 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Another dumb question from a dslr newbie -- camera shake?
In 35mm film, I used to use the rule of thumb that I could hand hold without noticable shake as long as the shutter speed was faster than about 1/f, i.e. with my f=50mm lens, I could shoot 1/60 or faster and be OK. With my f=180mm, I would aim for 1/250 or faster. If I could brace the camera against a solid object, I'd hope for about 1 stop better than that. How does this rule work with digital cameras? Let's say I've got a 4/3 system (just to make the math easy), where a f=25mm lens gives the same field of view as a f=50mm on a 35mm camera. Can I expect that 1/60 sec will give me about the same amount of visible camera shake? How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization systems some lenses have? Will I get a 1 stop improvement? More? Or is that just not the right way to think about it? Today Roy Smith commented courteously on the subject at hand > In 35mm film, I used to use the rule of thumb that I could > hand hold without noticable shake as long as the shutter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > against a solid object, I'd hope for about 1 stop better > than that. In my film days many years ago, I could get down to 1/4-1/8 with my 50mm Nikkor and maybe 1/15 with my 105mm. But, with the much harder pressure to press the shutter on the digitals I've owned and the time the camera takes to do its AF et al, I find that camera shake comes on at much higher shutter speeds. Plus, my hands are shakier today than they were 30 years ago, aging can be a PITA. <grin> > How does this rule work with digital cameras? Let's say > I've got a 4/3 system (just to make the math easy), where a > f=25mm lens gives the same field of view as a f=50mm on a > 35mm camera. Can I expect that 1/60 sec will give me about > the same amount of visible camera shake? What people relay to you is at best an estimate of what you will see personally, as shooting conditions and subject type as well as varying skill in using camera(s) are important. Once you buy what you're intending to buy (or, maybe you already did), your best bet IMHO is to do your own tests. You are the only one who really knows how much /you/ shake and how much is the camera needing much more oomph on the shutter button than your film camera. If you've not purchased yet, I'd strongly recommend you buy from a store that'll give you 10 days with rights to a full refund if you find the camera just doesn't get it, for whatever reason, including shake, image quality, features, your impression of ergonomics, etc. > How much improvement can I expect from the Image > Stabilization systems some lenses have? Will I get a 1 > stop improvement? More? Or is that just not the right way > to think about it?  SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford Had a bad experience a couple of days ago, I had just finished my midmorning coffee and a doc I work with askes me to go to the operating room for a few photos of a surgery. Grabbed my camera (Fuji S1) and a 120mm medical Nikor. I have hand held the lens at 1/180 (no strobe room lights are very bright)and a couple of times at 1/125. Did the first shot, whoa was I shaky, turned the IE up 800 (bottom is 320 on this camera) did the pics. The other surgeon probably thought this was one shaky guy. Used 1/360 for the shutterspeed and I was OK. I'm finding that if I take the lens conversion into account it is still 1/converted focal length. Just don't have a cup of coffee first. Tom > In 35mm film, I used to use the rule of thumb that I could hand hold > without noticable shake as long as the shutter speed was faster than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same field of view as a f=50mm on a 35mm camera. Can I expect that > 1/60 sec will give me about the same amount of visible camera shake? Yes, use the 50 mm number. > How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization systems > some lenses have? Will I get a 1 stop improvement? More? Or is that > just not the right way to think about it? 2 to 3 stops, generally. Other factors: large, heavy cameras are more stable ... brace your body if you can't brace the camera ... crank up the ISO ... gently squeeze the shutter button ... etc. Someone posted an interesting comment sometime ago, which seems to ring true in practice ... Although we use the reciprocal rule for hand-holding a camera, it's been suggested that if one wants to eliminate all traces of camera shake then one should then aim for around 5 times the "reciprocal" shutter speed. > Although we use the reciprocal rule for hand-holding a camera, it's been > suggested that if one wants to eliminate all traces of camera shake then one > should then aim for around 5 times the "reciprocal" shutter speed. Nonsense. Lay off the caffeine and just take more pictures and pick the best. I have images from my EF 500/4 + 1.4x which were handheld at ~1/100th of a second -- the main problem is subject motion, not jittery hands. >>Although we use the reciprocal rule for hand-holding a camera, it's been >>suggested that if one wants to eliminate all traces of camera shake then one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ~1/100th of a second -- the main problem is subject motion, not jittery > hands. Wow! You're good. I've done 2 to 3x the 1/FL on the 500 f/4 +1.4x with the IS on and still had problems: 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC 1/3000 second iso 400 with IS. Very sharp but best one of several. