What are the chances the D5200 will have 1/8000th shutter?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR » [D5100]

What are the chances the D5200 will have 1/8000th shutter?

(23 posts) (15 voices)

Started 1 year ago by zenzone
Latest reply from framer
Related Topics:
1. D7000 vs D5200 vs D5100 runout

Tags:

zenzone

member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 11
offline

I still don't have a digital camera and I have been borrowing my wife's point-and-shoot until I get a Nikon. Breeding zinnias is a hobby of mine. I take quite a few pictures of flowers (mostly zinnias) and I just finished a session using my wife's Kodak Z712 IS that was a disaster. All of the pictures were blurred, mainly from motion blur. A few because the Kodak chose to focus on the background.

This was a kind of epiphany for me -- floral picture making can be like sports photography. Your subjects are in motion. The flowers are bobbing and weaving in a way that a boxer might be proud of. Some floral photographers use wind guards to bring the flowers to a more quiet state. That is impractical for me.

I was ready to purchase the new D3200, but it has "only" a 1/4000th max shutter. I am hoping the D5200 will have a faster shutter, like 1/8000th. Otherwise I will need to move up to the D7000 or its successor. Or "make do" with 1/4000th and get a D3200 now. In the meantime, I will have to wait for the wind to die down while the lighting conditions are good. That can take some patience in Kansas.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

I think the best advice to you is to hire a camera and micro lens to see what you need. Personally I think that you don't need 1/8000sec for flowers. If it is that windy, maybe the next day would be better for photography of flowers?

If you have a friend with a DSLR then that makes it cheaper of course but hiring the camera you want to buy may be the way to go.

Posted 1 year ago #
starralazn

preferred member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 112
offline

i too find it unlikely. people are able to freeze bees at 1/1250th of a second... i'm pretty sure their wings move faster than most flowers do in the wind

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

There is almost no way to shoot a flower at 1/8000 or would you want to. Shutter speed is only 1 of the 3 legs of the stool for getting a shot - the other two are ISO and Aperture.

Understanding the three will help you understand why your shots are blurry. There are a ton of resources on the net that will describe it better and in detail than we could on a forum.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Zenzone, what is the max shutter speed on the Z712 and what was the max shutter that you actually used to take your photos? Also what mode did you have your camera in (shutter priority, aperture priority...)?

Short of shooting in hurricane or tornado winds, I really can't imagine where you'd need 1/8000 shutter speed to freeze motion flowers. You can freeze motion a lot faster moving objects with slower speeds.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

I do find 1/8000 extremely useful, but for flower macro it's absolutely not needed, or will be used ever. On a windy day your target being blown out of focus literally will be your largest problem, 1/500 to 1000 is more than sufficient.

I use 1/8000 to avoid highlight clipping in scenes with a large dynamic range, or when I want creamy oof areas in bright sunlight with my 1.8 lenses, for that 1/4000 wouldn't be enough. (when I had a d3100 I always ended up raising the f-stop, to get below 1/4000)

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Once we begin the process of getting close to a subject, the priorities change. And, as almost all the circumstances are different in one way or another, the advice will be only form each individual's perspective.

As an example, camera on tripod, wind guards attached to tripod legs, lightweight stabilizing wires (like a long pipe cleaner) from either tripod head to stem of flower or tripod leg to stem of flower. Once these are in place....the focus and composition. Of course, before any setting up, the lighting has to de determined so as to bring out the way you want the flower to appear.

I will change Tao's stool to focus, aperture, shutter speed because the ISO will become almost a necessity of these once you have determined depth of field. Although, if the need for no noise, big enlargement is of primary concern, then the stool becomes more complex.

All of the above considerations are determined long before any shots are fired. As to shutter speed, well, I shoot cars at 100+ mph, 1/800th sec. Flowers, I would be most likely in the 1/500th range as I tend to use high shutter speeds. A supplemental lighting may also be the way to go. Strobe with its effective "high shutter speed" and enough light to give f/16 or smaller may help. An umbrella bounce is beautiful light.

