ND filter question

[Turn11]

It is something you can calculate.

How, new drone photographer and DSLR hack.

 

[kilomikebravo]

here is an example

NoosaGuy: All I can say about that image is WOW!!!!

KB

 

[CanadaDrone]

How, new drone photographer and DSLR hack.

This makes it nice and easy - select Sony RX100 from the drop down:

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

It's a good read too if you're into the technical stuff.

 

[Mossiback]

Okay here's a test (ghastly subject I know) in our driveway. It was shot at 1/4 second @ F4.5, 100 ISO. I had an NDPL64 Freewell filter on and it took 15 images to get this one sharp image...

For a still image where you do not want any motion blur, do not use a ND filter. You want a high shutter speed and low ISO for a sharp, low-noise picture. The exception would be to use a polarizing filter for richer color tones. A NDPL4 would get the polarizing effect without appreciably slowing the shutter speed on a bright day.

 

[joonrhee]

Okay here's a test (ghastly subject I know) in our driveway. It was shot at 1/4 second @ F4.5, 100 ISO. I had an NDPL64 Freewell filter on and it took 15 images to get this one sharp image.
Altitude was about 10-12 foot and it was pretty windy at the time. Might sound stupid but in your experience how much effect does wind have on stability?
I recalibrated the IMU, Gimbal and Compass prior to testing.

View attachment 50731

Why would you want a sharp image when using an ND filter? My specific plan for using ND filter would be to blur out moving subjects (waterfall, clouds, ocean, etc..). In your scenario, you mentioned it was windy. Then at 1/4 seconds, of course you'll not have sharp image because wind is moving the leaves.. Take a same photo without the ND filter at higher shutter speed, you'll get a very sharp image. BTW, this bird is not bad at stability under pretty strong winds. Below photos were taken under quite strong winds but plenty sharp under given conditions.

 

[noosaguy]

For a still image where you do not want any motion blur, do not use a ND filter. You want a high shutter speed and low ISO for a sharp, low-noise picture. The exception would be to use a polarizing filter for richer color tones. A NDPL4 would get the polarizing effect without appreciably slowing the shutter speed on a bright day.

I get that and thanks for your reply. If you take a look at the image in the post above, that is ultimately the type of shot I'm going to try for. Images with motion in the water but pin sharp detail everywhere else. I will need to use 1/4 to perhaps 2 secs to get that but the image in my driveway was simply a test to see how many I needed to take to get one sharp image. (as it turned out around 15 but it was quite windy) I had the ND on simply to get to that slow shutter speed for the test.

 

[noosaguy]

Why would you want a sharp image when using an ND filter? My specific plan for using ND filter would be to blur out moving subjects (waterfall, clouds, ocean, etc..). In your scenario, you mentioned it was windy. Then at 1/4 seconds, of course you'll not have sharp image because wind is moving the leaves.. Take a same photo without the ND filter at higher shutter speed, you'll get a very sharp image. BTW, this bird is not bad at stability under pretty strong winds. Below photos were taken under quite strong winds but plenty sharp under given conditions

Firstly let me say your two examples are brilliant. I love them.
As far as your comment, I understand and perhaps I didn't really make myself clear enough? I WANT motion in my images but NOT at the expense of the whole image being blurred. Everything needs to be sharp except the parts of the image with motion. As I mentioned to the poster above, to achieve the desired motion I will need to use 1/4 to perhaps 2 secs exposures, The image in my driveway was simply a test to see how many shots I needed to take to get one sharp image. (as it turned out around 15 but it was quite windy) I had the ND on simply because it was the middle of the day and to get that slow shutter speed for the test I needed the ND64.

 

[Garritynet]

I figured you would pretty much be focusing at infinity since there's no foreground when you're in the air.

Also kinda bummed about the shutter speed limits. Granted it takes me about 15 tries to take a good photo at 1/4 by hand, and I can't fly so the drone definitely has me beat, I had hoped the Pro would be useful for multi second shots in low wind.

 

[SteveCA]

I’ve gotten fairly sharp photos at 2 seconds exposure in 10-15mph winds. were they tack sharp? no but sharp enough unless I’m pixel peeping.

 

[noosaguy]

I figured you would pretty much be focusing at infinity since there's no foreground when you're in the air.

Also kinda bummed about the shutter speed limits. Granted it takes me about 15 tries to take a good photo at 1/4 by hand, and I can't fly so the drone definitely has me beat, I had hoped the Pro would be useful for multi second shots in low wind.

Without going into my medical history, at the moment I have a mobility problem. It's a temporary thing although it might take a while.
Having said that, some of the places I would like to shoot, around our beautiful coastline, are for me at present, inaccessible. When i saw the M2P with the Sony 1" sensor, the ability to select aperture and the renowned 3 way gimbal, I thought it was an answer to my dreams. I didn't expect miracles of course but I thought I'd be able to get down and dirty near the sea and get some nice long exposures. I'm extremely happy with the Hasselblad camera results and the options to be able to bracket exposures etc, but the stability of the M2P has disappointed me somewhat. I'd never had a drone before but after watching Youtube videos and noting what I believed to be extreme stability, I was sure the new Mavics would manage nicely. I'm sure though that I'll manage some very nice images anyway.

