What effect do bright lights have on DSLRs? For example, would shining a flashlight into the lens have any effect?  The flashlight I am currently using is 300 lumens.
123511
I'm about to start exploring the world of long exposure shots, using my Canon EOS M. The camera has a standard max exposure time of 30 seconds, but in bulb mode I can keep the shutter open indefinitely (using a wireless remote to control the shutter.)  How long can I leave the shutter open without running the risk of prolonged exposure to light damaging my sensor?  For the purposes of this question assume I'm shooting in summer daylight, so that we can go by the worst case.
65362
Is there a good reason why I can turn the focusing ring on my lenses beyond infinity mark on focusing scale? Following recent questions about focusing in the dark ( and ), it sounds like a real usability issue.  When I'm focusing manually, I only care about the infinity mark on my focusing scale, but there is around 5-10mm of room (depending on the lens) beyond infinity mark. Why is it there?
38499
Last night, when I was attempting to do some astrophotography, I found it rather difficult to focus on the stars/tress/buildings in nearly pitch darkness. The Live View feature doesn't show much as it is so dark, and you can't see through the viewfinder either (when it's dark)  The one single lens I have, an 18-55mm IS Canon lens doesn't have an infinity marker on the focus ring. It's just a standard lens. Also my first lens (I'm an amateur)
4549
I'm currently using an entry-level DSLR with 18-55mm lens and having great trouble trying to creating a blurred background effect in my photos. Now matter what aperture or shutter speed I choose, I'm not able to get it.  There's a general question about , but what specific things can I do to get this effect with an entry-level lens?
84204
I came across some really cool  today. How did he manage to get these photos? I couldn't find any EXIF information anywhere, and I don't have enough experience with macro to figure out how he did it.  It's obvious that the light has a lot to do with the result. How and what kind have been used? And what kind of camera equipment?
106293
I was out last night trying to shoot the Geminids meteor shower. I was using a Canon 5D2, 17-40mm f4.0 lens set to 17mm and f4.0, ISO 400. The camera was mounted on a non-tracking mount (only because it failed in the field!) and I was doing 60 second exposures. So I expected star trails but what I didn't expect was dim meteors.  Acually, of the 90 or so shots I only grabbed 2, and that's what puzzled me. The skies were very active, at least 2 per minute and the camera was aimed at a good spot.  In particular, one meteor was noticeably bright and passed between Orion and Jupiter, right where the camera was pointing. I was pretty excited about that, it would be a great shot. I was disappointed when I got home. At first, I couldn't find it, it was so dim.    Look about halfway down and a third of the way over. The meteor is pointing at about 2 o'clock. It is really hard to see.  Why? It was easily as bright as Betelgeuse and Bellatrix, the two bright stars in top half of Orion, you can see Orion's belt at the far right.  I know the shutter was open when the bright one passed by. Are meteors really that dim?  References:
107045
I see a lot of questions about low light, and one of them which stood out to me was   All my flash pictures tend to turn out great, but my shots in low light without flash are always terrible   blurry bad colors under exposed   My setup is: Nikon D3200 with a 35mm f/1.8 prime.  After reading the above question, it seemed that I should have gotten a good photo, but below is what I got in RAW. Settings: ISO 800, 35mm, f/1.8 1/15sec.     Can someone give me a suggestion of what my settings should have been, perhaps? (Remember that I don't want to use the flash, so I can capture the ambient). It's typically situations or candid portraits like this I would be taking. Also any advice on what quick adjustments I could make if I get a dim result like below?  I don't want to ask for the subject to stand still until I get a great shot, so if I get a poor result on my first trial, what settings should I immediately switch to in order to hopefully get my second shot closer to a likeable shot?  Note: getting another body or lens would be a last resort if I run out of options.
63001
I need to take 30 1s exposure shots in raw at night. The image becomes ALMOST black... Is it possible to take this tiny amount of light/information and sum them all toghether and get as a result a single image that equals a longer expoaure? I am not talking about brightening an image, I am talking about summing the single light information of the pictures together. Would that be possible in photoshop? Would the result be any good?
97533
I have been doing so much research on iso, and for awhile I've been going with the theory that low iso= less noise, so I've been shooting at iso 100 and then adjusting my flashlights and increasing exposure when the photo is coming out too dark. Will i get less noise with a higher iso and a lower exposure time? It's hard for me to tell as I do not shoot cityscapes at night, I create very dark scenes with lit objects. The outside perimeters of my photos are almost always black. Thank you so much. I guess after all the research I still am not sure.
12977
Hai.  I have a question, I switched from Canon to Sony a while ago and I found out that if I shot bright places, like the sky, the cloud that is supposed to be seen clearly, looks like a blown-out highlight (like real crazy), as you can see on my picture.  I have to set a low exposure just so the highlight is not blown out, and it’s only happening on Sony, not on Canon. On Canon the object is visible, but the background (cloud) is still seen all just fine.  Do you guys know what to change on the Sony to get that good look? Is it the setting or the lens? (BTW, I’m using a Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens.)
