took some stitched photos with 32ND filter,Seafield Beach Edinburgh Scotland. Loved the clouds
Do you find it worthwhile using ND filters for still shots? I have watched some YT vids that suggest they are only worthwhile for video to get more cinematic motion blur. I was going to get some Freewell filters but am holding off as I mostly take stills.
All ND filters do is reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, so you need to use a slower shutter speed to get the correct exposure. Only of use if you deliberately want a slower shutter speed to create motion blur.
best used with m2p and m3 used to hit sweet spot, mavic 2 and 3 variable aperture.
its not just for motion blur.
What do you consider the sweet spot?
Why not adjust shutter and iso to reach that end ?
I’m firmly in the camp that ND filters add nothing to general photography
well that’s your opinion, sweet spot on a m3 is said to be f4 sure it was the same on the m2p.
Are you talking sharpness here then John? I’ve a M2P and wouldn’t say it was best at f4, I tend to shoot between f5.6 - f8.
All the above have the lens full open at f2.8.
Surely DoF is important to you given your work is mainly landscape ?
yes but you could go to another page and they would say different its each to there own , i am self taught so not a pro photographer or a pro drone pilot, and i am more than happy with what skills i have , ive used nd for motion blur and ive also used nd for sharpness, the m3 filters are not cheap so i use what ive got .
i just go out and shoot mate land scape an all
Thats all its about ;o)
Have glance over Depth of Field though, its very easily overlooked if you leave the camera in auto exposure, you have some nice tools on the M3 be a shame not to use them all
yeah i agree, the build quality of the m3 gives you lots of confidence .
How good do you find the signal strength on the RC now after the update ? I’ve been watching lots of YouTube stuff but I want to be sure before I take the plunge or I will go to the RC Pro if it ever becomes available ,
It was just a basic flight no range test yet.
I have found that there are a small number of photography snobs in this group, which doesn’t help anyone other than bigging themselves up.
Which is a real shame .
Firmly with @milkmanchris and @Drumsagard here. Unless you want to create motion blur in say water, there is no point in using ND filters for still photography. You could just as easily control the aperture by changing ISO or shutter speed to achieve what you consider to be the optimum aperture for the lens.
Perhaps you’ve bought combined ND/polarising filters, which would possibly explain the colour of the sky and contrast with the clouds in some of your shots, unless they’ve been post processed to achieve that colour.
Polarising ND filters are great for stills, they remove a lot of reflections.
ND Filters do work as they give you a slower shutter speed therefore you have more detail in the finished shot.
Care to explain your thinking here? Slow shutter speeds are normally used in low lighting conditions or where a photographer wants to create motion blur. Using a slow shutter speed will NOT give you any more detail than a faster shutter speed, if used correctly in conjunction with iso/aperture combinations. In fact, it could have the opposite effect if the shutter speed is so slow that the whole image has camera shake.