Tag Archives: f/5.6

Sensor Size and Depth of Field

It is commonly said that crop sensor cameras make images having both a narrower field of view and a greater depth of field. Well, that's partly right. (Bill Ferris)

It is commonly said that crop sensor cameras make images having both a narrower field of view and a greater depth of field. Well, that’s partly right. (Bill Ferris)

It is well-known that a lens of a given focal length will deliver different angles of view when used with cameras having different sized sensors. For example, the above image was made with a Nikon D90 and a Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E telephoto zoom lens at 500mm. The D90 is a DX format camera having a 1.5x crop factor. In other words, the DX sensor crops the outer portion of the image formed by the lens. As a result, photographs made with this camera will display an angle of view equivalent to that produced by a lens with 1.5x the actual focal length used. In the above image, the 200-500 is at 500mm but the angle of view matches that produced by a 750mm lens.

It is often said that a crop sensor camera will also produce an image having a greater depth of field. In other words, the same lens at the same focal length will produce, not just a wider angle of view when paired with a full frame camera, but also a shallower depth of field. The claim is that the DX sensor not only crops the angle of view but forces a significant increase in depth of field. That assertion is just plain wrong.

In the below test images, you’ll see side-by-side comparisons of photos made with Nikon FX (full frame) and DX (crop sensor) camera bodies. The cameras used were the full frame Nikon D610 and the DX format Nikon D90. These cameras were used with the following lenses:

  • Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR
  • Tamrom 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
  • Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

To isolate sensor size as the only variable, the comparison images were made with the lenses at the same focal length, focal ratio and at the same distance from a fixed position subject. The Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD were mounted on a tripod in a fixed position. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD has no tripod collar or foot. The cameras were mounted to the tripod with the tripod in the same position for each set of exposures.

To create a large enough set of images to suitably address the question, each lens was used at a multiple focal lengths:

  • Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR: 200mm, 300mm, 400mm and 500mm
  • Tamrom 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD: 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm
  • Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD: 50mm and 70mm

Each lens was used wide open at its smallest f-stop number. ISO and shutter speed were kept constant for exposures made at the same focal length with both cameras.

Why did I decide to test the notion that sensor size has a significant impact on depth of field? I performed this experiment to test my belief that that lens aperture and distance to subject are the two factors having the greatest impact on depth of field. In other words, if a lens is used at the same physical aperture and distance to make photographs of a fixed position subject with two cameras of different sensor size, the depth of field recorded in the two images should be identical or, at least, very nearly so.

If I’m correct in this belief, the images should confirm it. If I’m wrong and if crop factor needs to be applied to depth of field as well as to focal length, photos made under the above conditions should exhibit obviously different depths of field with the photo made using the full frame camera consistently displaying an obviously shallower depth of field than the photo made using the crop sensor body.

Keeping all this in mind, let’s go to the photos. Below, are ten composite images. The photo occupying the left half of each composite was made using the Nikon D610. The photo to the right of the divider was made using the Nikon D90. Since the same lens at the same focal length, f-stop and distance to subject was used to make each image in a composite, the image made with the crop sensor D90 (on the right) shows a narrower angle of view. In each composite, I’ve indicated similar sections of the two photos that, when compared, reveal both photos to have identical – or nearly so – depths of field. This conclusion is reached by comparing the relative size of the subject, a hula dancer toy, and the out of focus highlights and details in the background.

