# What settings do you use for pics and video?



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

OK, so I have one of the best cameras on the planet...a new Sony a7Rii. 42Mp, 4K video, and all the bells and whistles you can think of. But...I still can't get a pic i am happy with of my tank. I am probably expecting too much, but I know it's possible, especially with this camera.

I have a 16mm-35mm Zeiss lens and a 24mm-240mm Sony lens that is pretty sweet. The tank is 5 feet wide, so can't get too close. I have tried with the lights low and higher. Still not happy.

I am setting the camera either f4 or f8, with a shutter speed of 160 to 250. I keep the ISO at 100 or 200.

I attached a pic i took tonight. I know I should have turned the computer off behind it







Colors are pretty bang on what I see with my eyes.

So what setting do you use on your camera to get the pics you are happy with?

Also, Since I now have 4K video ability, what setting would you use to get the clearest, most balanced video from a tank, without having to get into colour grading, etc.


----------



## CanadaCorals.com (May 12, 2013)

Sounds to me like you are just not happy with the resolution of your lenses.

Have a look at the new G-Master lenses coming out soon. The 24-70mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.4 are niiiiice!

I recently picked up a Sony A7SII to mess around with. The low light capabilities of this camera continue to shock me.


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

That may be. Hadn't thought about the lens. I'll try the 24-240 Lens and see if that is sharper. I will someday get the Sony 90mm 2.8. It's the sharpest lens on the planet right now. But that 85mm 1.4 looks ridiculous. I may see if I can borrow one to try out. 

Yes. These cameras are unbelievable in low light. That's why I bought it. For my real estate interior pics. I have had pics that looked solid black give me incredible detail with no noise.


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

mattdean said:


> OK, so I have one of the best cameras on the planet...a new Sony a7Rii. 42Mp, 4K video, and all the bells and whistles you can think of. But...I still can't get a pic i am happy with of my tank. I am probably expecting too much, but I know it's possible, especially with this camera.
> 
> I have a 16mm-35mm Zeiss lens and a 24mm-240mm Sony lens that is pretty sweet. The tank is 5 feet wide, so can't get too close. I have tried with the lights low and higher. Still not happy.
> 
> ...


42MP!? my goodness....that's just crazy....does anyone really need that much resolution to take family pics or even a pic of an aquarium?! Are you planning to shoot and then post-process/crop to get the proper photo after??

Mind you, my camera is 12 years old (Nikon D200) and 10.1MP...what do I know!? The new D500 (comes out this month) is a whopping 20.5MP.

I feel your pain, I really do. It took me a long while to really pin down how to even approach (SLR) photography in general, and lot more tinkering and playing around with settings to master (I use that term loosely!) reef aquarium photography.

I would suggest that your notion of buying the best of anything ensures that you get the best results is bunk. As the sayings go: 'garbage in, garbage out'; 'you're only as strong as your weakest link'.....in this case, it seems that you're the weakest link, not your pimp camera or your choice of lens 

*16mm-35mm Zeiss lens and a 24mm-240mm* - how fast are these bad boys? (what is their aperture? is it fixed or does it have a range?

Mind you, mirror-less cameras are becoming more popular, but they have a long way to go to win the minds of diehards and the mainstream (SLR) world. The technology is quite enticing, but i'm not the least bit sold on it as yet, nor do I have the money to burn. I'm a diehard Nikon SLR fanboy, we're a stubborn bunch.

So

1. What exact image are you trying to acquire? A simple full tank pic? macros? (moving) fish?

Answering this will direct us to the right lens you should be using.

2. Do you have any experience with SLRs? if so, are you familiar with terms like aperture, focal range (and the relationship bw the two), white balance? what about metering?

(yes, you should have turned that computer off in the background....that excess light does affect your photo....you're trying to image the tank, so turn every source of light off EXCEPT for the tank light...you want a completely dark room if you can swing it)

Are you shooting AUTO or are there any settings you're using that relate to any of the terms I mentioned above?

I read the review on B+H for the Sony A7Zii....i'd be damned if it doesn't read like the manual for the USS Enterprise...damn.