27767
If a car is travelling faster than the speed of light, do the headlights still work?  If you can help because i really need to know i am going on a trip with my car tomorrow!
82655
I just purchased a D5100 and I am  slowly learning the basics.  I mostly shoot landscape/scenery shots.    I have been trying to capture the full moon unsuccessfully.  It looks focused in the viewfinder and I've experimented with slow shutter speeds and large apertures but the resulting image always comes out as a bright glare.  I'm never able to see the details of the moon.  How can I improve my shots?
17158
I am shooting in natural light, with my subject facing a full floor-to-ceiling south facing window. You would think my meter would allow ISO between 200-400 in bright light, but I was lucky to get it to 640, with f/3.2 and 1/60 (manual mode).  I've read other places that people say put your ISO down to 100 for indoor shots for greatest clarity (especially sharp eyes) — but don't know how I can with subjects potentially moving. Is there a setting in my camera (Canon 5D Mark III) I am missing, or something that might be making my meter need more light?
6015
This week I've read two news stories about two different camera lenses that can magnify things that are very far away.  The first is the , which is a point-and-shoot camera that costs $600, has an 83x optical superzoom lens ("the same field of view as a 2,000mm lens on a full-frame camera"), and lets you see the craters of the moon.  The second is the , which weighs 36 pounds, costs $180,000, and can take portraits of people a half mile away.  A non-photographer might ask, "Why would somebody spend their life savings on a gigantic telescope of a lens when you could take far away pictures with a handheld camera for 1/300th the price?"  Well, I am basically a non-photographer, and I would like to ask that question. What does the big one give you that the little one doesn't provide? I understand that small changes in lenses can make a big difference in size and price, but this seems to be of a different scale entirely.   What is going on with the optics of the lenses that makes the small one able to be so small and the big one have to be so...big?   I'm trying to get a basic intuition for what makes lenses different, and I realize I don't understand enough about how lenses work to even know how to compare these apples and watermelons.
114544
First of all I came across these questions already:     And they really surprise me because it's basically the opposite of what I experience. I've tried the Yongnuo EF 35mm and the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM, and with both I experience the same: Using the optical viewfinder, I always have blazing fast, accurate AF. However using liveview, it is most of the time impossible to get a focus point at all, forcing me to move around and what not.  The camera is a Canon 70D, supposed to have a good AF system.  In a bright light condition both work perfectly fine so I doubt it's a defect, but in lower light situation I can never get a focus point with LiveView at all - No matter which AF method I select. This surprises me as the answers to the questions I've linked suggest that in low light, the LiveView AF should work even better. Does my camera and its dual-ISO make a difference? If anything I'd assume it'd make it better.  Especially the video AF (which I assume does always use LiveView's CDAF?) for the 70D is praised to be outstanding, compared to its previous models. Again: Can't confirm. I haven't tried video in bright light (I'd assume that'd make it better though), but in low light (it's not that low by the way, it's a single, but bright and close-to-subject lightbulb spotlight) the AF in video is just as bad.  Any explanations/insights/tips/tricks for a DSLR newbie like me?  Additional info: When focusing manually, Magic Lantern's  is able to draw in where the focus is too, and it works by detecting contrasts too. Unless I'm missing something doesn't that mean that Canon's CDAF should be able to find a focus point with CDAF too?  Here is a screenshot of the scene:  It's really not that little light!  Here is me putting the aperature up to F/2 for testing:   Here is my F/11 setting with manually focused:   As you can see, ML has no issues drawing the focus peak into the right spot instantly. In addition to that: I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but the camera actually does drive up the ISO while focusing when in LiveView. I couldn't get a screenshot of that but the subject was clearly visible (and in focus for a split second) during the AF attempt of the camera in LiveView. It just went past the focus point, and back again. Everytime I'd try to focus. The distance to subject is ~0.35m and my lens can focus up to 0.25m (even tho with the viewfinder I can focus as close as 0.15 sometimes). Just to make sure I've tried a longer (~0.5m) distance - Same results.  I've also just tried to AF on my desk keyboard in absolute low-light (on the LCD, I see nothing but pitch black). The camera was able to focus in LiveView properly and it turned up the ISO to the max. during the focus process.  Here's a screenshot made during the AF attempt - The camera sets the ISO to a guessed ~4000 during the failed attempt:    Conclusion: It's not the lowlight environment. What else could be the cause?  Some more hints to "it's not low-light":  The camera is perfectly capable of focusing on this in LiveView.    I couldn't get the screenshot timed right, but this is during focus attempt. The camera was able to find focus on first try, even though the light situation is a lot worse.
59986
I have just accidentally changed my lens over with the power on. In the manual it lists this as something you shouldn't do as a 'caution' . Can this cause damage? If so, what and how will I tell?  (I have an Olympus OM-D.)
102372
I am trying to understand something that is really confusing me.  If I want to make a captured image brighter I can do this in many ways.  I can   Leave the shutter open for longer Make the aperture wider Increase the ISO Use a flash Do something else I have not considered   Which of these options is the right one?  How do I decide which of these things to do in which circumstances?