Not a very good one unfortunately. Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6. I'm working on upgrading my skills rather than my gear
Wow I wouldnt of known to focus there. I was hand holding as I discovered my tripod isnt happy with the weight of my FF camera and that lens so I'm a bit wary of slower shutter speeds. Really need a different tripod at some point.
Unless you have a bad copy the lens is pretty good. Good enough for Jay Maisel at any rate - https://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2319595&seqNum=2Not a very good one unfortunately. Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6. I'm working on upgrading my skills rather than my gear
Thanks Garry. That image was shot on the same trip as the ones in the other threads. Just trying to cement my understanding before I get back out there and make the same mistakes. Thanks for the advice.So, you're still trying to get maximum front to back depth of field whilst ignoring the physics . . .
1. Your focus point should have been about 1/3rd of the distance into the shot. Was it though?
2. With your full-frame camera, you could and should have shot at f/16 for maximum dof, not f/9 (and certainly not F9 because the focal length is 125mm not 9mm). You could have increased the ISO setting, to allow a fairly high shutter speed to be used, to avoid the possibility of camera shake.
I would add that although the focus point should ideally be 1/3rd into the depth of the scene, if you check with the depth of field calculator that I referred you to yesterday, you will find that at f/9 the infinity distance isn't actually infinity, it comes out at much less, and the focus point should be 69m. That would give you theoretical depth of field from 34.19m to infinity.
But, as mentioned earlier, maximum depth of field (without the risk of diffraction limitation) is achieved at f/16. which puts the focus point at 39m. Your (theoretical) depth of field would then range from 19.27m to infinity.
All credit to you for experimenting, but far better to get a basic grasp of the physics, as explained in your other post, doing the same thing time and time again whilst expecting a different result was defined by Einstein as insanity
Ha well I better stop blaming my gear then. Thanks for all that. Watched the videos and read the article. Will be putting it in to practice ASAP.
To my dismay I've learned that, in my case, it's rarely the gear that's the problem!
Due to my ‘photographic experience’ I’ve got some fairly high end equipment. But the best landscape image I ever shot was fairly ‘average’ and shot on my phone.To my dismay I've learned that, in my case, it's rarely the gear that's the problem!
I should have added; what’s stopped me shooting those images is a simple and straightforward lack of effort.
I'm the same. We all have our own areas of interest, and landscape photography is one of the genres that holds zero interest for me. But, there are some outstanding landscape photographers here on TP, and those who find the subject interesting can learn a lot from them.
That looks much better! Thanks for doing it.
