Chris2500dk
Top Veteran
- Location
- Copenhagen, Denmark
In a situation like that I think I'd use focus peeking to check focus on the group before enabling the timer and running to my spot. Then you can verify that focus is ok before taking the shot.
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
so I guess the 1/30 is the culprit?
Yes it is on. Isn't it that it is a feature to prevent shake?
Yes I should have done that before running to my spot
By the way, do you really need to edit your pictures before uploading it to Flickr or other photo sharing site? Most pictures uploaded in Flickr was edited by Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop as seen in the EXIF data. I wonder why if you have a good camera, why the need to edit to make it look good?
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Looking at the photo, I think it's both a combination of the 1/30 and possibly a depth of field that is a tiny bit too shallow.
Image stabilisation only works when the camera is handheld. When the camera is placed on a tripod or on a table in this case where the camera is rock solid stable, the stabilisation actually works against the camera, so every time your camera is properly supported by a tripod or you've put it down somewhere, turn off image stabilisation.
You don't have to edit your photo if you're happy with it, especially if you're taking JPGs. With JPGs, the camera processes your photos for you in the camera itself (by adjusting colour saturation, for example).
You can also take your photos raw, which means you will have to process it yourself in Lightroom or Photoshop. This way you can adjust things like colour saturation yourself, you can add your own effects, etc.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Let me give you an example. In the photo you took, the room was lit but it wasn't bright enough for the purposes of photography. So your camera attempted to deal with it by slowing the shutter speed down and opening the aperture of the lens very wide, which possibly led to a depth of field that was a bit too shallow.
Under normal circumstances I might use a flash. But if I didn't have flash, I would have taken manual control of the camera and perhaps adjusted the aperture to ... maybe ... f/2.8, and perhaps nudged the shutter speed to 1/50.
Making these adjustments means I would have an underexposed photo but at least everyone would be in focus and there would be no (or less) motion blur. So to compensate for that I would probably have to boost the ISO.
These adjustments may have made a better photo but, who knows, it may still be a tiny bit underexposed and with the increased ISO the photo may be grainier than normal.
So I would then process the photo in Lightroom, I'd adjust the exposure and then add a little de-noise to clear up the extra grain.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I don't actually own the RX100 or the RX100M2 so hopefully someone in this forum might be able to give you their first hand experience and advice on that. I do know they're highly regarded cameras. It really depends on what kind of photography you want to do and how far you want to take your photography skills.
- Location
- Marlow, UK
michibahn, I own an original RX100 and I don't believe it could improve upon the pictures I've seen in your Flickr stream. Actually I think some of them are really good - DSC00479 for example.
Where the pictures aren't so good I would either delete them and move on, or try to salvage them with editing software. In those lighting conditions you can't expect every shot to be a winner.
I do think that the motion blur and shallow depth of field problems could be improved by setting a higher ISO value. The camera is choosing ISO values around 500 - 600, which seems rather cautious to me. As mentioned earlier, try experimenting with higher ISO values to see how you feel about the resulting images, as you will start to introduce noise that way.
Actually, I've learnt something today, which is that it's good to turn off image stabilisation when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I'm not sure why that is, but it's something to bear in mind next time.
-R
Where the pictures aren't so good I would either delete them and move on, or try to salvage them with editing software. In those lighting conditions you can't expect every shot to be a winner.
I do think that the motion blur and shallow depth of field problems could be improved by setting a higher ISO value. The camera is choosing ISO values around 500 - 600, which seems rather cautious to me. As mentioned earlier, try experimenting with higher ISO values to see how you feel about the resulting images, as you will start to introduce noise that way.
Actually, I've learnt something today, which is that it's good to turn off image stabilisation when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I'm not sure why that is, but it's something to bear in mind next time.
-R
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I don't really know it well enough to explain properly so here's some info from the B&H website:
"The most basic form of image stabilization is Dual-axis image stabilization, which is designed strictly for handheld imaging and should be turned off when you mount your camera on a tripod. If you mount the camera on a tripod (or similar stable platform) without cutting the IS, you risk creating what’s called a feedback loop, in which the camera’s IS system essentially detects its own vibrations, which are picked up and amplified by the tripod, which in turn forces the camera’s IS system to work increasingly harder to quell the elevating levels of camera shake. Worst case scenario: things spin out of control and your camera ends up in the repair shop.
On a final note, it is well worth mentioning that for the sharpest results when photographing still subjects, nothing beats a camera mounted on a sturdy tripod with the image stabilization turned off. This is because image stabilization, by its very nature of using motion along one axis to counter motion in the opposite axis, often creates varying degrees of image degradation of its own, whereas a camera firmly coupled to a stable tripod and tripped with a cable or remote release with the mirror locked in the up position will in almost every instance take a sharper picture."
