File :-(, x, )
Rook !HRaWxBruFs
What does /p/ think? I went to a friend's wedding last night and managed a picture of a different friend's kid. She did a quick pose because she noticed I had a camera. Unfortunately it was the only picture I liked from the night.

(No post-processing involved aside from resizing)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.3Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)142 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:09:23 22:11:26Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/5.3Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length95.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width469Image Height700RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Suprised there isn't more motion blur considering the shutter speed..

Get a Wider aperture lens (F1.8 or better), and an sb-600 if you want to get a lot more keepers at (Predominantly) Indoor events like weddings.

Also don't be afraid to crank the ISO, a blurry pic is worse than a sharp noisy pic!
>> Rook !HRaWxBruFs
>>79001
Thanks for the tips. I didn't take too many pictures (part of the reason why I only had one keeper), but right now the only lens I have is:
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

I would like to get some others, but I want to learn to use my camera more before I drop even more money on it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>79005
Yeah, don't be afraid to bump the ISO. Digital SLRs are great at ISO400, and 800-1600 work in a pinch. Going up to 400 would've let you shoot at 1/80th rather than 1/20th.

On the other hand, maybe VR's enough to carry the day. Like the other guy said, seems pretty good for 1/20th.
>> Anonymous
lovely shot to put up with all the pedos around
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
I'm also surprised its not blurred at that shutter speed & focal length. you supported the camera on a table or anything?

nice photo, but taken a bit too much from a high viewpoint... with kids you rather need to get on their eyelevel, but thats not always doable :o
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>Suprised there isn't more motion blur considering the shutter speed..

>>I'm also surprised its not blurred at that shutter speed & focal length

Maybe this is a fine example that VR works?
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
mmm.

1/80th on 95mm*1.5 is still a bit dodgy :)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>79065
>1/80th on 95mm*1.5 is still a bit dodgy :)
1/80th on a 95mm*1.5 with optical vibration reduction. Noticeably less dodgy.
>> Anonymous
>>79065
A smaller sensor gives more motion blur?
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>79106
The lens is labeled 50mm, that's 50mm on full frame or film. On digital with 1.5 crop it's equivalent to 75mm, so 1/50 sec. shutter speed, which is workable on film, is probably a little too slow to hand hold on digital.
>> Anonymous
>>79110
No?
>> Anonymous
>>79111
What if I capture the image on a full frame camera and crop it by a factor of 1.5 after it's done, will that add blur?
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>79113

Kind of. It might come more visible.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I swear to God, this is /p/'s equivalent of the airplane-on-a-treadmill argument.

>>79106
>>79112
>>79113
There's an enlargement step. If you have an 8x10 print from a full frame sensor and it looks fine, then you crop the physical paper so only the APS-C-sized image in the center is still there, it'll still look fine. But when you enlarge *that* back up to 8x10, it'll look a little blurrier than the original.

(Well, assuming that the original was taken at the edge of handholdability. If you took it at 1/2000th on a 50mm lens, it'll look fine either way.)
>> Anonymous
>>79115
>I swear to God, this is /p/'s equivalent of the airplane-on-a-treadmill argument.

Because a surprisingly small amount of photographers have good grasp of principles behind it, geometric optics in particular.
Also I noticed that for an amateur photographer with a SLR, knowledge of basic optics seems to be inversely proportional to the mean (note: not total) cost of bodies and lenses he uses.
>> Rook !HRaWxBruFs
>>79036
Nope, hand-held
>> Vincent
Actually no-one has fucked up the answer to the "crop factor" question.
Everyone has been right so far.

In like 10 years soon we will have to factor Megapixels into the calculation, But until then!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
keke

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:24 22:43:03Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width400Image Height667