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

Hey Patwa. Actually, I'm fairly knowledgeable with digital photography. I rarely shoot in anything but Manual mode and hardly ever take a bad pic with this camera, except for aquarium pics. Even though most think they are exceptional, I am very picky and feel that with my gear, I should be getting better.

The reason I have this monster camera is for my real estate photos. And for landscape photography, which I quite enjoy. I allows me to take wide angle shots and crop in as much as I need without losing quality. That, and I love toys! And don't stuff off mirror less. If you saw some of the pics I am getting with this camera, you would think twice. It's low light capabilities are incredible.

The wide angle lens is an f4 and the 24-240 is an f3.5. I like to hoot at f8 to give me more depth.

I am trying to get a good full tank shot right now. I don't have a lens that is great for macros yet. Although I have gotten a couple nice pics with the zoom lens from farther away.

Here's another pic I just took. I'll show a larger, higher resolution than normal so you can see the quality. It really shows the particles in the water column, thanks to my fish kicking it up. All the flow was off.

I am thinking it's my post processing that might be contributing to the less than natural look of the Rock and some corals. I'll try less, or no sharpening, etc. And see what that looks like.

Cheers


----------



## CanadaCorals.com (May 12, 2013)

It looks REALLY good but you can see the limitation of the lens.

Sharp in the centre and softer towards the edges.

I would try to take the picture from much further away so that the FTS is in the centre of the frame and crop. That's what's nice about 42MP.


----------



## deeznutz (Aug 21, 2013)

Shoot with a prime lens, bump your iso to 400, faster shutter 1/250-1/500
and then play with the aperture.

I always underexpose the photo by 1/3-1/2 stop. This tend to get rid of the floaties. 

Also long tanks are the worst for FTS. My 7 footer, fuggedaboutit!


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

Ok. So that's it. It's the lens not being sharp on the sides. I did move back a bit but probably not enough to make a real difference. I will try that tomorrow. Funny thing is, when I take wide angle pics of rooms for my listings I don't have the same problem. It's very sharp from side to side. Maybe it's the water , because I am so close to the tank. 

Yes. I usually under expose as well but I think the camera is just too sensitive and sharp. When I back up it should minimize that as well. 

And I have been trying higher ISO so I can have a faster shutter. The last pic was 400 with a shutter speed of 1/200 at f8. I'll try even faster. 

Thanks for the tips!


----------



## goobafish (Jan 27, 2015)

I disagree, I don't think lens sharpness is the issue in your FTS. The picture has the same sharpness throughout (not very sharp). Your previous FTS have been much sharper. 

Are you using a tripod? It looks like very minor camera shake. If you are using a tripod, have you disabled all the image stabilization?


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

I'm using a tripod but honestly can't remember if I turned off the IS. I do forget to go that often.

I'm surprised you think it is not very sharp in the middle. Looks pretty sharp to me. I am going to go today and get the lens checked, or compare it to new ones to make sure they didn't get out of alignment when shipped recently. Just to be sure. 

I'll be doing another couple of shots later today and make sure i take all suggestions and see how it comes together. 

i WISH I could justify a nice prime lens for the camera. I know they are usually sharper than zoom lenses, but I already spent $2700 on the two lenses I have and my wife will kill me if I spend another penny on this kit


----------



## goobafish (Jan 27, 2015)

The picture is at it's sharpest on the green lobo? on the left and the red brain on the sand on the right. The center is similarly soft to the sides. It looks like your fstop is too low to tell if the lens would be sharp all the way through, f4 or f8 doesn't look like the sweet spot. I would try focusing on the mushrooms on top of the bridge and bumping both the fstop and iso.

It is hard for me to compare I guess, I only really use prime lenses.


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

OK cool. I'm going to check it all out. I'm fairly certain I had IS on on these shots. Thanks for the input


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

Hey Matt...all I see in the photo is camera shake. Could be as a result of a lot of things, but I would suggest right off the bat, crank up your shutter speed and look closely at cranking up the ISO if your chosen faster shutter speed doesn't give you the results. To add, i'm surprised you got that image AND you're using a tripod....hmmmm...that doesn't make sense.