On a final note, it is well worth mentioning that for the sharpest results when photographing still subjects, nothing beats a camera mounted on a sturdy tripod with the image stabilization turned off. This is because image stabilization, by its very nature of using motion along one axis to counter motion in the opposite axis, often creates varying degrees of image degradation of its own, whereas a camera firmly coupled to a stable tripod and tripped with a cable or remote release with the mirror locked in the up position will in almost every instance take a sharper picture."
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth...ge-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I should also add that if you're using the video feature on your camera and you have mounted it on some sort of steadicam or stabiliser, the general advice is you should turn off image stabilisation. The steadicam should help you produce smooth movement so any image stabilisation from the camera is likely to work against you.
But I guess that depends on how skilled you are with the steadicam. If you're good with the steadicam, then turn off image stabilisation.
If you're not so good on the steadicam yet, then try leaving image stabilisation on and see whether that improves your footage.
But I guess that depends on how skilled you are with the steadicam. If you're good with the steadicam, then turn off image stabilisation.
If you're not so good on the steadicam yet, then try leaving image stabilisation on and see whether that improves your footage.
- Location
- Marlow, UK
I've been reading the RX100 manual on the subject of image stabilisation and tripods.
As usual for a camera manual, it's not entirely clear what they are trying to tell you, but apparently in Intelligent Auto mode the camera can recognise scenes and also 'conditions'. One such condition is 'tripod'. Now I think this means that the camera knows when it's on a tripod (or similarly stable surface) and sets itself accordingly, which might mean that it turns off image stabilisation. Unfortunately that's speculation on my part because the manual isn't explicit.
So I'm inclined to follow the B&H suggestion and turn off image stabilisation myself. It can't do any harm and it might do some good.
Just need to remember to turn it on again afterwards (!)
-R
As usual for a camera manual, it's not entirely clear what they are trying to tell you, but apparently in Intelligent Auto mode the camera can recognise scenes and also 'conditions'. One such condition is 'tripod'. Now I think this means that the camera knows when it's on a tripod (or similarly stable surface) and sets itself accordingly, which might mean that it turns off image stabilisation. Unfortunately that's speculation on my part because the manual isn't explicit.
So I'm inclined to follow the B&H suggestion and turn off image stabilisation myself. It can't do any harm and it might do some good.
Just need to remember to turn it on again afterwards (!)
-R
Thank Richard... this is the link where they compared the RX100 vs. RX100M2 picture quality.
I just want to snap quick pics and not do much PP.. the reason I bought this camera is to my hopes that it would meet my needs in producing nice pics without spending the amount of time PP.
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I totally understand why you bought this camera, it's a high end camera that even professional photographers are happy to use as a companion to their main camera. It takes amazing photos when the lighting conditions are perfect but all cameras suffer a little when lighting conditions start deteriorating.
There's a difference between PP and getting your photography as perfect as you can get it while you're taking the photograph. If you get the settings right as you're taking the photograph then you won't need to do much PP.
Your camera will be able to take great photos when the lighting conditions are great but all cameras struggle when it comes to less than perfect lighting conditions. How much the camera struggles in less-than-perfect conditions depends on what features it has. That's where your skill as a photographer comes in.
chester.a.arthur
Rookie
Everyone would love to do that but this depends on how well you learn how to use the camera as well as whether or not optimal settings are even possible in order to capture what you want straight out of the camera. You had three things you could've done to stop down to a smaller aperture to increase depth of field and get the whole group in focus:
1. Bring more light into the shot.
2. Shoot at a slower shutter speed. (1/15 would've given you a stop more light and people can easily hold still for a 1/15 or 1/10sec shot.)
3. Increase ISO. (You shot at "only" ISO 800.)
So don't sweat wondering if having an RX100 II would have fixed the situation for you. It would not have, though the Mark II has better quality at comparable high ISOs.
Better to spend money and energy on reading general photography educational stuff and/or RX100-specific books. There's a couple of books out on the RX100 and both would probably be really beneficial for you to read from front to back...
TheRubySusan
Top Veteran
- Location
- Henry, IL
- Name
- Ruby
bumping
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Post here if you have any questions, I'll see if I can help.
TheRubySusan
Top Veteran
- Location
- Henry, IL
- Name
- Ruby
" i'm now trying to learn all the settings in the camera" Good for you!
