Do I need a wider aperture?

[Energize]

I'm taking photographs of animals, mainly horses, sometimes in sports, so obviously I need a fast shutter speed. But I'm finding that even at ISO 3200, I often can't get a better shutter speed than 1/100 in the barn during the day.

I noticed that Olympus have 90mm and 150mm, 35mm equivalent f1.8 lenses, would these be the solution to my problem?

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/pen-camera_pen_21693_21730.htm

 

[An Exception]

Depends what apertures your using at the moment. If your getting 1/100 at F5.6, then yes it will solve your shutter speed problem, although accurate AF will become more critical.
If your currently getting 1/100 at 2.8, then it not going to make a drastic difference, although it will certainly help.

 

[Energize]

The lens I have at the moment has a maximum aperture of 3.5

 

[D.P.]

The lens I have at the moment has a maximum aperture of 3.5

Is this a fixed aperture lens or is is a variable aperture zoom (e.g., it might be f/3.5 at the wide end and f5.6 at the long end).

Anyway, for every stop in aperture you can reduce the ISO by 1 stop.

So if you are shooting f/5.6 @ ISO3200, then you can shoot f/2.8 @ ISO 800 or f/2.0 at ISO 400. f/1.8 @ ISO 320 roughly.



The thing is if you really have the aperture wide open you may not have the required DoF, and you may suffer form focusing problems.



if you are shooting something static then a decent tripod trumps all other options bar none. Even something moving you might find a gimbal head or a monopod a good solution.

 

[Bluelion]

Keep in mind D.P.'s point about the depth of field - this is key. Its great getting an F1.8 lens - but if you've only got the horses nose in focus then you might find that you're no better off than with motion blur you are currently getting from a slow shutter speed.

Lookup one of those depth of field estimators on the web, plug your numbers in and see what the DoF is. Personally I tend to shoot things a lot smaller than horses, but at 400mm an F4 is generally too narrow and I'm finding myself stopping down.

 

[D.P.]

The same, I use a 300mm f/4.0 with a 1.4x TC, so 420mm @ f/5.6 on a crop body, and the DoF can be narrower than the subject, you would be surprised how many times I shoot that combo at f/8.0

 

[Energize]

Is this a fixed aperture lens or is is a variable aperture zoom (e.g., it might be f/3.5 at the wide end and f5.6 at the long end).

It's 3.5 at 28mm and 5.6 at 84mm.

I was concerned about dof, but the only other option seems to be getting a body with a bigger sensor.

 

[Snapshot]

> a bigger sensor.

Which will also reduce your depth of field. What you really need is more light. I wouldn't suggest you use flash with nervy beasts like horses but a couple of portable spots might be worth considering.

 

[An Exception]

It's 3.5 at 28mm and 5.6 at 84mm.

I was concerned about dof, but the only other option seems to be getting a body with a bigger sensor.

It's basically an F5.6 lens.

As you got a small sensor you have more DOF anyway, so F1.8 is like F3.5-F4 from what I'm used to. This is plenty of DOF imo.

Dof will be shallow when you crop the frame tight on the horses head, in which case only the eyes are really the main subject anyway, and all can remain in focus if you take more of a profile shot. This also enables you to be able to get rid of the background.

Secondly, if your framing the whole horse then you have much more DOF as your either further away, or using a wider lens, whichever it is the important thing to remember is the wider the view, the more DOF you have.
Also as your using a smaller sensor, your closer to the hyper-focal point, so DOF should be even less of an issue.


Lastly, if there are times when you don't have enough DOF to encapsulate the whole subject.. so what?
It's an issue of taste, for instance DP is not the biggest bokeh fan and I would say we probably have very differing taste. You see I however am proud to be a complete Bokeh whore. I love the look (of smooth bokeh) much more than seeing every last detail. Sometimes I OD on the bokeh and begin to get tired of it, but that's why I also like to use the wider angle 35mm, it act's as a pallet cleanser, so I'm then free to indulge in as much heavenly bokeh as I like with my 85mm.

Seriously, if this was me, I'd be shooting those horses at F1.4, and throwing caution to the wind like I did with some sheep here. The DOF you will be getting will be nowhere near as shallow, but AF will still need to be much more accurate than what your currently used to.

 

[Energize]

> a bigger sensor.

Which will also reduce your depth of field. What you really need is more light. I wouldn't suggest you use flash with nervy beasts like horses but a couple of portable spots might be worth considering.

Flash doesn't bother them, but the arena is too large for the built in flash to have any effect.