With a camera that is 'so good in low light', you should be able to get VERY fast shutter speeds given the incredible amount of light produced by the reef lighting....right? Maybe crank the ISO up (to 400 as someone else mentioned). That would give you leeway to increase the shutter speed considerably.

I don't know how or why there'd be *any* sort of blur (shake) with a camera so advanced and SO sensitive to low-light! and it's a friggin mirror-less (ie. less vibration) camera to boot....doesn't make sense.

I'd leave the lens discussion out of this for now until you figure out why there is a blur. Your lenses are fine, and are of a high enough quality that they should be able to produce sharp images right to the edges (unless you're using a wide or ultra wide, namely the 16mm on that Zeiss, then, of course i'd expect less sharpness toward the edges...but only very minimal. Zeiss is no entry level/dollarama glass like Sigma or Tamron....it's top quality. Even a Nikon fan like me will stop and salute Zeiss glass anyday.

Other non-camera tips/questions:

Do you run a filter sock? there's an awful lot of particles in suspension...that will play havoc with your AF....but again, with a camera so advanced, I highly doubt this should be an issue....but you never know!

Are you taking the pics with your light (blues/whites) at 100%? if not, i would suggest you do that...the more light your camera can capture, the more it has to work with and the better it will perform.

Do you shoot RAW? if you're JPEG, i'll say a little prayer for you and highly suggest you shoot RAW, especially if you tend to shoot manual! If you want good pics, shoot JPEG, if you want amazing pics, shoot RAW (and use Lightroom!)


----------



## goobafish (Jan 27, 2015)

The camera shake is a result of him leaving the advanced image stabilization on while it was on the tripod. It tries to compensate for shake that isn't occurring and causes slight distortion. I would also recommend 800+ iso with that camera.


----------



## CanadaCorals.com (May 12, 2013)

Patwa said:


> Hey Matt...all I see in the photo is camera shake. Could be as a result of a lot of things, but I would suggest right off the bat, crank up your shutter speed and look closely at cranking up the ISO if your chosen faster shutter speed doesn't give you the results. To add, i'm surprised you got that image AND you're using a tripod....hmmmm...that doesn't make sense.


These camera's have a 5-axis stabilization system built-in and its recommended to turn it off when using a tripod or slider.

Matt mentioned that he forgot to turn it off.

With my A7S II, I can shoot 0.4s shutter speed handheld and get a nice sharp image with stabilization on. It might be a good idea to program one of the custom buttons to make it easier to change that setting.


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

serious?!.....and that's what Sony calls "advanced"?? 

yeah turn IS off if you're using a tripod.....also, for now, use a timer for shutter release (ie. don't have your fingers anywhere near the camera when the shutter snaps the pic)


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

So, I always shoot RAW. And I always use a 2 sec timer, even when hand-holding the camera to give me a chance to settle. Yes, forgot to turn off IBIS. Will do that. I did program one of my custom buttons for that  

Lights are full on. (8-54W T5s and two XHO Leds) I'm going to try with and without the LEDs, as the light spectrum might be challenging the camera.

just changed the filter sock and will the tank a chance to settle before taking pics.

I'm going to use to 16mm-35mm lens at 24mm. That is supposed to be the sweet spot. I'm going to back farther away from the tank. I really think that, and the IS while on the tripod are the big culprits. Having more tank in the middle should help.

I tested the lens against a new one and there was no difference, so it's not the lens. It's the way I am using it.

I'll try 400 and 800 ISO and a faster shutter speed.

Lights are on full around 4:00. I'll post the result after that. Thanks everyone!


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

mattdean said:


> So, I always shoot RAW. And I always use a 2 sec timer, even when hand-holding the camera to give me a chance to settle. Yes, forgot to turn off IBIS. Will do that. I did program one of my custom buttons for that
> 
> Lights are full on. (8-54W T5s and two XHO Leds) I'm going to try with and without the LEDs, as the light spectrum might be challenging the camera.
> 
> ...


yeah, keep us posted.

re: light spectrum......I run Kessils and i've found my D200 has a lot of trouble getting the WB correct, compared to when I used to run metal halides. With the latter, I could get fairly decent results with Auto WB on the D200....with the Kessils I get some very messed up colours even when set to Auto WB. Thankfully, all my shots are RAW, so I colour correct in Lightroom and it's 100% OK.