Comparison #1: Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (200mm, f/5.6)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 200mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 200mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 200mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 200mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #2: Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (300mm, f/5.6)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/200-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #3: Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (400mm, f/5.6)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 400mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #4: Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (500mm, f/5.6)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/250-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #5: Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC (70mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #6: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC (100mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 100mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 100mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 100mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 100mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #7: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC (135mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 135mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 135mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 135mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 135mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #8: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC (200mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 200mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/400-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #9: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (50mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC at 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC at 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 50mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparison #10: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (70mm, f/2.8)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. The photo on the right was made with the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. (Bill Ferris)

The photo to the left of the divider was made with the Nikon D610 and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. The photo on the right was made with the Nikon D90, the same lens at the same distance from subject also at 70mm, f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/640-second. (Bill Ferris)

Comparing the above ten photo sets, it’s clear the photographs capture equivalent depths of field despite the fact that they’re made with full frame and crop sensor cameras. As expected, the crop sensor camera captures a more narrow angle of view. However, a comparison of the relative size of the hula dancer toy with the details of the out of focus background reveals that the DX format Nikon D90 captures the same depth of field as the FX format Nikon D610. This flies in the face of the common (but mistaken) belief that crop sensors significantly alter depth of field.

To understand the performance of each camera as illustrated in the above photos, one need only understand that photographic depth of field is largely determined by two factors: distance to subject and lens aperture. Each lens was kept at a constant position and distance from the subject for the photos made with the two camera bodies. By keeping focal length and f-stop constant in each photographic set, lens aperture was kept constant.

The f-stop number describes the ratio of lens focal length to aperture. In other words, a 200mm, f/5.6 lens has an aperture of about 36mm. This is true regardless of the size of the sensor in the camera to which the lens is attached. Here’s a listing of the focal lengths and apertures for each set of photos:

Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR

  • 36mm aperture (200mm, f/5.6)
  • 54mm aperture (300mm, f/5.6)
  • 71mm aperture (400mm, f/5.6)
  • 89mm aperture (500mm, f/5.6)

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC

  • 25mm aperture (  70mm, f/2.8)
  • 36mm aperture (100mm, f/2.8)
  • 48mm aperture (135mm, f/2.8)
  • 71mm aperture (200mm, f/2.8)

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC

  • 18mm aperture (50mm, f/2.8)
  • 25mm aperture (70mm, f/2.8)

As you review the above list, notice the constant f-stop results in increasing lens aperture as focal length increases. By keeping subject distance constant and increasing the physical aperture of the lens, depth of field becomes more shallow. By definition, the reverse is also true. With subject distance kept constant, decreasing lens aperture would result in a deeper or increased depth of field. And as illustrated by the above comparisons, keeping both subject distance and lens aperture constant produces constant depth of field. This holds true regardless of sensor size.

How is it, then, that so many photographers have come to accept the false assertion that crop sensor cameras make images having increased depth of field? The key to understanding this is the concept of equivalence. In simplest terms, equivalence describes two images made with different cameras and lens settings but having identical qualities. There are many factors that go into describing truly equivalent images. For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll focus on angle of the view and depth of field.

This set of images compares performance between crop sensor and full frame DSLR bodies. The images in the left column were made with a Nikon D90. Images in the right three columns were made with a Nikon D610. Both cameras used the same Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD zoom lens, which was set up on a tripod to ensure it would not change position during the test. Both cameras used ISO 200, center point average metering and were operated in Aperture Priority. The subject in these photos is a scale model of the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) from the Apollo program.

This set of images compares performance between crop sensor and full frame DSLR bodies. The images in the left column were made with a Nikon D90. Images in the right three columns were made with a Nikon D610. Both cameras used the same Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD zoom lens, which was set up on a tripod to ensure it would not change position during the test. (Bill Ferris)

Let’s consider the above image set made with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC. Due to its smaller sensor, a photograph made with the D90 captures a more narrow angle of view in comparison with an image made with the D610 at the same focal length. To capture an equivalent angle of view at the same distance from the subject, the D610 needs to use a greater focal length. At that increased focal length, the FX format camera will capture an angle of view equivalent to that recorded by the D90.

If both lenses are used at the same f-stop of f/2.8, their respective apertures will be about 46mm for the 130mm, f/2.8 lens on the D90 and 71mm for the 200mm, f/2.8 lens on the D610. Bear in mind, both cameras are at the same distance from the subject. Due to the larger physical aperture of the 200mm focal length lens, it records a shallower depth of field. To match the depth of field of the D90, the D610 is closed down from f/2.8 to f/4. This closes the aperture from 71mm to 50mm, which roughly matches the depth of field recorded by the D90 and its 46mm aperture.

