99
Total: $798.85

Lantern guide - don't bother. While the info is great, so is the manual that comes with the camera. Should something be confusing, then buy the guide. Chances are, you are beter spending the money on film.

Nikon Neckstrap. There are padded or gripper neck straps for the same money that are better. Try Domke or Optec.

Focus Value Polarizer. Save your money. Wait until a B+W, Heliopan, Moose Polarizer or even a Tiffen is possible.

The eyecup is a good thing. So is the rest.

No matter how many times you change lenses, it will not affect the film - something else was wrong.

Have fun - that's the most important thing!

Mike

Roan

03-30-2001, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by MLFLY:
Eyepieces, huh? That's even more confusing than cameras or pastels.

Well, I agree about the pastels, but dunno about cameras http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

I do not at all mean to criticize your choices but perhaps I can nudge you:

Good gosh, Mike, criticize all you want! That's why I posted in here http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Lantern guide - don't bother. While the info is great, so is the manual that comes with the camera. Should something be confusing, then buy the guide. Chances are, you are beter spending the money on film.

Thanks, wasn't sure how good the manual was and wanted to arm myself as well as I could with info. It's gone http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Nikon Neckstrap. There are padded or gripper neck straps for the same money that are better. Try Domke or Optec.

I'll take a look around.

Focus Value Polarizer. Save your money. Wait until a B+W, Heliopan, Moose Polarizer or even a Tiffen is possible.

Tiffen I've seen. They're a lot more expensive and obviously better from what you are indicating.

The eyecup is a good thing. So is the rest.

Good! There's an eyecup on the old SLR and I like it.

No matter how many times you change lenses, it will not affect the film - something else was wrong.

The manuals on this old thing warn against changing lenses in full light and a few other things. Most likely I screwed it on wrong or something. It's not easy switching lenses carrying all that stuff and watching a 4-year-old at the same time.

Have fun - that's the most important thing!

Dang straight!

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

Roan

03-30-2001, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by MLFLY:
Let me say this first - with a shot like the one of the little girl, you need no help from me http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Very nice!

Why, thanks! Is it really that good? I have no clue as to whether my shots are really any good or not, I just take them for prospective paintings. I only took that one because she was arguing with her mother about wearing the helmet and she lost. I just wish I had caught the earlier expression where she was rolling her eyes http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

Yes, if the shutter speed drops too low, you will get fuzzy, particularly if you are drinking. But, there are things you can do about it - fast lenses amd fast film, for example. And, you can reasonably learn to handle a lens at fairly slow speeds - your soon to come 28-70 is probably an f4 to f4.5 lens. At ASA 100 on the film, you can do f11.5 and 1/125th of a second - lots of depth of field and plenty of shutter speed.

Ack, I have a lot of learning and experimenting to do, I see.

I can't answer the question, "Where are we going?" If I could, I would have followers and plenty of money!

Mike[/B]

------------------
Roan
"Bu shoilleir a dhreach, 's bu luath
Shiubhal: Sith-fada b'e ainm." --
"Shining his coat, and speedy
His pace -- Si-Fada his name."
Si-Fada = "long pace"
RoanStudio.com (http://RoanStudio.com) <--- supply resources for pastelists!

MLFLY

03-30-2001, 10:10 PM

Yes, it is that good. Nice colors, great expression, sharp enough. Art is art http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif As I posted on a wildlife thread, when I take a photograph, I remind myself, I am not taking a photo, I am making art. It helps me stay focused (pun NOT intended).

Mike

<<Let me say this first - with a shot like the one of the little girl, you need no help from me Very nice!

<<Why, thanks! Is it really that good? I have no clue as to whether my shots are really any good or not, I just take them for prospective paintings. I only took that one because she was arguing with her mother about wearing the helmet and she lost. I just wish I had caught the earlier <<expression where she was rolling her eyes

spectru

03-31-2001, 06:47 PM

Hi Roan.

I think you have gotten a lot of good advice from RickLee and MLFLY.

I use Nikon cameras, so Nikon is the only brand I know about. The Nikon N80 replaced the N70. The Nikon N60 replaced the N50. I recently investigated buying an N80. I didn't buy it because its meter will not work with Nikon manual focus lenses, of which I have a couple. But I was impressed with it. It focuses quickly. It is lighter than my older Nikons and it feels good in the hand.

You might also consider the Nikon N60 or N65. Entry level SLRs, less expensive than the N80. I played with an N65 in a camera store. It will run circles around my old first generation autofocus Nikon.

I have a friend who loves his Nikon Pronea, an APS SLR. (It uses the APS eazy-load cassettes instead of 35mm.) The only drawback is that they don't make APS slide film.

Regarding Sigma lenses: I have one, it's aversatile zoom and I like it. It was relatively inexpensive. Ultimately, I expect to replace it with faster, sharper (and more expensive)Nikkor lenses. Until I save up the cash, The Sigma is a great interim lens. I know other photographers who use and like sigma lenses.

Hope this helps, and good luck with whatever you get.

spectru

03-31-2001, 06:52 PM

BTW, Even though I just bought a professional level Nikon 35mm SLR, I am looking forward eventually to my next camera, a digital SLR.