This was a great question by the OP as i had the same issue at a family XMas party the other night using my new RX100 though...the party was in my sister's living room with so-so lighting conditions. Same with some blurriness in some group photos like his...i used mainly auto intelligent and superior intelligent mode. i also noticed it tended to shoot at F1.8 and 1/30 shutter. I will say it was the first time i used the camera since getting it on Monday. Also, i used the flash to bounce it off the low ceiling(10-11 feet) with mixed results. Someone on the internet had mentioned about the flash being capable of bounce so i tried it on all my pics. I used the fill-in-flash option. Some pics were overexposed and some were great. I am wondering if there is a way to get more consistent shots
Is there a way to get the lighting conditions of the entire room and then use the same aperture F stop and same shutter speed for a given focusing distance with little variation(occasionally one F stop up or down)? I was thinking in the future when going to a home party of some sort, to take pics of people at the same distance factoring the lighting conditions for the room and using the same f stop and shutter. The last thing i want to do is keep changing the F stop and shutter when people are expecting me to take the pics quickly as they mingle. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks.
P.S: Btw, i just ordered the Gary Friedman book on Sony RX100.
Is there a way to get the lighting conditions of the entire room and then use the same aperture F stop and same shutter speed for a given focusing distance with little variation(occasionally one F stop up or down)? I was thinking in the future when going to a home party of some sort, to take pics of people at the same distance factoring the lighting conditions for the room and using the same f stop and shutter. The last thing i want to do is keep changing the F stop and shutter when people are expecting me to take the pics quickly as they mingle. Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks.
P.S: Btw, i just ordered the Gary Friedman book on Sony RX100.
pictogramax
All-Pro
- Location
- Zemun, Serbia
Of course, it's called M (manual) mode.
I do it all the time, photographing my daughter with her kid friends. At the beginning I determine the exposure by the lightning conditions of the room, fire a test shot to see if I like the result and then keep shooting with fixed parameters for the rest of the event. I adjust a bit (if someone is really close to the lamp, or gets in front of it etc...) but as long as the light doesn't change much, it works.
And adjusting is simple in M mode; as you are in low-light, you want your aperture wide open (to let the light in) so you fix it at f1.8. You already set ISO with your test shot and all that's left to fine-tune (according to changes in light and position) is shutter speed which is done by spinning the control wheel with your thumb. Quite easy - just give it a try, play with it, take a lot of shots and eventually later compare the setting on the images you like to see how you actually captured them.
One other thing, beside the lighting conditions, plays the part in the equation and that is the movement of your subjects. For relatively still adults, you can get away with 1/30 (or even less). But with fast moving kids, you'll get blur from their movement. To counter that, I just raise the ISO to get the faster shutter speed.
If you assign ISO to control ring around the lens or to the function button, you will have a quick access to the third paramount parameter of the exposure. By that you'll have all covered - it's really what exposure is all about, relation between aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Just play with it for a couple of times and you'll get comfortable with it fairly quickly. And that will give you confidence to control your camera instead of letting it choose for you.
I do it all the time, photographing my daughter with her kid friends. At the beginning I determine the exposure by the lightning conditions of the room, fire a test shot to see if I like the result and then keep shooting with fixed parameters for the rest of the event. I adjust a bit (if someone is really close to the lamp, or gets in front of it etc...) but as long as the light doesn't change much, it works.
And adjusting is simple in M mode; as you are in low-light, you want your aperture wide open (to let the light in) so you fix it at f1.8. You already set ISO with your test shot and all that's left to fine-tune (according to changes in light and position) is shutter speed which is done by spinning the control wheel with your thumb. Quite easy - just give it a try, play with it, take a lot of shots and eventually later compare the setting on the images you like to see how you actually captured them.
One other thing, beside the lighting conditions, plays the part in the equation and that is the movement of your subjects. For relatively still adults, you can get away with 1/30 (or even less). But with fast moving kids, you'll get blur from their movement. To counter that, I just raise the ISO to get the faster shutter speed.
If you assign ISO to control ring around the lens or to the function button, you will have a quick access to the third paramount parameter of the exposure. By that you'll have all covered - it's really what exposure is all about, relation between aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Just play with it for a couple of times and you'll get comfortable with it fairly quickly. And that will give you confidence to control your camera instead of letting it choose for you.
Excellent info...Thanks... you're exactly right about the lamp. Some of the guests were sitting next to the lamp and after i took the pic, one of the guests sitting near the lamp had a whiter or kind of overexposed face while the other guest sitting next to her didn't. Also the lamp had some yellowish flare on the side of the pic next to the guest after i took the photo and noticed it. Of course i shot in intelligent auto, so i just let it control everything. I will from now on shoot in manual mode. I always seem to have more trouble shooting indoors, but i guess as a newbie, i just gotta keep working at it.
