Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 345866" data-attributes="member: 12496">It is very puzzling to me why either Auto ISO or shutter preferred would have allowed bright sun to go to f/32 at 2800 ISO.&nbsp; That just does not seem possible without some additional help on one of those other settings.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would have expected more like ISO 100 at f/6.3 -&nbsp; if Minimum ISO allowed it that low.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think something we believe to be true, may not be true.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Wish I could see the entire the original Raw Exif, thinking it might show something more?&nbsp; I suspect the ISO might be the worst problem.&nbsp; If any Lightroom processing was done to hide the ISO noise, that would make the image less sharp.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Or maybe camera shake.&nbsp; 1/250 second is not quite 1/focal length, but that is just a rough rule of thumb anyway, not always meaningful.&nbsp; And it is a VR lens, so not necessarily so bad, but it is not fail safe either.I don't think f/32 is all that bad here either, since it is 300 mm.&nbsp;&nbsp; Airy disk diffraction depends on the actual diameter of the aperture (a second reason telescopes are so large - more resolution)... so all of these next combinations are the same physical diameter:&nbsp;f/32 at 300 mm focal lengthf/16 at 150 mm f/8 at 75mmf/4 at 37mm.We don't get excited about most of those.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; But this is why long lenses stop down to f/32, and short lenses do not. The f/number is not the issue, the physical diameter is.But... on every picture we take, the camera viewfinder shows us the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed that it will use.&nbsp;&nbsp; Photographers need to LOOK AT IT, and double check it... are these the values I actually want to use for this shot?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 345866, member: 12496"] It is very puzzling to me why either Auto ISO or shutter preferred would have allowed bright sun to go to f/32 at 2800 ISO. That just does not seem possible without some additional help on one of those other settings. I would have expected more like ISO 100 at f/6.3 - if Minimum ISO allowed it that low. I think something we believe to be true, may not be true. :) Wish I could see the entire the original Raw Exif, thinking it might show something more? I suspect the ISO might be the worst problem. If any Lightroom processing was done to hide the ISO noise, that would make the image less sharp. Or maybe camera shake. 1/250 second is not quite 1/focal length, but that is just a rough rule of thumb anyway, not always meaningful. And it is a VR lens, so not necessarily so bad, but it is not fail safe either. I don't think f/32 is all that bad here either, since it is 300 mm. Airy disk diffraction depends on the actual diameter of the aperture (a second reason telescopes are so large - more resolution)... so all of these next combinations are the same physical diameter: f/32 at 300 mm focal length f/16 at 150 mm f/8 at 75mm f/4 at 37mm. We don't get excited about most of those. :) But this is why long lenses stop down to f/32, and short lenses do not. The f/number is not the issue, the physical diameter is. But... on every picture we take, the camera viewfinder shows us the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed that it will use. Photographers need to LOOK AT IT, and double check it... are these the values I actually want to use for this shot? [/QUOTE]

Verification