 

[Energize]

Secondly, if your framing the whole horse then you have much more DOF as your either further away, or using a wider lens, whichever it is the important thing to remember is the wider the view, the more DOF you have.
Also as your using a smaller sensor, your closer to the hyper-focal point, so DOF should be even less of an issue.

I'll typically be framing the whole horse for the fast moving sports pictures, the shots will be 20-30m away, what focal length lens would you recommend?

 

[D.P.]

It's basically an F5.6 lens.

As you got a small sensor you have more DOF anyway, so F1.8 is like F3.5-F4 from what I'm used to. This is plenty of DOF imo.

Dof will be shallow when you crop the frame tight on the horses head, in which case only the eyes are really the main subject anyway, and all can remain in focus if you take more of a profile shot. This also enables you to be able to get rid of the background.

Secondly, if your framing the whole horse then you have much more DOF as your either further away, or using a wider lens, whichever it is the important thing to remember is the wider the view, the more DOF you have.
Also as your using a smaller sensor, your closer to the hyper-focal point, so DOF should be even less of an issue.


Lastly, if there are times when you don't have enough DOF to encapsulate the whole subject.. so what?
It's an issue of taste, for instance DP is not the biggest bokeh fan and I would say we probably have very differing taste. You see I however am proud to be a complete Bokeh whore. I love the look (of smooth bokeh) much more than seeing every last detail. Sometimes I OD on the bokeh and begin to get tired of it, but that's why I also like to use the wider angle 35mm, it act's as a pallet cleanser, so I'm then free to indulge in as much heavenly bokeh as I like with my 85mm.

Seriously, if this was me, I'd be shooting those horses at F1.4, and throwing caution to the wind like I did with some sheep here. The DOF you will be getting will be nowhere near as shallow, but AF will still need to be much more accurate than what your currently used to.

True, I forgot that this is likely a m43 camera so a wider aperture may still provide adequate DoF.

I do actually care a lot about Bokeh, but Bokeh is not a synonym for shallow DoF. You can have good Bokeh with a very large DoF or a narrow aperture lens. I always want a pleasing creamy bokeh in my wildlife photos,, and that is exactly what I can get with a 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4TC @ f/8.0 , the simple prime lenses and the perspective leads to a very smooth out of focus layer separating the subject from the background.

What I am not a fan of is extremely narrow DoF for no reason other than one has just spent a load of money on a FF camera and 1.4 primes, which seems to be the fad at the moment. Such narrow DoF photography is a very specific effect that has very specific applications, it is a tool or technique, that is overused these days like HDR, selective colouring, fake T&S, B&W conversions where there was no need other than someone with photoshop trying to improve a bad photo. Narrow DoF effects do not work for some types of photogrpahy, e.g., it gives a very feminine appearance to portraits, so photos of men tend to be more pleasing with a much larger DoF, especially older men. Wildlife is another, you don't want just the eye to be in focus, you want at least part of the body to show the animal, furthermore, you may want a much larger DoF to show the animal in context in its environment or what the animal is doing. What you don't want is a harsh distracting background, so come control of DoF is paramount, but more care should be taken in choosing the right angle to remove background features that will cause harsh Bokeh.



Anyway, this is off topic.

 

[D.P.]

I'll typically be framing the whole horse for the fast moving sports pictures, the shots will be 20-30m away, what focal length lens would you recommend?

On crop boy a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be ideal, Zooms are invaluable in such situations and give you flexibility in choosing closer crops of the head or fuller body shots. But it doesn't look like there is an equivalent for m43s?

Otherwise the 150mm equivalent @ f/1.8 sounds good. When light levels are really critical but some reach is needed then the go to lens on FF/crop is a 200mm f/2.0 , so 150mm equivalent @ f/1.8 is similar.

One thing to consider is AF speed. Often the fast wide aperture primes have a slower AF due to the need for more accurate focusing when used wide open. E.g the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is much slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8.
Definitely research what these lenses are like for fast action.



Lastly, the sensors in m43s cameras are definitely behind the times in noise performance. Although going to a larger sensor will give its own problems (you get less reach so will need longer lenses, which will be more expensive and heavy for the same aperture, you will also get a shallower DoF so may need to stop down more, reducing the light gathering potential). However, the sensors in new crop and FF cameras are significantly better such that ISO 3200 is perfectly respectable and on the newest FF sensors you can push ISO 6400 at least. Before investing in expensive glass for m43 perhaps consider what type of photography you are really interested in and whether it is worth upgrading to a full DSLR.
m43s don't compete in the same ball park for high ISO performance AND auto-focus speeds and reliability AND high-speed action photography in general (their forte is street, casual, trekking/exploration, some landscape work and due to effective reach can be OK for wildlife, good for safaris etc.). They definitely are not good for indoor/dark sports-action.