Also, compare the quality of the out of focus background detail in the photos made with the DX format D90 (left most column) with the same detail in the second set of photos made with the FX format D610 (middle of three columns). Pay particular attention to the grouping of four bokeh balls to the left of the lunar lander model. In the D90 photos and in the equivalent D610 photos (right most column), that grouping is well defined with clear separation. In the middle column of D610 photos, that grouping is more diffuse, less well defined and not as clearly separated from the background.

This is what we would expect, considering that all the photos in that collection were made with the cameras and lenses at the same distance from the subject. The first and third column sets of images made with the D610 were made with the same lens aperture as the D90. The third column set of D610 images were made at an equivalent focal length to the D90 images. Both the angle of view and depth of field are equivalent. The first set (left column) of D610 images, while showing a wider angle of view, have equivalent depth of field as the D90 images. Again, this is exactly what one would expect given that the D90, and first and third set of D610 images were made at the same aperture, while the second set (middle column) of D610 photos were made at a larger aperture.

Another approach to producing equivalent depths of field, would have been to increase the lens aperture on the D90. The D90 would need a 130mm f/1.8 lens, which would have a 72mm aperture. That’s very nearly identical to the 71mm aperture of the 200mm, f/2.8 lens on the D610.

If equivalence is your objective, applying the crop factor to the f-stop allows you to calculate the aperture needed to make a photograph having an equivalent depth of field at a focal length delivering an equivalent angle of view. This adjustment can go either way. We can use a larger f-stop (multiply by the crop factor) to close down the aperture of the lens on the larger sensor camera or we can use a smaller f-stop (divide by the crop factor) to open the aperture of the lens on the smaller sensor camera. Either approach will produce equivalent apertures on the two cameras, which allows them to capture matching depths of field.

This is what has led so many photographers to mistakenly conclude that crop sensors significantly alter depth of field. What folks overlook is that the crop factor is applied to allow the lenses on the cameras to operate at the same physical aperture. Again, the key to understanding depth of field is recognizing that distance to subject and lens aperture are the critical factors. If you keep subject distance constant, keeping lens aperture constant will deliver equivalent depth of field. This holds true even if the lenses are used at focal length delivering non-equivalent angles of view.

Wildlife photographers often choose to shoot with crop sensor cameras to effectively bring the animals closer. They want the narrower angle of view delivered by the crop sensor. Shooting at 500mm f/4 with a DX camera will not only produce a larger image of the subject (in comparison with a photograph made using the same lens at the same distance on an FX camera), the DX camera will also record the same shallow depth of field and beautiful, buttery bokeh. That’s a huge advantage and a big reason why crop sensor cameras are so popular with sports and wildlife photographers. Of course, the smaller sensor also captures less total light with each exposure and this has implications for image noise. But that’s another blog entry.

In the meantime, armed with this new information and understanding of the role lens aperture plays in depth of field, let’s get out and shoot.

Bill Ferris | March 2016

Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E: VR Performance

Controls on the side of hte Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E. (Bill Ferris)

Control cluster, including the VR On/Off and Mode switches, on the side of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E. (Bill Ferris)

When Nikon released the AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR telephoto zoom lens, one of the features which gained immediate attention was vibration reduction. I know, I was immediately impressed with both the immediacy and the effectiveness of this technology.

Controls for vibration reduction (VR) are located, as shown in the above photo, on the left side of the lens. VR is activated with an on/off switch. There are two mode options, normal and sport. According to Nikon’s literature, normal mode is recommended when photographing stationary subjects and sport mode is recommended when photographing moving subjects, especially subjects moving erratically or quickly.