If you are totally confused by now, or are thinking, who is this crazy lady, this is good. My point is that shooting good flower photos is something that takes a lot of practice and experimentation. A D3200 with the correct lens...another subject...will produce photos which are as good as any you will see on this forum.

Check out some of the great shots on Photo-A-Day and look at the information as to how they are done. And good luck. Always nice to have someone on NRF who is asking questions.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

I grew up on the great plains. Wind can be a problem there. Early morning until about 9am or 10am is often the best time for less wind.

I once saw someone selling a sort of white hoop tent type wind block with one side open for flower photography. Not only did it block the wind it also diffused the light.

Can also try flash.

But if you don't go out in windy conditions a shutter speed of 1/500 to 1/1000 of a second should work.

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Heres a shot taken on a fairly sunny day with 15km/h winds gusting from varying directions:

D7000 • 200mm f2 @ f2 • ISO 200 • 1/640

Note the shutter speed. Regardless, all the advice you've gotten here so far should set you in the right direction.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I think the biggest problem with a P&S is shutter delay. It isn't as fast from the time you hit the button until it takes the pictures. There could be a multitude of other factors though depending on what modes you were in and the settings you were using. Read up on macro photography, any dSLR and any of the Nikon macro lenses will do you wonders if you know how to use them.

I will add a couple also...all with the 105 F2.8 VR. None shot above 1/640 and all were hand held. Shutter speeds stop motion, but unless you are shooting in hurricane force winds you don't need that fast of shutter speeds.

1/400 on a breezy day

1/100 still day (flower was very small though ~ 1cm wide)

1/640

1/100

Posted 1 year ago #
zenzone

member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 11
offline

I am absolutely bowled over by how much helpful advice I have received from you all. You have convinced me that I would be able to "get by" with a 1/4000th shutter. At least, for the time being. My point-and-shoot pictures with my wife's Kodak were in the so-called "Flower Mode" which activates a semi-macro lens mode. My pictures don't have EXIF data, so I have no idea what shutter speeds were used on my blurry series of shots. I am going to read the Kodak's manual to see if it is possible to get the Kodak to append EXIF data.

Gabbb noted that on a windy day the flowers can be blown out of focus, and I hadn't thought of that. A fast shutter wouldn't cure that problem.

Iris Chrome raised a very relevant question about what was the maximum shutter speed of the Kodak (it is 1/1000th) versus what shutter speed was actually used. I have no idea what speed was used, but it is very likely that it was significantly slower than the 1/1000th that the camera is capable of.

Donaldejose mentioned a handy white hoop tent that could be helpful, to block wind and possibly to diffuse lighting. I will be looking into that. And the suggestion of using flash was very interesting as an alternative to a fast shutter.

You all have given me a lot of food for thought. It will take me a while to digest it all. The 1/4000th shutter of the D3200 may be fine for me. But I am still very curious if the upcoming D5200 will be as big an improvement over the D5100 as the D3200 was an improvement over the D3100. In the meantime, I have a lot to learn about my wife's old Kodak Z712 IS. Thank you all for sharing your expertise and insights. It is very much appreciated.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I guess I don't understand why you are bothered by the shutter speed of any current bodies.

If I were you I would get the any "current" body even back to the D5000/D90 and spend more money on a nice macro lens. Get the Nikon 105 F2.8 VR if you can afford it. If you want to get even more then get the macro R1C1 speedlight setup and you will be set for just about any situation. The 105 will give you the most working distance. I was on the fence between the 85 F3.5 and the 60 F2.8 and the lastly the 40 F2.8 is cheap if you don't have the funds, but will have a really close working distance.

Really...learn how to use the camera. Shutter speed isn't all that important and that is why I can't figure out why you are so worried about only 1/4000. I rarely have any pictures that are over 1/640 and to get that it has to be the middle of the day on a very sunny day.