I say this because I doubt that Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is cheap so worth considered all options before departing with lots of cash.

 

[glennmather]

I think everything has been already been covered - the only real answer is more light, artificial if more natural light is not possible and as has been stated, flash would not be recommended, so that just leaves some form of portable lighting! I'm looking for some myself and will advise more when I have done more research on whats available.
Glenn
my site

 

[Energize]

On crop boy a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be ideal, Zooms are invaluable in such situations and give you flexibility in choosing closer crops of the head or fuller body shots. But it doesn't look like there is an equivalent for m43s?

Possibly but 4/3 lenses are compatible with m4/3 cameras maybe there are some options there?

Otherwise the 150mm equivalent @ f/1.8 sounds good. When light levels are really critical but some reach is needed then the go to lens on FF/crop is a 200mm f/2.0 , so 150mm equivalent @ f/1.8 is similar.

One thing to consider is AF speed. Often the fast wide aperture primes have a slower AF due to the need for more accurate focusing when used wide open. E.g the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is much slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8.
Definitely research what these lenses are like for fast action.

Not sure how important auto focus is for showjumping? The jumps can be focused in advanced.

Lastly, the sensors in m43s cameras are definitely behind the times in noise performance. Although going to a larger sensor will give its own problems (you get less reach so will need longer lenses, which will be more expensive and heavy for the same aperture, you will also get a shallower DoF so may need to stop down more, reducing the light gathering potential). However, the sensors in new crop and FF cameras are significantly better such that ISO 3200 is perfectly respectable and on the newest FF sensors you can push ISO 6400 at least. Before investing in expensive glass for m43 perhaps consider what type of photography you are really interested in and whether it is worth upgrading to a full DSLR.
m43s don't compete in the same ball park for high ISO performance AND auto-focus speeds and reliability AND high-speed action photography in general (their forte is street, casual, trekking/exploration, some landscape work and due to effective reach can be OK for wildlife, good for safaris etc.). They definitely are not good for indoor/dark sports-action.

I say this because I doubt that Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is cheap so worth considered all options before departing with lots of cash.

45mm 1.8 is ~£200, 75mm is an extortionate £700! I will look intro renting lenses or an slr camera when I need to film these more demanding events if necessary.

 

[Energize]

Actually works out considerably cheaper to sell my camera and buy a Canon 1100D body and f1.8 prime lens. Can't believe the extortionate cost of m4/3 lenses, no wonder they are not popular.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
They are a relatively new system. They are designed to be high performance but smaller/portable, but there obviously is some compromise.

 

[Ksanti]

Actually works out considerably cheaper to sell my camera and buy a Canon 1100D body and f1.8 prime lens. Can't believe the extortionate cost of m4/3 lenses, no wonder they are not popular.

Low production, new designs and a need to appeal to the more serious users is why they make lenses like the 70 which are so expensive - the 50 1.8 is a much cheaper, much lower quality lens than the expensive m4/3s lenses, but by virtue of being plastered on a bigger sensor it almost always produces nicer images.

M4/3s has always had to try and fight against the inherent IQ limitations of such a small sensor and the only way to do that is to make lenses that are incredibly sharp; a pixel-sharp image from an 18MP m4/3s camera needs a much sharper lens than getting a sharp 18MP FF or APS-C image.

If you stick it out for a few years eventually the noise performance will catch up to being able to shoot at say 200 5.6 in dying sunlight at ISO 3200 without any noise issues, as the m4/3s system has proven popular enough that I doubt they will die off, so the progress will eventually be made. The problem is that wait though; imo until ISO 3200 is more or less noiseless, the noise performance of a general-use format can still be improved (excluding things like MF etc.).

Of course, understanding the limitations of your system is part of photography; either you can live with them or you swap systems; I'd recommend making sure you know which system suits you best before investing heavily, and offers a good upgrade path for you. If you want to be shooting for the sake of the photography, I'd certainly recommend getting a DSLR as APS-C and 35mm cameras are almost without doubt the most versatile systems available today. However, if you're shooting to capture memories and moments then maybe the compact size and build quality of the m4/3s system could be more important (obviously you won't get to the tankiness of a 1D of D4 body, but you won't find a truly well built DSLR in any sort of compact dimensions).