 

[ChicagoOutfit]

Here's a new video explaining the shooting of long exposure photos with a M2P:

YouTube: How to Shoot Long Exposure photos with the DJI Mavic 2 Pro and PolarPro filters

Thanks

 

[noosaguy]

Here's a new video explaining the shooting of long exposure photos with a M2P:

YouTube: How to Shoot Long Exposure photos with the DJI Mavic 2 Pro and PolarPro filters

Thanks

Thanks for that.

 

[Garritynet]

[

Without going into my medical history, at the moment I have a mobility problem. It's a temporary thing although it might take a while.
Having said that, some of the places I would like to shoot, around our beautiful coastline, are for me at present, inaccessible. When i saw the M2P with the Sony 1" sensor, the ability to select aperture and the renowned 3 way gimbal, I thought it was an answer to my dreams. I didn't expect miracles of course but I thought I'd be able to get down and dirty near the sea and get some nice long exposures. I'm extremely happy with the Hasselblad camera results and the options to be able to bracket exposures etc, but the stability of the M2P has disappointed me somewhat. I'd never had a drone before but after watching Youtube videos and noting what I believed to be extreme stability, I was sure the new Mavics would manage nicely. I'm sure though that I'll manage some very nice images anyway.

Yeah the 1" sensor and the gimbal is what convinced me to drop the cash on this. I've since learned what a 1" sensor is and that is a disappointment that will probably always taint my perception of DJI but I'm not too worried about the low dynamic range. I shoot like 95% film and none of it has the kind of range that people expect from digital and most of it is 35mm too so if I am satisfied with the quality I can produce with that I'm sure I can work with the Mav 2 as well.

 

[SteveCA]

[

Yeah the 1" sensor and the gimbal is what convinced me to drop the cash on this. I've since learned what a 1" sensor is and that is a disappointment that will probably always taint my perception of DJI but I'm not too worried about the low dynamic range. I shoot like 95% film and none of it has the kind of range that people expect from digital and most of it is 35mm too so if I am satisfied with the quality I can produce with that I'm sure I can work with the Mav 2 as well.

If you are a 35mm film photographer, the 20mp “1 inch” (which is nowhere near one inch in any actual dimension), will blow away anything you’ve ever done with 35mm film.

The resolution is much higher, dynamic range despite being nowhere near the claimed 14 stops, is better, with far better low light, high ISO performance.

I was an avid film photographer but film is 100% obsolete now. There are things that I am able to capture today that no film regardless of camera capabilities could capture.

 

[SteveCA]

I figured you would pretty much be focusing at infinity since there's no foreground when you're in the air.

Also kinda bummed about the shutter speed limits. Granted it takes me about 15 tries to take a good photo at 1/4 by hand, and I can't fly so the drone definitely has me beat, I had hoped the Pro would be useful for multi second shots in low wind.

it is useful for multisecond shots in low winds. Folks have posted awesome 8 second night shots in claimed 10mph winds. I’ve personally gotten fairly sharp 2 second shots in 10mph winds. check out the 8 second night shot of Lombard Street posted on this forum.

 

[SteveCA]

here is a photo shot with an ND 1000. one second at F5.0, ISO 100. Winds were 8-10mph gusts to 15mph.

 

[noosaguy]

If you are a 35mm film photographer, the 20mp “1 inch” (which is nowhere near one inch in any actual dimension), will blow away anything you’ve ever done with 35mm film.

The resolution is much higher, dynamic range despite being nowhere near the claimed 14 stops, is better, with far better low light, high ISO performance.

I was an avid film photographer but film is 100% obsolete now. There are things that I am able to capture today that no film regardless of camera capabilities could capture.

Not to mention the fantastic editing and enhancements to be had with digital

 

[Garritynet]

If you are a 35mm film photographer, the 20mp “1 inch” (which is nowhere near one inch in any actual dimension), will blow away anything you’ve ever done with 35mm film.

The resolution is much higher, dynamic range despite being nowhere near the claimed 14 stops, is better, with far better low light, high ISO performance.

I was an avid film photographer but film is 100% obsolete now. There are things that I am able to capture today that no film regardless of camera capabilities could capture.

I agree and this is the point that I was trying to make. It may not live up to my initial expectations but I am sure I will be able to get good use out of it.

I use film because I am an enthusiastic amateur but if I was in any way shooting for money I would absolutely shoot digitial. Film just works for me for too many reasons to get into right now but I totally understand that its clunky and restricted compared to digital. My first camera was a Pentax K100D that cost me an arm and a leg on my bookstore clerk salary back in 2006 and even at six megapixels it was a pretty fantastic camera. I never felt inadequately equipped then or with anything I've used since. I very recently had a friendly argument with my boss about when a camera upgrade, he asked my opinion on replacing his old camera, and I showed him a bunch of fantastic and terrible photos on Flickr from the same camera then asked what camera he thought it was. He guessed Canon Mark IV and it was actually a Nikon D40. He then told me to shut up and get back to work but my point is that people have been taking outstanding photos with worse cameras than what's on the Mavic 2 for like a hundred years and if I can't make good photos with it then that's on me, not the gear.

 

[kilomikebravo]

..and if I can't make good photos with it then that's on me, not the gear.

Very well stated, Garity.

 

[SteveCA]

I just shot this long exposure a few hours ago. 4 seconds and this amazing drone stayed perfectly still. Amazing technology imho. This is the version saved to my iphone straight from the drone.