In either normal or sport mode, the lens compensates only for vertical shake and does not compensate for panning motion. VR can be used when shooting from a tripod or monopod, although the literature Nikon provides with the lens does caution against using VR in certain scenarios involving tripods. Interestingly, Nikon offers no real explanation of what tripod types or shooting conditions may produce better results with VR off.

In my experience shooting at 500mm (by far, my most used focal length with this lens) with vibration reduction engaged in normal mode, pushing the AE-L/AF-L button (assigned as AF-On for my Nikon D610) immediately stabilizes the image in the optical viewfinder. The same is true when the shutter release button is half-depressed. Used in sport mode, there is no loss of immediacy in the stabilization. The quality of the viewfinder image, however, is a bit more fluid. This is a reflection of the algorithms controlling VR in sport mode, which allow greater latitude in a photographer’s vertical motion.

I’ve not been able to discern a difference in image quality between normal and sport mode. Nor have I noticed any image degradation when VR is engaged a shutter speeds of 1/1000-second and faster. I’ll often leave VR on, regardless of shutter speed, just to enjoy the benefits of a more stable viewfinder image. This makes it easier to track birds, athletes and other fast, sometimes erratic moving subjects.

By far, the most discussed feature of the 200-500’s VR reduction, has been Nikon’s claim that it delivers up to 4.5 stops of stabilization. What does that mean?

There is a longstanding truism in photography that, to produce an acceptably sharp image when shooting handheld, a photographer should use a shutter speed no slower than the inverse of the focal length. For example, if shooting handheld with a 50mm normal lens, use a shutter speed no slower than 1/50-second. If shooting handheld with a 200mm telephoto, your shutter speed should be 1/200-second or faster. Doing photography with the 200-500mm f/5.6E at full extension, your shutter speed should be 1/500-second or faster.

The reasoning behind this guideline is that a fast enough shutter speed will effectively negate the inherent unsteadiness of handholding a camera. Experienced photographers who employ good technique are often able to exceed the “inverse of focal length” standard. In recent years, lens and in-body stabilization technology has evolved, considerably, making it easier for pros and novice photographers alike to make clear, detailed images at slow shutter speeds.

I should note, that vibration reduction technology compensates for the inherent shakiness of the photographer but does nothing to freeze or hold motionless the subject. If your subject is moving, that motion will be be captured when you press the shutter release. Engaging VR to steady the image with the intent of using a slower (longer) shutter speed will enhance the subject’s motion. This intentional dragging of the shutter can produce some cool images. It can also be the source of frustration, if a photographer expected the VR would freeze the action happening within the frame.

If we assume a photographer using a 500mm lens will be able to make a sharply detailed handheld photograph using an exposure of 1/500-second, a 1-stop improvement would be a halving of that shutter speed. In other words, 1-stop of VR improvement would allow a photographer to make sharp images at 1/250-second. Another halving of shutter speed (1/125-second) translates at a 2-stop VR advantage. If I’m able to make good, detailed handheld photos at 1/60-second, that would demonstrate a 3-stop VR enhancement. Shooting at 500mm, 1/30-second and getting acceptably sharp results translates to a 4-stop gain. Anything longer than 1/30-second delves into that area of approximately 4.5 stops of vibration reduction Nikon promotes for this lens.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of Nikon’s vibration reduction technology, I set up a home test using my favorite model, a hula dancer toy. The dancer was set up on a folding tray table outside on a sunny day. Using the 200-500 on my D610, I took a several series of exposures. For all exposures, the focal length was held constant at 500mm. Sensitivity varied between ISO 125 and ISO 160 for all exposures. I used aperture (f-stop) to control the image brightness on the sensor. This, in turn, required longer exposures (slower shutter speeds) to create properly exposed images as each shot sequence progressed.