Lastly to use a shutter speed that fast you need lots of light and a fast lens..F2.8 or more. Just because a body is capable of 1/4000 you would have to shoot wide open on a sunny day for that to be usable. As I said look into it more before you just in thinking you need this or that.

In the PAD thread Rifqi shoots a D3000 and the 85 F3.5 macro and I think his pics look great.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Forget your fascination with shutter speeds of 1/8000th of a second. You don't need it. You don't even need 1/4000th of a second or 1/2000th of a second. 1/1000th of a second will be fast enough as the examples here have shown. All were taken lower than 1/1000 of a second. Even the least expensive Nikon, the D3100, has a shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second.

When you focus on something at close range you have an extremely shallow depth of field, maybe something like only half an inch front to back will be in sharp focus (depending on the f-stop you use but even a high f-stop like f22 will have a very shallow depth of field). The wind can easily blow your subject out of that zone of sharp focus and you can easily move a bit when pressing the shutter also getting out of focus. Many people use tripods to keep the camera still and something to block the wind or even a wire to tie the flower stem to a leg of the tripod to keep that flower still.

You could try a light tent like this.

Cut a large hole in the bottom so you can place this light tent over the flower and cut a large hole in the back so you have a natural background.

60 inch size http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-60-Photo-Studio-Lighting/dp/B003GMBJSG/ref=sr_1_37?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1337605212&sr=1-37

another 60 inch size http://www.amazon.com/Square-Perfect-Softbox-Backgrounds-Photography/dp/B000UCOZP4/ref=sr_1_34?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1337605462&sr=1-34

30 inch size http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-30in-Photo-Soft-Light/dp/B001TKCZVM/ref=pd_sim_e_2

There are other sizes and you can find them on e-bay

Another idea, if you have an assistant, is to have that assistant hold a white translucent umbrella to both block the wind and diffuse the direct sunlight. If you don't block the direct sunlight with the umbrella but place it on the other side of the flower it will act as a reflector to throw some reflected sunlight back into the shadows.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Photography-Translucent-White-42-Umbrella-For-Photo-Studio-Vedio-Lighting-Kit-/140641810095?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20bee7b6af#ht_1475wt_1086

http://www.amazon.com/Cowboystudio-33-Photography-Translucent-Umbrella/dp/B003PEX8XE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337606039&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Parabolic-Umbrella-Rib-Translucent/dp/B002IBMND6/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1337606039&sr=8-8

Either way though you should use a DSLR. Even Nikon's just recently replaced D3100 with its 18-55mm kit lens takes great photos of flowers. You can get a Nikon refurbished D3100 for about $500.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

zenzone said:
I am absolutely bowled over by how much helpful advice I have received from you all. You have convinced me that I would be able to "get by" with a 1/4000th shutter. At least, for the time being. My point-and-shoot pictures with my wife's Kodak were in the so-called "Flower Mode" which activates a semi-macro lens mode. My pictures don't have EXIF data, so I have no idea what shutter speeds were used on my blurry series of shots. I am going to read the Kodak's manual to see if it is possible to get the Kodak to append EXIF data.

Gabbb noted that on a windy day the flowers can be blown out of focus, and I hadn't thought of that. A fast shutter wouldn't cure that problem.

Iris Chrome raised a very relevant question about what was the maximum shutter speed of the Kodak (it is 1/1000th) versus what shutter speed was actually used. I have no idea what speed was used, but it is very likely that it was significantly slower than the 1/1000th that the camera is capable of.

Donaldejose mentioned a handy white hoop tent that could be helpful, to block wind and possibly to diffuse lighting. I will be looking into that. And the suggestion of using flash was very interesting as an alternative to a fast shutter.

You all have given me a lot of food for thought. It will take me a while to digest it all. The 1/4000th shutter of the D3200 may be fine for me. But I am still very curious if the upcoming D5200 will be as big an improvement over the D5100 as the D3200 was an improvement over the D3100. In the meantime, I have a lot to learn about my wife's old Kodak Z712 IS. Thank you all for sharing your expertise and insights. It is very much appreciated.

