This has zero to do with sensor size. This is a compositional choice by the photographer.
reidme wrote: I don't think I like a crop sensor. I would like to take pictures where the subject fills the frame and a background showing. I am new to photography. Thanks
The 500 rule is more about movement than exposure. Exposure can be many different things but the calculation is about getting pin sharp stars. I assume they say it doesn't work because of more detail in higher megapixel images and you could see the movement more readily. I don't think it has anything to do with sensitivity.
Did you not read the link I supplied?
E Rodriguez wrote: Thank you everyone. So when determining the length of time that goes by, are you doing the old trial and error routine and take a few shots to see how it all works and adjust?
Photoshop can crop non-destructively also. Just make sure you uncheck the "delete cropped pixels" box in the ribbon. You can then revert to the original if you want to at a later date.
That is correct.
fmw wrote: Depth of field is related to the lens, not the camera. A 35mm lens will produce the same depth of field for the same aperture and focal point regardless of the size of the sensor. The size of the sensor only determines how much of the field of view of the lens is captured. The APS-C sensor will just capture less of the field of view of the lens.
The Olympus i-auto function chooses more than just exposure. It takes into account a number of settings to give you a nice image. It adjusts, exposure, contrast, sharpening, white balance, color profile and more. I think the exposure difference is more a difference of the shadow/highlight adjustment the camera made when in i-auto. If you shoot raw, these are the settings you would need to apply to the image when processing a non i-auto image. The main thing is to adjust things to get the feel for what it does and that way you learn what you need to do. Good luck.
Slight dodging and burning to enhance the effect, but it looked that way when you were there.
You're killing me with these A9 shots. My bank account curses you. Nicely done.
First thing to do is run a nozzle check to make sure one of the heads isn't clogged. Next thing is make sure you aren't double profiling.
In a way it does render an image. What it means is each lens will produce (a/k/a render) a different look as far as contrast, color tone, sharpness and quality of bokeh it produces or as some say renders. The image you see through a lens does not exactly replicate the real world thus it renders the image. This is what they mean when they discuss or refer to a lens rendering the image.
Liem Stailey wrote: I saw this mentioned in someones comment, but not a clear indication on what this means. Google didn't help either. Just a couple other post on other forums with no clear answer.
How can a lens render anything? The term from first glance doesn't make sense.
Polices are about the same. You don't need to read 50 pages. A quick browse on each site is all it takes. Why not rent one first.
They could but could you afford the Sherpa to help carry it?
Nefarious wrote: Nikon should come out with a 28-300mm f/2.8 and be done with it.