OK...Wide Angle IS at 1/4th...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mark² - 02 Sep 2006 22:29 GMT

Same shot, but 1/4th second (actually .03 seconds, which is even slower).

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66174559/original

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

Mark² - 02 Sep 2006 22:34 GMT

> Same shot, but 1/4th second (actually .03 seconds, which is even
> slower).
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66174559/original

Oops. That should say *0.3* seconds (3/10th).

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

Steve Wolfe - 03 Sep 2006 06:16 GMT

> Same shot, but 1/4th second (actually .03 seconds, which is even slower).

One of my local stores has a display picture that one of the owners took
inside a mud hut in Africa with a Konica-Minolta 5D. The exposure was
either 1/3 or 1/2 second, and it didn't look bad at all.

In fact, body-based IS works better with wide-angle lenses than with
telephoto lenses. If you were to use body-based IS and put a 300mm lens on,
the sensor would have to be able to move something like 1/4" to perform
adequate stabilization.

steve

Reply to this Message

RichA - 03 Sep 2006 18:51 GMT

> > Same shot, but 1/4th second (actually .03 seconds, which is even slower).
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> steve

If you camera allows for locking up the mirror automatically before the
shutter fires (the E-1 has a timer) you could get a steadier shot. The
drawback being that the image blacks out for the time you set the timer
for so you need a little image coverage overlap to prevent errors. IS
would be a much better solution. My own "record" would be 1/6th of a
second at 28mm which resulted in a sharp shot but duplicating that
isn't likely. But people should experiment with different methods of
holding the camera, firing it, etc.

Reply to this Message