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.18.2002.IMG_2794.hawk. b-600..html 500 f/4 1/1600 second iso 400, with IS: very sharp, but it was the only really sharp one. http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/road.runner.c11.29.2005.JZ 3F5598.b-700.html But then I've done 1/4 second exposures with a 28 mm lens inside a church and had very sharp results. My experience is the 1/FL rule is good, but faster is better with higher percentage of sharp images. It is really a guide, not a rule. Roger > Wow! You're good. I wouldn't go that far: the equipment is good. When hand-holding, I usually crank off frames until the camera (1DMkII) chokes. I find that while the jitters ruin most frames, there are instants where you (and subject) aren't moving much at all. > My experience is the 1/FL rule is good, but faster is better with > higher percentage of sharp images. It is really a guide, not a rule. Oh yes, as the shutter-time drops, the keeper rate climbs dramatically. Handholding big optics isn't a recommended technique -- the above is hard on the shutter and card space -- but for whatever reason, in my experience the number of subjects seems to drop when one is sitting patiently with the lens on the tripod. Impatience is a virtue? >http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c12.18.2002.IMG_2794.hawk. b-600..html Actually, it just occured to me: how do you characterize "hand-hold"? My definiton may be somewhat liberal, in that it's anytime the camera+lens isn't on the tripod. But in most of these cases, I use a kind of marksman crouch: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/c07.htm#7_3 though I am sitting (usually on a bum pad) with the knee up, and with the lens collar rotated out of the way (to the left or up). Occasional use of a guardrail/cable/etc is sometimes made. The standing position is hard to maintain for any period of time, though this is used at times for birds in flight. > > Nonsense. Lay off the caffeine I don't drink anything with caffeine in it. > > and just take more pictures and pick > > the best. So rather than address the underlying cause you use the "pot-luck" approach to managing the problem. > > the main problem is subject motion, not jittery > > hands. Thanks for that - next time I'll be sure to call in some structural engineers to see if they can stop those damn moving buildings whilst I photograph them with my steady hands. *PLONK* C J Southern blathers: Yo, CJ, I was responding to your idiot tripe that: >>>Although we use the reciprocal rule for hand-holding a camera, it's been >>>suggested that if one wants to eliminate all traces of camera shake then one >>>should then aim for around 5 times the "reciprocal" shutter speed. This may be the case for a Parkinson's sufferer, but few other people. Is following along really so hard, nitwit? > > > the main problem is subject motion, not jittery > > > hands. > > Thanks for that - next time I'll be sure to call in some structural > engineers to see if they can stop those damn moving buildings whilst I > photograph them with my steady hands. What an incredible idea! I'll call in the structural engineer to tell the birds to stop moving! Any other gems of wisdom you wanna pull from your anus? > [PLONK] HA HA HA HA HA HA. Plonked by another fuckhead. I always like getting the last word anyways. > C J Southern blathers: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > HA HA HA HA HA HA. Plonked by another fuckhead. I always like getting > the last word anyways. Ignorant, immature, and abusive. True to your usual form. Hopefully one day you'll grow up, but somehow I doubt it's going to be in my lifetime. Oh dear - how sad - too bad. Until then, let's get your witty repartee out of the way so that you can dazzle us one more time with your charm and witt, and of course get the last word so you'll be able to sleep sound in the knowledge that yet again you've done your best to destroy values created by others. Here it comes everyone ... C J Southern lies: >[...] You say you plonk me ... but evidence says you haven't. Why am I not surprised? > In 35mm film, I used to use the rule of thumb that I could hand hold > without noticable shake as long as the shutter speed was faster than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same field of view as a f=50mm on a 35mm camera. Can I expect that > 1/60 sec will give me about the same amount of visible camera shake? In my experience that is about right. > How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization systems > some lenses have? Will I get a 1 stop improvement? More? Or is that > just not the right way to think about it? It is exactly the way to think about it. Four stops improvement, according the manufacturers, but lots of people report getting better than that. Canon's IS or Nikon's VR are miracles, no ifs, ands or buts. I think four stops is very conservative. I have gone a full eight stops and still managed to get sharp pictures, although not every time. But then, digital film is "free" so you can take a whole series and keep the sharp one. [] >> How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization >> systems some lenses have? Will I get a 1 stop improvement? More? