[Poseidon]

Well here is a really quick demonstration. Sorry for the corny pictures but they demonstrate my point quick and easy. As a general rule of thumb you should try and get a shutter speed of 1/focal length for NON MOVING subjects, example if you are using a 28-70mm zoom and are taking the picture @ 70mm you would want your shutter speed to be GREATER then 1/70th, if you were using a 15-50mm zoom and were at 40mm you would want the shutter speed to be at least 1/40th of a second.

Here is where it gets a little confusing, as the bottom number INCREASES the amount of time the shutter is open DECREASES, because we are talking fractions not whole numbers. Another rule of thumb to keep in mind is most people cannot hold a camera still enough for a sharp picture if the shutter is open for more then 1/60th of a second. That means if your shutter speed is 1/30th, or 1/15th then you better get a TRIPOD out!

These pictures will be from slow to fast shutter speeds and you will see the difference in the moving blades:









You can see as the time decreases the blades become more and more visible. In the first picture you can barely tell how many blades my ceiling fan has, in the last you can clearly see all 5!

So how does this relate to tank pictures? Simple, if you are taking pictures of a MOVING fish, you better use a faster shutter speed! If you are taking pictures of a coral, a slower speed would be okay, as long as the camera is still!

How do you get a faster shutter speed?

I will cover that next when I talk about "film speed" or ISO.

[bguile]

Great example and explanation. I hope at some point this blossoms into more advanced stuff like color balance,etc. Until then I'll tag along, maybe I can learn something that'll help.

[Reefland]

That is awesome Mike, your series of pictures really "clears" it up for me. I guess next time I try to shoot fish I will try a lower time, or faster shutter, or whatever you call it. Just need to figure out how to change it on my camera now.

[tray262]

I know this a super old thread, But I wanted to mention that, this is a great example, only thing that was not mentioned, was that the issue of light becomes the major problem with faster shutter speeds. The longer the shutter is open (most blurry from the examples) the less light you need, the shorter the shutter is open (clearest picture from examples) the more light you need.

my 2 cents.

[Poseidon]

Yup, thanks Tray.

More light needs to hit the sensor, or film, in order to achieve a fast shutter speed! This is the reason why "fast" lenses that are F2.8 or less are SO EXPENSIVE!

[tray262]

Thanks for clearing that up, Photo Guy. I do have an idea for some people trying to take pictures of there tanks. Maybe we can come up with some basic settings for the point and shot people. Where there ISO and Shutter sould be for hi and low light shots.

[smidoid]

They could start by (a) turning the flash OFF and (b) getting something hard and firm (oh err, sounds a bit rude) to stand the darn camera on!

Most modern cameras can handle the rest of the exposure themselves - even the little ones. If they have a choice, selecting the largest possible ISO number is good too (that way there's less chance of a slow shutter and bluuuuuurrrr).

smidoid
www.galleryphotogroup.co.uk

[smidoid]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Yup, thanks Tray.

More light needs to hit the sensor, or film, in order to achieve a fast shutter speed! This is the reason why "fast" lenses that are F2.8 or less are SO EXPENSIVE!

Actually, to be pendantic, f2.8 does not a fast lens make. I had an f1.8 years ago and that wasn't a fast lens. The f 1.4 was faster and I think Canon made a 1.2 also.

What you're referring to depends on the len's focal length too. An f1.8 50mm prime isn't fast, but a f2.8 300mm prime would be. And darn expensive to boot! (Which is why my zoom only does 4.5 to 5.6 )

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by smidoid

but a f2.8 300mm prime would be. And darn expensive to boot! (Which is why my zoom only does 4.5 to 5.6 )

Yup! I decided a $3800 lens was just crazy! So I bought the 1D2N instead!

Actually Canon made a 50mm 1.0! They still make a 85mm 1.2, the new version is $2100!

I have a nice 70-200 2.8, and it is GREAT, but a 300 2.8 would be AWESOME for field sports, not so much for Reef Tank photography! It has a minimum focus distance of nearly NINE FEET!

[smidoid]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Yup! I decided a $3800 lens was just crazy! So I bought the 1D2N instead!

Actually Canon made a 50mm 1.0! They still make a 85mm 1.2, the new version is $2100!

I have a nice 70-200 2.8, and it is GREAT, but a 300 2.8 would be AWESOME for field sports, not so much for Reef Tank photography! It has a minimum focus distance of nearly NINE FEET!

Daya know, I had a feeling they made an f1.0 - that must have had a front element like a 50gallon bucket (Paris Hilton joke deleted)!

My boss has the 70-200 too - he uses it for wedding photography so he needs the speed for the low-light in churches. I'm still waiting for my mate at www.mikekipling.co.uk to part with his 50mm macro but he's waiting for the 100mm to come down in price before he parts with it! That should make for some super reef shots.

It can wait though - my reef doesn't have any water in it yet - I'm still saving for the live rock!