File :-(, x, )
Strange Question, possibly stupid BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
Is it possible to create a lens which is capable of shooting Fast shutter speeds, but in low light? Thus capturing movement?

Im thinking it would have to be about three feet across, or some crazy thin film or something.

WELCOME TO MY AMATEUR WORLD.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>262855Is it possible to create a lens which is capable of shooting Fast shutter speeds, but in low light? Thus capturing movement?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
burt is obviously on a higher plain than the rest of us
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262859

Maybe, but i know how to spell "moron"...

>>262858

ok, explain, how would this be done. Im listening.
>> Anonymous
>>262855
Should we really answer this? Whaddya think, Burt? Should we?
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262867

yes, i wouldnt of asked otherwise. Explain how a fast shot can be taken in low light. Im talking NO flash and little or no noise.
>> Anonymous
>>262864

i only took the screenshot, i didn't write moran lol ¯\(°_o)/¯
>> Anonymous
Um, Burt, I like you, I've defended you before, but I'm seriously wondering if you're trolling or someone's hacked your tripcode.
>> Anonymous
>>262868i wouldnt of

It's wouldn't have, not wouldn't of

And come on, this has to be a horrible troll thread, no one can be this stupid.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>262864
Oh god, I realise im getting trolled but I want to see this thread answered & at page 10.

>Is it possible to create a lens which is capable of shooting Fast shutter speeds, but in low light? Thus capturing movement?
>shooting Fast shutter speeds, but in low light
Fast shutter speeds require alot of light, obviously.
If there isn't much light, then the lens needs to let as much as possible through the sensor, Thus having a huge aperture.
f/1.8 and wider is big enough for you to shoot handheld in low light
There are alot of lenses avaliable at -f1.8 for almost every camera on the market
>> Anonymous
>>262855
*facepalm.jpg*
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262871

ok, thankyou, no ones touched my trip. Why is it a stupid question?
>>262869

Great.

>>262874

not necessarily,

"wouldnt" is "Would not" shortened, and thus "would not of asked"...
>> Anonymous
>>262885"wouldnt" is "Would not" shortened, and thus "would not of asked"...

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>262885
Yes, and "would not of asked" is incorrect, you retard.

I hope this qualifies for 4chanarchive.
>> Anonymous
>>262855
I HOPE THIS FUCKING LENS SOLVES YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM, MORON! But with the type of question you're answering, you'd probably break this lens in a day.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp
>> Anonymous
It's actually okay if you add one word.
>>Is it possible to create a lens which is capable of shooting with Fast shutter speeds, but in low light? Thus capturing movement?

But still stupid.
>> Anonymous
epic troll thread 3/10
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262875

THIS is what i meant, thank you!

But what im referring to is FREEZING someone, or something in movement at Very low light.

I mean would a 1.8/1.4 manage it? I have a 1.8 and it would have to be at a VERY high ISO to pull off anything like frozen.

Is it possible to acheive it without noise?
>> Anonymous
you can't buy a lens like that but you can modify an existing lens. Here's what you do : get some 600 grit sandpaper and rub off all the coating on the lens. The lens coating is only there because the government doesn't want people owning lenses that can work at high speeds in low light, because with such a lens you can catch police and other public servant abusing their positions. Rub the lens really good with sandpaper and then flush it with 2 parts distilled water and urine. This is almost the perfect solution for cleaning lenses. Then you'll be all ready for low light
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Define "low light"

Define "high speed"

Define "movement"

Too many unknowns...
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262901

Thats nice,

SO what ive basically found in this thread is that its relatively possible but only with massively expensive glass at very wide apertures.

>>262907

ok, example: person running/cycling past a dim street lamp at night. You wish (for some reason) to capture this person frozen in the moment, preferably with VERY little noise.

How? Thats all i was trying to get at.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>262898
Theres no doubt you'll probably have to up the iso to 400-800 - Which will create noise.

Info on fstops.
f/1.4 will let in double the light that f1.8 can.
Therefore you can go down to f1.4, and double the shutter speed.
f1.0 is double f1.4, (4 times bigger than f1.8) so it again will let you double the shutter speed if you were using f1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>262898
That's easy, just use a lower temperature.
>> Anonymous
>>262927

I lol'd
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262924

cool, i understand this already, so its f1.0 then really isnt it? Then maybe a better camera than my D80 lol. Something with a better sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>262924
>>f/1.4 will let in double the light that f1.8 can.

wrong: f/1.4 will let in double the light of f/2
1.8 is about .7 stop smaller than 1.4, not 1
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>262935
D80 will perform alright with a 1.8,
if you can afford it the 1.4.

Just up the iso, and use Noise Ninja to reduce it in photoshop.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>262938
Oh yeah, facepalm.
Forgot that it goes 2.8 2 1.4
Thanks!
>> Anonymous
>>262859
Uh, the expression is "Being on a higher plain"

The expression is OLDER than the flying plane.

It means being on a spiritual plateau.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>262935
You do not need a ridiculous lens or a better sensor, you need more light.

>>262952
Eat any good dictionaries lately?
>> Anonymous
>>262927

I fucking lol'd.
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262959

>>NO flash and little or no noise

Even im not arguing the "plain" or "plane" thing anymore, i dont even care if i was wrong. Which i probably was.
>> Anonymous
Burt if you want to solve this problem there is an obviously less expensive solution for all your low light whoas...

THE SUN! MOTHERF@CKAZOMGBBQHDRRRRR!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>262965
other than shooting Candid porn, what exactly do you need to take pictures of that you would require such "fast" shutter speeds
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>262969

Just theoretical really. I love using the 28mm f1.8, but get annoyed with blowing up the ISO.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hay guise, what's going on in this thread?
>> Anonymous
the obvious answer is getting a flash

only idiots run around with their "fast primes" thinking they'll get shots in "low light" then they realize shit's going to be blurry or you're going to push the limits of your ISO

the answer is a fast lens plus a flash
>> Anonymous
>>262952

wow, you've never had basic math where they teach you what a plane is?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Okay serious answer:

All you have to do to freeze movement is reach a certain minimum shutter speed. Depending on how fast the movement is, 1/60 to 1/125 should be okay. How you manage to get those speeds is up to you - whether it's using fast glass, upping your ISO, or shining a flashlight on the subject. That is, you need to change the other photographic variables (aperture, ISO) or increase the amount of light in the scene.
>> Anonymous
>>262855
I shoot at a dark room at 1/4000 and f8, the image turns out as intended. I got a impressive dark image from it.

Just shoot in low light at fast shutter speed, it just work out of box.