I don't think the d3200 is a large improvement, you will be hard pressed to resolve the 14megapixels of the d3100. The only meaningful upgrade is the lcd. (unless you care about video) The d5100 still has a larger dynamic range which for me would be more useful.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

+1 donaldejose - all the way.

Don't judge what you need from your Kodak Z712. In comparison to a DSLR, it is a Big Wheel tricycle, and a DSLR is a Ferrari.

Nice shots tcole1983!

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Nice shots tcole1983!

Thanks! Hope everyone doesn't think I always just want to show off everything, but I find examples can speak more than words sometimes. Especially when someone says it can't be done or you need something that you really don't. If I have examples I like to share them in those cases :)

Posted 1 year ago #
NikonMick

member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 32
offline

Agree with most of what's been said & written about shutter speed, and will link to a pic taken with a D3100 of cyclists travelling at 60-70kph (around 40-45mph) in a velodrome. I was panning and they, the cyclists, were going flat out.

Photo details: Nikon D3100 camera, Sigma 70-200/f2.8 lens (non-stabilised) at 90mm, 1/300sec, ISO 640.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/in/photostream

Mick

Posted 1 year ago #
jbayston

new member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 2
offline

I agree with what has been said before. I can't really think of a need for a shutter speed of 1/8000. Most normal shots wouldn't require more than 1/1000, super fast stuff perhaps 1/2000. Perhaps if you feel you need something faster, it might be better to think of another way of addressing the problem.

Posted 7 months ago #
Gabbott66

junior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 5
offline

There are only two times I have ever used shutter speeds higher than 1/4000: (1) impulsively taking pictures of the sun behind some thin clouds from the passenger seat of a car moving at 75 mph; and (2) trying to take pictures of the Sun during the transit of Venus back in June.

A couple of shots in situation #1 turned out OK. Situation #2 got a lot better when I upgraded from a 4-stop ND filter to a 9-stop ND filter - and with the darker filter my shutter speeds dropped dramatically.

You'd really need the perfect storm of intensely bright light, camera shake and a subject in motion at high speeds before thinking about speeds higher than 1/4000th.

EDIT: I take scenario #1 back, I just looked at the photos from that trip and I was using my D40x, with a max 1/4000 shutter speed. The photos turned out awfully sharp, though, at 1/3200 to 1/4000, even from a car moving at highway speed. For example, look at this shot, with no sharpening added:

(The downsampling to 800 pixels wide hurts the perceived sharpness. Full res is pretty sharp. D40x, 28mm, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/3200)

Posted 6 months ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

Agreed with all above on how rarely 1/8000sec winds up being utilized... only shooting wide open with wide aperture lenses on bright days. Shoot, I had to go back over a year, to before I shot anything in RAW format to find things I knew I used even 1/4000sec to shoot. And the hummingbirds aren't quite frozen yet, but they are darned fast!

Even with a fast macro lens, I don't think 1/4000sec shutter will come up. I don't think I have anything new to add that hasn't already been said, so I won't beat a dead horse. :)

Posted 6 months ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

What are the chances the D5200 will have 1/8000th sec max shutter speed? None if the spec on the NR blog is correct. But like everybody else says, it doesn't matter, you don't need it for macro as camera shake/missed focus are the main reasons for blurring.

Posted 6 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

I do not think I have ever shot faster than 1/1500 sec... never could figure why, but then maybe that is why some of my images are not so good....??

...and @ Gabbott66...if you shoot the sun directly with a long lens, use the ND filter on the front of the lens. The long telephotos lenses have a filter slot in the rear and if pointed at the sun the heat build up inside the lens can cook it if not extremely careful.

I use a filter which blocks 99.999% of the light when aimed at the sun which can be obtained from Thousand Oaks Optical in Kingman, Arizona

Posted 6 months ago #
framer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 160
offline

Looks like Salvador Dali designed the thing.

framer

Posted 6 months ago #