File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Right. How would one go about taking low-light/night digital photographs of moving people without having horrendous blurring/ghosting effects (ie; Concerts, city streets)?
>> Anonymous
#1. High ISO
#2. Fast Lens
>> Anonymous
Flash
>> Anonymous
flash with diffuser.

and you should probably ask permission. otherwise just use high iso and your 50mm f/1.4.
>> Anonymous
lolnascar

what track is this?
>> Anonymous
thermoelectricly cooled high quantum efficiency sensor with large pixels and as much aperture as you can get. fast lens dont mean crap, you get more light with a 200mm f4 than you do with a 50mm f/1.4
>> Anonymous
>>82565
you confuse me, troll. get moar aperture but fast lenses dont make a difference! shoulda just left out the part about as much aperture as you can get.
>> Anonymous
one day you'll learn what aperture means
ask ur mom, she has a ton of it
>> Anonymous
>>82565
lol wait what, i have a ROKKOR 35mm f1.4 and a sigma 28-200 f4-f22, and the sigma lets like NO light in, it fucking sucks.
did you just pull those facts out of your ass.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
high iso, which is why either use b&w film (super high 1600+ speed) or use ISO 1600 / 3200 on digital then turn it into b&w because its going to be so full of noise. Unless you have the new 3D or something.

Large apature lense (f1-2) with fixed apature pref, primes are better since they are cheaper.
>> Anonymous
>>82565
So are you a troll or do you honestly think that an f/4 lens can let more light in than an f/1.4 lens depending on the focal length? 'Cause the whole point of the aperture "f/whatever" notation is that it's a ratio of the focal length (i.e., 'f') to the diameter of the lens. I.e., an f/4 lens always lets in f/4 worth of light, regardless of the physical dimensions of the lens...

>>82604
You're enough of a regular on /p/ that you *really* ought to know how to spell "aperture" by now. Spelling it 'apature' makes you look breathtakingly stupid.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>82607
Im dyslexic AND an engineer, i reserve the right to spell EVERYTHING incorrectly.
>> Anonymous
>>82607breathtakingly stupid. aperture "f/whatever" notation

"f/whatever" is the focal ratio, its not a notation, it is the focal length divided by the aperture.
here is an example: if f=200mm and the focal ratio is 4 then the aperture would be 50mm (see, even the units are conserved, a perfect equation).
here is an another example: if f=50mm and the focal ratio is 1.4 then the aperture would be 35.7mm. the diameter of the lens the light is going through is 35.7mm.

which is a bigger diameter 50mm or 35.7mm?
>> Anonymous
>>82610
So do you not know what "notation" means? Here's a link for you:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=notation

Anyway, the point I was making is that the *reason* we give aperture as "f/4" or "f/1.4" is that the amount of light that the lens lets in depends on both the focal length and the size of the aperture. So a 50mm f/1.0 has a 50mm-diameter aperture, but that would let in exactly as much light as a (monstrous) 200mm lens with a 200mm-diameter aperture, because they are both f/1.0. The f/whatever notation means that photographers don't have to do that math in their head for whatever lens they're using--50mm f/2.8 lets in the same amount of light as 100mm f/2.8 lets in the same amount of light as 135mm f/2.8 and so forth. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to manually figure out exposure with a zoom lens if exposure changed depending on the physical opening of the lens rather than the ratio of the aperture to the focal length? This is one of the fundamentals of photographic optics.

If you own more than one lens, or a zoom lens, you can easily test this yourself.

But you probably won't, because you probably already know this, because I'm probably just feeding a troll. And have made myself late for work in the process. Sigh.
>> Anonymous
>>82610
troll? i hope so. just in case its not, ill throw i the fact that a longer lens gets less light, so it will need a larger diameter to get the same amount of light that a shorter lens does.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>82610
oh my christ
>> Anonymous
>>82610

haha, oh wow
>> Anonymous
>>82610
facepalm.jpg
>> Anonymous
High ISO

FAST lens (for night think those f1.4 50mms)

Flash (external), obviously. But thats not technically low light.
>> Anonymous
ITT when retards skim articles on optical theory and act like they're part of a Solms design crew.
>> Anonymous
yeah anon knows better than the conventional wisdom from film days, but he forgot to mention that pixels need to be binned 4x4 for the 200mm to beat the 50mm by a stop
>> Anonymous
Interesting concept
200mm@f/4 binned 4x4 would be just like the central quarter of a 50mm@f/1.
Even the depth of field would be the exactly the same. 0nly the compressed perspective would differ.