I shot in two different handheld modes during this test: seated and standing. In each mode, I made exposure sets with VR turned off, turned on in sport mode and on in normal mode. Here’s the breakdown of my test:

Shooting Handheld and Seated

  • I shot first with VR on in sport mode, then with VR off and then with VR on in normal mode.
  • For each of these three sequences, I started with the lens at 500mm, f/5.6 making three exposures at 1/1000-second.
  • I then made changes to the f-stop to close the aperture in 1-stop increments, making three exposures at each setting: f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32.
  • Shutter speeds were adjusted to compensate for the smaller apertures. At f/8, I shot at 1/500-second; 1/250-second at f/11; 1/125-second at f/16; 1/60-second at f/22 and 1/30-second at f/32.

Shooting Handheld and Standing

  • I shot first with VR off, then with VR on in sport mode, then with VR on in normal mode.
  • For each of these three sequences, I started with the lens at 500mm, f/5.6 making three exposures at 1/1000-second.
  • I then made changes to the f-stop to close the aperture in 1-stop increments, making three exposures at each setting: f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32.
  • Shutter speeds were adjusted to compensate for the smaller apertures. At f/8, I shot at 1/500-second; 1/250-second at f/11; 1/125-second at f/16; 1/60-second at f/22 and 1/30-second at f/32.

Here, are the resulting images. I selected the best exposure from each three-exposure set for display and am presenting full frame views followed by 100% crops. I’ll begin each sequence with the 1/250-second exposure as that is where the potential benefits of vibration reduction kick in. On a philosophical note, I will refrain from coloring your evaluation with my personal conclusions. Judge for yourself how good the VR performance of the AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens is.

 

 

Handheld Seated with VR Off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR off

 

 

Handheld Seated with VR On in Sport Mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 125, 1/250-second with VR off

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

 

 

Handheld Seated with VR On in Normal Mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 125, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 125, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Seated: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 125, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

 

 

Handheld Standing with VR Off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR off

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR off

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR off

 

 

Handheld Standing with VR On in Sport Mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 160, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 160, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 160, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 160, 1/125-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 160, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 160, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 160, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 160, 1/60-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Sport mode

 

 

Handheld Standing with VR On in Normal Mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/11, ISO 140, 1/250-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 140, 1/125-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/22, ISO 140, 1/60-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

Handheld Standing: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

100% Crop: Nikon D610 with Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/32, ISO 140, 1/30-second with VR on in Normal mode

 

 

Conclusion

Well, there you have it. What are your thoughts? As I said, I’m not going to color your perceptions by offering detailed comments. I think images and VR performance speak for themselves. What I will offer is this, I was pleasantly surprised at the image quality that can be achieved when shooting handheld without VR from a seated position. I rested my elbows on my thighs to enhance the stability of my handhold and I think it paid off. The slower exposures are good enough for certain uses, such as low resolution display on a website.

Let me know what you think. Share your comments, below. Then, get out and shoot.

Bill Ferris | January 2016

The Big Fix

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 100, 1/250-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 100, 1/250-second

I can clearly recall the exact moment when I realized there was a problem with my Nikon 200-500mm, f/5.6E telephoto zoom lens. It was on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 11, 2015. I had the day off from work and was setting up in the backyard to make some test photos demonstrating the effectiveness of the new lens’s vibration reduction (VR) feature. It was the above photo that caught my eye and started me down a challenging, sometimes frustrating road that would take nearly six weeks to complete. I’m some respects, I’m still on that road.

The above image caught my attention because it is so obviously overexposed. It was also totally unexpected. I had been using a hula dancer toy as a photographic subject to test the vibration VR of the 200-500mm lens. Reviewing the rest of the images in the sequence, the image shot at f/5.6 appeared to be properly exposed but the images made at f/8 and higher were overexposed. It also appeared that the degree of overexposure increased in proportion to the increase in f-stop setting used. The above image was made with a setting of f/16 and is about 2 stops overexposed.

In a nutshell, what I had discovered was that my Nikon D610 camera body was not able to control the electromagnetic diaphragm of the 200-500mm lens. The diaphragm determines the aperture of the lens, which controls the amount of light hitting the sensor. Lens aperture (f-stop) along with ISO and shutter speed form what is commonly referred to as the exposure triangle. A compatible trio of settings produces a properly-exposed image. If one of the settings is off, the resulting image will look either over- or underexposed.

