That rule is for hand holding and the Phantom can hold he camera better than you can.is there formula to (almost) guarantee sharp image?
(other than always shooting at fastest shutter speed possible)
in hand-held photography there's old rule that (1 /focal length) = minimum shutter speed,
There's no relationship between slower shutter speeds and better image quality.For photos, generally speaking the slower the shutter the better for better quality.
I disagree. You'll have more grainy results with higher shutter speeds, especially low light.There's no relationship between slower shutter speeds and better image quality.
You can have superb image quality with fast or slow shutter speed.
Use a shutter speed that's appropriate for your lighting conditions and subject matter.
High shutter speeds don't give you grainy images either.I disagree. You'll have more grainy results with higher shutter speeds, especially low light.
Yes, for instance, if I use ISO800, that will give you a faster shutter speed (on auto), versus using ISO100 which will result in a slower shutter speed, for the same shot. The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue), not to mention you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO. Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it. Yes, you use your ISO setting, the lower the better IMO, and the lower the ISO, the longer the shutter will be open (for the same shot). Of course you need to consider the motion of the situation can accommodate your shutter speed goals, but with no wind the Phantom does amazing things holding the camera still.High shutter speeds don't give you grainy images either.
Perhaps you mean higher ISO values?
You can get perfectly good images at 1/1000th of a second if the light is appropriate.
Making an effort to use slower shutter speeds isn't going to improve image quality.
When you consider the apparent depth of acceptable sharpness you inherently get with an 8.8mm lens on the P4P 1” sensor you have the opportunity to favour lower Aperture settings in favour of reduce diffraction loss. Think about the earlier phantoms with fixed focus and aperture lenses and it’s apparent that DOF is a minor concern unless flying very close to your subject. Agreed lower ISO’s produce cleaner more detailed images when motion induced blur isn’t a problem. Higher shutter speeds (assuming correct EV) do not impact image quality,Yes, for instance, if I use ISO800, that will give you a faster shutter speed (on auto), versus using ISO100 which will result in a slower shutter speed, for the same shot. The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue), not to mention you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO. Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it. Yes, you use your ISO setting, the lower the better IMO, and the lower the ISO, the longer the shutter will be open (for the same shot). Of course you need to consider the motion of the situation can accommodate your shutter speed goals, but with no wind the Phantom does amazing things holding the camera still.
Any effect on image quality is 100% due to the lower ISO sensitivity.The quality will be better with the slower shutter speed (if camera shake isn't an issue).
At any aperture you set, the lens already has more depth of field than you can use.you would have a better depth of field with the longer shutter speed and lower ISO.
In low-light situations, there is no point making any effort to use a smaller aperture and/or a longer shutter speed as neither will make the image any better unless you particularly want to catch motion blur.Reducing the aperture and extending the shutter speed is my goal, if the motion allows it.
Correct. Have you noticed when you lower the ISO, the shutter length requirement is longer? That's what I'm talking about. And as mentioned, I specifically mentioned "especially in low light", which is to minimize grainy results. I think we're both saying the same thing, to different extremes. I tend to shoot a lot of low light photos, when exposure as well as motion is critical.Any effect on image quality is 100% due to the lower ISO sensitivity.
The shutter speed does not afffect image quality.
I don't understand your point. It is more than a mental shortcut for imaging system designers who go to great lengths to set the analog outputs of imaging sensors (prior to A/D conversions) to arrive at "exposure index" settings that align with analog film ISO numbers. If I take one of my film cameras and a digital SLR both will depict the same EV for a given light source. We also find that lower ISO settings produce higher image quality with less grain/noise and better saturation for both film stock and digital sensors.Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.
Sort of. In large part, you've described the concept for which it is useful to think of as ISO. Unlike film, digital sensors don't have adjustable sensitivity. But the processing engine can apply gain to the received signal. The downside is noise, which appears similar to grain in some cases.I don't understand your point. It is more than a mental shortcut for imaging system designers who go to great lengths to set the analog outputs of imaging sensors (prior to A/D conversions) to arrive at "exposure index" settings that align with analog film ISO numbers. If I take one of my film cameras and a digital SLR both will depict the same EV for a given light source. We also find that lower ISO settings produce higher image quality with less grain/noise and better saturation for both film stock and digital sensors.
Actually it’s digital sensors that have adjustable sensitivity, unlike film. Modern digital systems outperform film stock by a large margin at higher sensitivities. We also don’t have to worry about reciprocity failure and weird colour shifts.Also, the concept of ISO isn't really applicable to digital cameras, except as a convenient mental shortcut.
Sort of. In large part, you've described the concept for which it is useful to think of as ISO. Unlike film, digital sensors don't have adjustable sensitivity. But the processing engine can apply gain to the received signal. The downside is noise, which appears similar to grain in some cases.
How much noise is in part a product of the level of gain applied (ISO setting), but also depends on other factors, including sensor cell site size.
Unless you are referring to gain as adjusting the sensitivity, that's not how I understand it. But I am on the fringe of my competency on the subject, so I will defer.Actually it’s digital sensors that have adjustable sensitivity, unlike film. Modern digital systems outperform film stock by a large margin at higher sensitivities. We also don’t have to worry about reciprocity failure and weird colour shifts.
Tripod mode is badly named.I will say that when image quality is paramount, tripod mode seems to help.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.