>>3384947>factually accurateNot the guy you were responding to, but:
>At 1/25 shutter speed you're at the cusp of hand shake ruining the image. 1/25th with a 35mm lens (on full frame). On a camera with top-tier in-body image stabilization. Handholding that at 1/25th should be trivial, and you should be able to get 1/5th or slower with some practice and good technique.
>Which is probably why the image looks jittery and mushy. More likely he needs to work on his stance, or maybe he just fucked up the focus, or maybe he coughed during the exposure or whatever. His settings were perfectly adequate for the situation.
>F/4 isn't sharp enough for the subject you've chosenWhat the hell are you talking about? If you mean in terms of getting everything in the depth of field, f/4 gives you more than enough depth of field for a scene at this distance. That looks like about 20 feet from his subject, full frame, 35mm, f/2; depth of field calculator says this gives you around 36 feet of in-focus depth. His subjects easily fall within that range.
If you mean in terms of the quality of the lens optics, I’m not sure what lens specifically he’s using, but f/4 on any modern optic (which it must be to report its data in the exif) should be more than sharp enough, especially when shrunken down to web resolution.
>F8 and beyond would be better. f/8 in that lighting situation and subject distance would be crazy overkill. See above, re: depth of field.
>And ISO 1000 severely degrades the image further with added noise.It’s a full-frame back-side-illuminated sensor. ISO 1000 is *nothing*. Especially for a ridiculously high res sensor downscaled to this resolution.
>choosing a boring subjectBasically the only part of your critique that I agree with, and it’s the only part that’s subjective.
