Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelNerve
Hi steve you have confused me with this....you say not to excede shutter with the focal length giving the example
200m=1/250s
but then you go on to say that if he had 200mm and a shutter of 1/125s he would have to tripod other wise he would get blurr
but in the second example you have given, he would not exceeded the focal length...I'm confused:confused:
Focal length 200mm use 1/200s or faster (1/250 since that's generally the nearest). It follows that 1/125s should only be used for a maximum focal lenght of 125mm (200mm would be too long).Quote:
Originally Posted by dullbird
It's only a rule of thumb in any case. If you have a steady hand you can easily go a stop slower. IS will improve it by 2-4 stops. (1 stop being a doubling of the exposure time in this case.)
The photos being referred to don't look as if camera shake is the problem, just not focused properly.
slt
oh ok I read his post the other way around...
Thats why I was getting confused.
Sorry for confusion, I was trying to explain in too short of words, and in a hurry.
I have a steady hand and usually try to find something to rest on and can generally get slower shutter settings to work. Being digital and each image doesn't cost much, I usually take several shots if it's marginal just to make sure I get a crisp shot.
Bit of lateral thinking!
Spend a bit more on a Nikon D700.
You can shoot at much higher ISO setting without any noticeable noise, and get a better camera overall.
Advantage of this is you can use a slower lens, ie 5.6 instead of a 2.8 which is going to cost heaps more.
I have used a Sigma 150-500 lens in the past. At about $1500 it was every bit as sharp as the Nikon f2.8 600mm that cost near $10,000, and half the weight.
It was great for bird photography.
Thanks all for the input
SWMBO reckons I've got this knack of making simple things difficult, to which I reply that I weigh up the facts and make a considered decision.
Either way this whole upgrade thing has been a nightmare.
The original goal was to obtain a long lens capable of taking reasonable bird photos. Yes the f/2.8 300mm Nikkor VR lens is very nice,............. and selling the children into slavery to pay for it is not without its merits, but SWMBO wouldn't be in it.
Currently Kaye has a D80 with a 17-135 f:4-5.6 AF-S Nikkor, a fair but not good lens.
My solution was to sell both and get Canon 40D with quality L series short zoom and 300 mm IS telephoto. And perhaps a 30D for me to use and take in canoes or on other camera risky endeavours.
All I had to do was convince SWMBO to 'move to the dark side' and go with Canon. I particularly liked the look of Canons L series lenses. 'L' as in expensive as hell as one wag put it; or did until my research showed that these zooms can be prone to dust ingress due to their vacuum creating action.
We do a lot of outback traveling and dust is a major problem so that killed the Canon move stone dead.
Nikons 300mm f4 is not VR so no good for us hand held types. Pentax K7 is supposed to be dustproof/weatherproof but poor lens selection. Talk about frustrating.
As a general rule I dislike zoom lenses, especially long ones. You trade quality for convenience. But in the end I compromised and bought what I trust will be a reasonable long zoom. Nikkor 80-400 f:4-5.6 D VR along with a Nikkor 18-70 1:3.5-4.5G ED lens and a D70 for me and as a 'canoeing' camera when mated with the 17-135 f:4-5.6. Common batterys, common lenses and don't need to learn a new (Canon) system.
Heres a pic I took today, hand held with the D80 and Nikkor 80-400 @ 300mm, f:5.3, 1/60th, ISO 320 with VR turned on.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...009/09/831.jpg
Considering it was an absolutely miserable wet, grey and windswept day I don't reckon it turned out too bad.
Compared to this D80 and Nikkor 17-135 @ 125 mm, f:5.6, 1/400th, ISO 200 no VR
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...009/09/832.jpg
Easy to see which is the better lens, but I do like the shot.
Deano
1/60 sec hand held. VR or not thats a steady hand. nice.
Having mentioned the Nikon, I use Canon myself. A mate just bought a 50D.
Great camera for the money. The down side is getting new lenses, but you can get adaptors to put just about anything on a Canon.
I'd like to think it was all my steady hand, but know it isn't. The blurb reckons VR is good for 3 stops worth and I reckon from this its right. Early days yet and one sandwich doesn't make a picnic, so far so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket scientist
Found a Zeiss 135mm/f4 in the shed along with close up rings to suit a Practica. Thought I might have a play with this on the D70. Am told I need something called a 'T mount', does this sound right ? I assume I can use the D70 on manual to use the light meter but really don't have a clue. Should be a bit of fun finding out anyway.
Deano
Its very steady image @ that Shutter speed.
If you do not mind I would suggest to you to the the following PP on it:
Adjust the levels: there are pixels lost on the LHS
In curves give it the default Linear contrast in yoh have PS
Sharp the image, it is a bit soft and it will improve after sharping and will show the very nice drops on the beak and the plumaje much better ;)
If you have a tripod do test to the lens to find the sweet spot taken thaken shots at diferet focal lens, It would not surprise me if it perform better @ 160 than @ 300
Have a look the result now with that minor ajustments, The result will be heaps better if you do the adjustments on the original. This jpg version do not have enough pixels to get it spot on"
Thank you again Arthur for your words of wisdom and patience in explaining. I do have PS CS2 but avoid using it as I find it very difficult to understand and use. I will have to try harder. The results you have attained on a poor 640X480 pic are amazing. I will do as you suggest with the lens but will need a better tripod first. The one I have is cheap and nasty and I would not dare attach this lens in case it failed.
Deano