That same day, I called Nikon USA’s service and support line and spoke with a call center agent. I described the problem and, ultimately, was advised to send in the lens for evaluation. Just a month earlier in October 2015, I had shipped the lens to Nikon for a firmware upgrade. The shipping and upgrade were covered under warranty for that service center visit. The UPS charge for this shipment would come out of my pocket.

The lens went out via UPS on Wednesday, November 11 and arrived at Nikon’s Los Angeles service center on Friday, November 13. (I chose not to take that as an omen.) The following Monday, November 16, I received an email from Nikon with an estimate for service to the lens. Nikon intended to address the problem with a firmware upgrade, which would be covered under warranty. After reading this, I contacted Nikon via their online service and support site, asking if this was the same firmware upgrade which had already been performed, a month earlier. The email reply to my query read, “Thank you for contacting Nikon. This is covered under warranty and this is the appropriate firmware update. If you have questions or concerns, please call or e-mail us.”

Well, OK then.

The upgrade was done and the lens shipped back at Nikon’s expense, arriving via UPS on November 23. It didn’t take more than a couple of minutes to confirm that the firmware upgrade had done nothing to correct the problem. To more fully document this issue, I made a series of exposures of my favorite test subject to demonstrate the increasing degree of overexposure at larger f-stop settings. Below, are several of the images I uploaded to the Nikon USA service center site for a technician to review.

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/640-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/640-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/8, ISO 100, 1/400-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/8, ISO 100, 1/400-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/200-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/200-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/16, ISO 100, 1/100-second

Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 300mm, f/16, ISO 100, 1/100-second

Tuesday, November 24, I had another phone conversation with a call center agent. I again described the problem and explained that it appeared my Nikon D610 camera was unable to control the lens’s electromagnetic diaphragm. I also shared that I’d made test exposures with four other F-mount lenses: the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC, Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC and Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. There was no overexposure problem with these lenses and it appeared the problem was isolated just to the 200-500mm f/5.6E lens.

The day before Thanksgiving, November 25, I received an email from a Nikon technician who’d reviewed the above images. In his message, the technician asked that I ship both the D610 camera and the 200-500mm lens for evaluation and possible service. A UPS shipping label was attached. As reluctant as I was to be without my primary camera and the new lens, I wanted to get the problem resolved as quickly as possible. So, I boxed up the D610 and lens, drove to the nearest UPS shipping center and sent my babies off to LA for some TLC.

December was a long month. I had the privilege of serving on a jury for a criminal trial the first week of the month. Several major work projects were due for completion over the next two weeks and I would be traveling with family for the holidays, beginning December 22. Needless to say, I was anxious to have the camera and lens back, both in good working order, in time for the family trip to California. The month was further disrupted when I received news that a close high school friend had passed away. Travel to the Midwest for the funeral took out of town for several days.

I arrived home the afternoon of Sunday, December 20 to find two packages from Nikon sitting on the dining room table. One, was my D610 camera. The other, was my 200-500mm lens. After unpacking my suitcase and getting settled, I fetched a cutting tool from our kitchen utility drawer and opened the packages. A few minutes later, the 200-500 was firmly affixed to the D610 and ready to make images.

To my great relief, the camera and lens made properly-exposed images at a range of apertures. It appeared that Nikon had successfully repaired the problem. What repairs did they make? It’s not entirely clear but, according to the packing slip accompanying the lens, Nikon did the following work:

  • Repaired aperture operation
  • Replaced diaphragm and ring
  • Replaced a lens group
  • Adjusted aperture operation
  • Checked focus and VR operation.
  • Did a general exam and cleaning of the lens

My D610 camera body was also evaluated and found to be in good working order. It was checked and cleaned before return shipment.