LEDs do seem to cause more trouble with photos than other lighting mediums, IME

indeed...from the get-go I knew it wasn't the lenses you're using.......it's you 

also make sure to clean your glass as clean as possible, even smudges on the outside......any amount of dirt or grime build-up on the glass creates a surface that your AF might be registering and thus, ignoring the corals, rock and fish it _should_ be concerned with)


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

OK. Tried all the suggestions and, although it's better, still not thrilled. I'm obviously missing something

Backed away about 5 feet. This is the 24mm-240mm lens at 42mm. f8 1/200 and 800ISO. There is no solution to the marine snow. The fish kick it up (goby/wrasse/clowns) I waited 10 minutes for it to settle. I don't think that is the issue, since this camera has 399 focus points.

I'm probably expecting too much. I tend to be over the top when it comes to things like this. Especially when I see what my other pics look like.

Here is a link to the full rez pic for closer inspection: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vgu02tq5ogelvof/tanktestmar4.jpg?dl=0

Here is a lower rez version:


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

I'd say the photo looks OK, but not stellar, as you noted. That camera shake I noted before seems to have been dealt with overall. Some areas look over exposed, too (to a small degree) esp some of the corals/details on the top part of that arch. Can you bring the f-stop down a bit...try f/9 or f/10. Your DOF should increase......it might help...??

I also see a fair bit of reflections on the back glass, but I don't see how that could negatively affect the image apart from it being visually distracting....

Are you doing any post-processing? if so, what are you changing?

The only thing I can't comment on is the 5ft length of the tank and how it affects the image. I never had a tank that wide before, personally. Even your glass thickness may be wreaking havoc on the camera, too, especially as you move away from the centre of the shop to the edges of the tank....but taking the shot from 5ft back should mitigate that possibility, too......grrr!


----------



## mattdean (Oct 23, 2010)

Well, not much i can do about the relections on the back. Since I have an open scape and it's a peninsula, hard to avoid that, with the room behind it dark.

I post process in Lightroom. All the usual suspects. Just trying to get it balanced.

I did try taking 3 shots of the sides and middle and photomerge them. Because of the fish swimming around and the perspective, it wasn't able to stitch them together, but I did notice a much cleaner, smoother look to the sides, so, I am guessing that the width, the thick glass and the angle through the water is what is holding it back. 

I'll rent a decent prime lens and try that for fun.


----------



## Patwa (Jan 30, 2014)

mattdean said:


> Well, not much i can do about the relections on the back. Since I have an open scape and it's a peninsula, hard to avoid that, with the room behind it dark.


For the purpose of the photo, can you drape a black blanket over the back, or duct tape a black garbage bag to the back glass? Even though the reflection is not a contributing issue to your problem as per the OP, it's a fairly distracting visual component to the photo, esp when one zooms in on the full res pic to see the corals in detail.



mattdean said:


> I post process in Lightroom. All the usual suspects. Just trying to get it balanced.


Are you making adjustments re: clarity, noise reduction, sharpening?



mattdean said:


> I did try taking 3 shots of the sides and middle and photomerge them. Because of the fish swimming around and the perspective, it wasn't able to stitch them together, but I did notice a much cleaner, smoother look to the sides, so, I am guessing that the width, the thick glass and the angle through the water is what is holding it back.
> 
> I'll rent a decent prime lens and try that for fun.


Prime lens has nothing to do with this, afaik. I read previous comments that you should try a prime lens as opposed to the (excellent) glass you said you're using and I can't see the reasoning for this.

I do believe in your main pic, the issue relates to your angle to the tank, the long length of your tank, glass thickness and the distance from where the shot is taken.

Your approach of taking 3 pics and stitching them is very good....i'd say keep with this technique!

Take each pic when there are no fish present....maybe be patient till they duck in a cave or a hole; airbrushing fish out of a FTS is kids play.....and doable if what you're left with is a gorgeous (fishless) FTS

Always have the front glass of the lens parallel to the direction of the front pane (that is, you need to be positioned 90º to the tank). Never approach a shot though the glass at anything other than a right angle...but you prolly know this one already  g'luck!


----------

