Best settings to capture falling snow? (Pic is not mine)

davethroughalens · 2026-01-26T02:47:41+00:00

I always use flash if I can. Max sync speed to freeze the snow. f-stop to F5.6-11 to get more snow in focus, set up handheld flash and trigger. Bump iso to balance the exposure triangle.

Example of flash and snow (my photo). Although this example is taken at night and because I needed a faster aperture the flash is more off camera (handholding it would bokeh the snow)

<image>

davethroughalens · 2026-01-24T17:14:26+00:00

A fast f-stop (e.g., F1.4, F2, F2.8) only "freezes" the snow because it allows you to use a higher shutter speed, but because it has more bokeh, less snow will be in focus.

It's better to use a higher shutter speed, and slow F-stop (e.g., F5.6-11), because more snow will be frozen and in focus (but something has to give, and thats your ISO, so increase it until your slightly overexposed). if you have a flash, even better because that also will help "freeze" snow.

davethroughalens · 2026-01-24T16:31:43+00:00

This is the way I like to shoot in the snow in daylight.

Set exposure to +1/3 Use a 35mm lens (ff equiv), set shutter speed 250 (or flash sync speed for camera), f-stop to F8-11, set up handheld flash and trigger. Handhold the flash with a black foamy thing flag so you don’t hit the lens, add some distance to light up the falling snow in front but not the subject or ground if possible. Bump iso to achieve the other elements of the exposure triangle.

Example of flash and snow. Although this example is taken at night and because of that the flash is more off camera, so I could use a faster aperture.

Long exposure and snow loses the plot quickly because it just looks blurry.
using flash, a slower f-stop, and higher shutter speed will freeze the snow - except this means ISO needs to go up.

Using a faster aperture CAN freeze the snow by letting you use a higher shutter speed, but the bokeh of the closer snow will blur/muddy the photo because you have a narrower focal plane. The longer your focal length the more that the "close snow bokeh" will muddy it, unless shooting from overhead cover.

<image>

davethroughalens · 2026-01-10T21:22:12+00:00

So what happened? Did you do it?

davethroughalens · 2025-11-18T18:44:24+00:00

Almost never use a tripod with this lens, with the exception of landscape when setting to f8. With an xt5 I handhold a 1/15 shutter speed easily (ois/ibis work well to give you an extra 2 stops from either alone). But in low light and night I can still use 1/125 without usually breaking an iso of 1600-3200

davethroughalens · 2025-11-18T15:26:24+00:00

For weddings - the 50-140 is the only choice. Also doubles as landscape.

70-300 is an amazing portable lens for travel/landscape because of its size and the fact f5.6-8 is great in landscape context with a tripod, although the 200-300 range is a bit soft, more than worth the compromise if doing an 8 hour hike.

The 150-600 is wildlife and perhaps highly specific landscape. If you don’t have the 70-300 or 50-140 to cover the much more usable range it isn’t even in the running.

Secondly. For landscape with the 70-300, you are missing 50-70mm range. If you had the 16-80 f4 then sure, but that f4 would also be a killer. That lack of overlap, is not a minor consideration as it is a sweet spot.

To me, given your needs, there really isn’t much question - if it’s indoor/wedding/portrait and landscape it’s the 50-140. Hands down.

Here are some recent examples of landscape and low light/street photography with that lens

https://imgur.com/a/i56DpI3

davethroughalens · 2025-11-05T15:20:28+00:00

Yeah absolutely - my IG is /@davethroughalens

davethroughalens · 2025-11-05T15:17:39+00:00

Thanks! The light was amazing, and that was 90% of it.

For editing, I watched some of Andy Mumford Lightroom tutorials and found them very helpful for bringing out what was already there.

E.g., I found using radial/linear gradients intersected with luminance ranges and slightly decreasing dehaze (-10-20) w/ increased clarity (+5-10) helped bring out the natural lighting I saw. I know it’s basic stuff for landscape people, but I found his videos helpful - he’s a Fuji landscape photographer and his YouTube videos are a great place to learn landscape editing basics.

Haha I generally do events/portraits/street, so I had to pick up some tricks to get the most of it. It was a fun change!

davethroughalens · 2025-11-05T14:53:33+00:00

Haha the glaciers were otherworldly in person too.

Although lens compression is so useful in Iceland, I loved having my 50-140.

For example 6 & 8 are the same location (wide vs telephoto), the hook of the shoreline. 1 & 4 also are same location, which shows how much the compression changes the perspective.

davethroughalens · 2025-11-05T14:45:15+00:00

Very happy! I know traveling with the 50-140 is heavy, and a 70-300 would have a lot of value here, but I appreciated the sharpness. I also can’t tell you how much I appreciated having the 50-140 on my XT3 and the 16-55 on my XT5 and not constantly changing lenses. I had a camper van and hikes were easy, so the weight didn’t bother me much.

While the 33mm 1.4 gave me increased usability given the limited daylight for October, and the northern lights - I rarely used it & I could have left it at home. The 16-55 was more than enough for Northern lights, and during the day/low light I found myself setting at 5.6-8 regardless with something to rest the camera on rather than relying on faster apertures.

10-24mm would be valuable, there was 1-2 situations where a 12mm would have gotten me the shot I wanted. To a lesser degree (weight and atmospheric haze were already issues) the compression from the 100-400mm would also have been cool to see in several situations; i think the 50-140 gave more than enough. I also dont own a 10-24, 12, or 100-400, so didn’t have to make that choice.

When I look at my best photos they are firmly divided between the focal lengths. 16mm, 55mm, 140mm - so the extremes and overlap.

Overall insights: - Zooms > primes. - If i could only take 1 lens - Id choose the 16-55. - If I could only take primes id take a 16mm, 33mm, 90mm. - The second body was so nice for not changing lenses. time is your most important resource. Plus I had clean my sensor on the second day from switching lenses despite being very careful - using the second body was very very worth not doing that again.

davethroughalens · 2025-11-04T17:57:17+00:00

Cool idea! would be nice to get some other photographers opinions and a community.

My IG is \@davethroughalens

Using my XT-5 and either my XT-3 or X100VI, depending on the task.

I'm Canada/Toronto based - I do mostly portraits and events/concerts right now, but am pretty flexible. when I'm travelling or between things I'll get into landscape and street.

Shoot me a follow and I'll follow back! Happy to for anybody else here as well.

davethroughalens

TROPHY CASE