Since receiving the repaired lens back from Nikon and during trips to California and New Mexico, I’ve made nearly 3,500 exposures at a range of apertures from f/5.6 to f/16. All appear to be correctly exposed. Below, are a few samples.

White-tailed Kite. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/8, ISO 500, 1/2000-second

White-tailed Kite. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/8, ISO 500, 1/2000-second

Alcatraz. Panoramic stitch made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/10, ISO 800, 1/2000-second

Alcatraz. Panoramic stitch made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 200mm, f/10, ISO 800, 1/2000-second

Javelina on parade. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/13, ISO 4500, 1/200-second

Javelina on parade. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/13, ISO 4500, 1/200-second

Eagles on ice. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 640, 1/250-second

Eagles on ice. Photo made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E at 500mm, f/16, ISO 640, 1/250-second

I am, of course, thrilled to have my lens back in good working order. Though some additional time is needed before I’ll have full confidence that the repair to the lens completely resolves the diaphragm-control problem, I have been extremely satisfied with the lens’s performance over the last several weeks. I also understand that equipment sometimes fails. That’s what warranties are for. I don’t fault Nikon for the mechanical failure to their product and am genuinely grateful that they addressed the problem in a forthright and timely manner.

I would like to take this opportunity to share some advice I’ve offered Nikon through email communication. In a nutshell, I’ve recommended Nikon update their service and support system to provide…

  • customers email updates about the status of their repair and estimated time of completion.
  • customers access to a Nikon technician who can explain in plain language the problem being addressed.
  • call center staff access to a customer database with detailed information about past and ongoing product service and repairs.

While I am satisfied with the outcome of this service and repair experience, there were times during those six weeks when the lack of information and the inability to communicate with a technically-proficient Nikon employee added to my level of frustration. The experience could have been made less stressful if I’d been provided regular updates on the status of my repair, had the opportunity to communicate by phone or instant messaging with a technician about the symptoms I was experiencing, and if I had not needed to explain the problem to four different call center staff members, none of whom appeared to have access to a detailed history of this particular repair.

I love using and doing photography with Nikon products and welcome the opportunity to remain a Nikon customer for many years to come. That said, their customer support could use some work. Whether you’re a Nikon employee, a fellow photographer or a friend, please take this blog entry in the spirit in which it is offered: an objective recounting of a recent customer service experience and an effort to provide constructive feedback to a company whose products I truly enjoy using.

Well, I’ve been rambling on about this far too long. It’s time for me to get out and shoot!

January 2016 | Bill Ferris

It Moves

Tripod-mounted exposure of the full Moon at mid-eclipse on September 27, 2015. Image made with Nikon D610, Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200, 1-second

Tripod-mounted exposure of a full Moon at mid-eclipse on September 27, 2015. Image made with Nikon D610, Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 3200, 1-second (Bill Ferris)

On the night of September 27-28, 2015, the Moon passed through the densest, darkest portion of Earth’s shadow, an event known as a lunar eclipse. Normally, I wouldn’t publish or share a photo like this. It’s just a tad soft, not rich in fine detail. I tried to make a sharp, detailed photo at mid-eclipse but the forces of nature intervened.

How is it that we’re able to see the Moon? Well most of the time, the Moon is exposed to the Sun. Despite being a relatively dark object, enough sunlight reflects off the lunar surface to make Earth’s largest natural satellite the brightest object in the night sky…when it’s up and when the side of the Moon that faces Earth also happens to be facing the Sun.

When photographing the Moon, you can use a normal daylight white balance setting (reflected sunlight) a reasonably large aperture (f/5.6), a not-too-high ISO (400) and make a proper exposure at about 1/500-second. That’s when the Moon is near its fully-illuminated best.

During a lunar eclipse, the Moon is not directly exposed to the Sun. It’s hiding in the Earth’s shadow…but not totally dark. You see, Earth’s atmosphere acts like a lens. It scatters and refracts sunlight. Short wavelengths (blue light) are scattered in all directions by the atmosphere. Longer wavelengths (red light) are refracted so that this light passes through the atmosphere, travels through space and falls on the Moon.