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > every time. But then, digital film is "free" so you can take a whole > series and keep the sharp one. Eight stops would be exceptional, I think. Three stops is what many manufacturers claim, and is what I have seen in my own Panasonic/Leica lens. Some say that the stabilised sensor of the Konica-Minolta system is slightly less effective, which might be due to the larger mass which has to be moved. There is no standard measurement as yet, which is a great pity. By the way, on some Nikon cameras there is a mode called "BSS" - best shot selector. This allows you to take a rapid sequence of shots, and only the sharpest shot will be saved. Great for choosing the least camera-shaken image. I don't know if this feature is also available on their DSLRs. David > [] > >> How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Eight stops would be exceptional, I think. Definitely. You cannot get it every shot, or even on the majority of shots. But it happens often enough to make it worth trying. > Three stops is what many manufacturers claim, and is what I have seen in > my own Panasonic/Leica lens. Some say that the stabilised sensor of the > Konica-Minolta system is slightly less effective, which might be due to > the larger mass which has to be moved. > > There is no standard measurement as yet, which is a great pity. It would be difficult to develop, too. Four stops is what Nikon claims, and that seems to be about right. > By the way, on some Nikon cameras there is a mode called "BSS" - best shot > selector. This allows you to take a rapid sequence of shots, and only the > sharpest shot will be saved. Great for choosing the least camera-shaken > image. I don't know if this feature is also available on their DSLRs. None that I know of. I have it on my Coolpix 7900 and have used it. It is an interesting feature, but it has serious limitations. No flash, for obvious reasons. And I have no reason to believe that it chooses the best overall frame. I prefer "motor drive" mode on the D70. Then I can choose the best image blown up full screen on my computer. > How does this rule work with digital cameras? Let's say I've got a 4/3 system (just to make the math easy), where a f=25mm lens gives the same field of view as a f=50mm on a 35mm camera. Can I expect that 1/60 sec will give me about the same amount of visible camera shake? The rule still works. What you need to do is to revert back to the film equivalent focal length with the equivalent Field/Angle of View. Do note the actual "stability" of your DSLR or DC do count. My MZ-S has at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a vigorous mirror. > How much improvement can I expect from the Image Stabilization systems some lenses have? Will I get a 1 stop improvement? More? Or is that just not the right way to think about it? Canon and Nkon claims that there is a 3-stop advantage. I think this is the ideal optimal value which the IS or VR system able to achieve. Otherwise, the advantage should be somewhat less than that. RiceHigh http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh > My MZ-S has > at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a > vigorous mirror. Are there DSLRs with mirror lock-up? In the old days, you'd plant the camera on a tripod, lock the mirror up, wait for the vibrations to damp away, then trip the shutter (with a release cable, of course). Has this technique carried over to the digital world? Not that I ever did much of that. Except for toying with astrophotography a few times, for which I bought an old OM-1 body just to get that feature. >> My MZ-S has >> at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a >> vigorous mirror. > > Are there DSLRs with mirror lock-up? Yes. >In the old days, you'd plant the > camera on a tripod, lock the mirror up, wait for the vibrations to damp > away, then trip the shutter (with a release cable, of course). Has this > technique carried over to the digital world? Yes. >> My MZ-S has >>at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a >>vigorous mirror. > > Are there DSLRs with mirror lock-up? Yes but it's not available on entry level dSLRs. > In the old days, you'd plant the > camera on a tripod, lock the mirror up, wait for the vibrations to damp [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not that I ever did much of that. Except for toying with astrophotography > a few times, for which I bought an old OM-1 body just to get that feature. >> Are there DSLRs with mirror lock-up? > Yes but it's not available on entry level dSLRs. Pentax provides mirror lock-up with a 2-second delay to settle down before the shutter fires. Best used on a tripod, of course :^) Pentax prices may be "entry level," but performance is a notch above its class. A brand consistently underrated by all who don't own one. > > > My MZ-S has > > > at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes but it's not available on entry level dSLRs. Does the 350D not count as entry level ? T. >>>>My MZ-S has >>>>at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Does the 350D not count as entry level ? Oh, I see that's new. Great! > Does the 350D not count as entry level ? I guess he got a bit confused - and who can blame him - after all, it's hard to believe that images that good could come from an entry-level camera :) >>> My MZ-S has >>> at least a a two-stop advantage over my *ist DS which is having a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes but it's not available on entry level dSLRs. The Olympus E-500 has it, as does the E-330. Given the current E-1 pricing, I might as well mention that Oly's Jurassic pro body, the E-1, has mirror lockup as well. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.