This is why the Moon looks red during an eclipse. Only the red light which passes through Earth’s atmosphere falls on and illuminates la Luna. If you saw the September 2015 eclipse, you probably noticed how dark the Moon looked. Earth was blocking most of the sunlight that normally paints the lunar surface. The rest was mostly scattered. What little passed through Earth’s atmosphere to fall on Luna’s surface was the long wavelength red stuff. As a result, the Moon looked dark or blood red.

So, what does this have to do with slightly unsharp photos of the Moon taken during mid-eclipse? Well, with less light to work with, your camera needs to do one of three things to make a proper exposure:

  • Use a larger aperture to collect more light
  • Use a higher ISO to be more sensitive to faint light
  • Use a longer exposure to collect more light

Two of those three options have nasty consequences for your photos.

Handheld exposure of a waxing gibbous Moon on September 24, 2015. Image made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/800-second.

Handheld exposure of a waxing gibbous Moon on September 24, 2015. Image made with Nikon D610 and Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400, 1/800-second. (Bill Ferris)

A few days before the eclipse, I shared the above Moon photo taken at 500mm, f/5.6, ISO 400 and 1/800-second. The Moon is a moving object. It orbits Earth, moving west-to-east about 13 degrees (1/2-degree per hour) through the sky, each day. Much of its motion through the sky is the result of the fact that Earth rotates about an axis. Due to that rotation, the Moon moves east-to-west covering about 15-degrees per hour.

If you take a picture of the Moon using an exposure of 1/500-second, your photo will record the Moon and its motion over a distance of about 0.03 arcsecond. The full Moon is about 30 arcminutes in size. There are 60 seconds of arc in each arcminute so, that gives the Moon an angular diameter of 1,800 arcseconds. Divided by 0.03, that 1/500-second exposure records motion spanning 1/60,000th the diameter of the Moon. Yes, that is incredibly tiny and is imperceptible to the eye.

If you take a picture of the Moon during mid-eclipse using a the same focal length and aperture, and an ISO of 3200, you’ll need about a 1-second exposure to make a proper image. That’s 500-times longer than an exposure when the Moon is illuminated directly by the Sun. Your exposure will record the Moon and its motion across a distance of 15 arcseconds.

Now, 15 arcseconds is also a small distance. But it is large enough that the exposure you make will look slightly soft. If your goal is to achieve critical focus on the Moon shooting at 500mm, you’ll need to open the aperture or increase the ISO to use an exposure of 1/2-second or faster. Modern digital cameras are certainly capable of working at ISO 6400 and higher. But unless you’re using a really long lens, you’ll end up cropping the resulting image significantly just to make the Moon fill the frame. This not only makes the Moon look bigger but also emphasizes the digital noise in the photo. The resulting image will look grainy and, as a result, even more soft.

The one sure way to make a sharp photo of the Moon during an eclipse such as the one we enjoyed in September 2015, is to attach your camera to an astronomical mount. The mount will need a motor drive that rotates one axis to effectively move the camera opposite Earth’s rotation during the exposure. This rotation cancels the east-west motion of the Moon through the sky so, in essence, you’re photographing a static object. Among the many benefits will be that you can use longer exposures (2-3 seconds) at lower ISO’s (under 1000) to make properly exposed images that are sharp and detailed.

That’s not what I used during the September 2015 lunar eclipse. I set up my camera on a tripod, zoomed in to 500mm, opened the aperture as wide as it can be, jacked up the ISO to 3200 and started making exposures. Unfortunately, without the right equipment, all my photos from mid-eclipse – when the Moon looked its most devilish and eerie –  look just a tad soft. The photos are soft because, as Galileo Galilei would have observed, “It moves.”

Now, get out and shoot.

Bill Ferris | September 2015