Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 21, 2006, 1:52 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

food for thought:

ansel adams used a tripod for EVERY shot he took

(a camera can not be held motionless by hand, even the best tripod will transmit vibration)
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 3:02 PM   #22
Member
 
SelNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
food for thought:

ansel adams used a tripod for EVERY shot he took

(a camera can not be held motionless by hand, even the best tripod will transmit vibration)
I don't think anyone could have handheld the cameras he used :-):-)

Sel .......
SelNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 4:12 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
A general rule of thumb for MINIMUM handheld shutter speeds is 1/focal length. So:
Shooting a 28 mm wide-angle photo you could handhold at about 1/30 second.
Shooting at 300 mm telephoto you could handhold at about 1/300 second.
As you zoom in on your subject, not only is the subject magnified, but so is any camera movement. What I have suggested is only a guideline. If you have a very steady hand you can probably do better than this.

this is an interesting rule. very very safe figures to work with. i gues i am used to taking handheld shots at lo shutter speeds as withmy fz30 i hvae no choice. but i really dont think a tri is needed especially at speeds as high as 1/30 i mean gees thts pretty fast. maybe unless u have had too much cofee but yea.

below is a andheld shot i took at 1/6 shutter handheld. i dont think ther is a need for a tripod. and it was taken at 35mm (35equiv)

so according to the rule am i ment to take the shot at 1/35 (which is the 35mm equiv) or 1/8 which is true focal. ???



ken

1/6 shutter and no tripod. handheld
Attached Images
 
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 4:22 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

As I stated when I posted that rule, this is only a guideline. It is not one that I made up. I have read it in several photography books over the years. But of course you don't have to shoot at a higher speed. Your image clearly indicates that. Most people if they exercise care when they are taking photographs can take a fairly clear handheld shot. You are obviously one of those people. I envy you. But personally, I cannot even shoot effectively using the rule that I posted. I'm too shaky, and have to rely on a tripod for just about everything that I photograph. As you stated, the rule is very conservative. If you want to assure yourself that you will have a high percentage of good clear images, following that rule should give you some confidence that you will be successful.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2006, 4:26 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

jphess wrote:
Quote:
As I stated when I posted that rule, this is only a guideline. It is not one that I made up. I have read it in several photography books over the years. But of course you don't have to shoot at a higher speed. Your image clearly indicates that. Most people if they exercise care when they are taking photographs can take a fairly clear handheld shot. You are obviously one of those people. I envy you. But personally, I cannot even shoot effectively using the rule that I posted. I'm too shaky, and have to rely on a tripod for just about everything that I photograph. As you stated, the rule is very conservative. If you want to assure yourself that you will have a high percentage of good clear images, following that rule should give you some confidence that you will be successful.

yea i understood where you were coming from when i made the post. i think if i had no optical image stablizer i would have to rely on higher shutter speeds

but like i said it is an interesting rule an di will remember it when composing my shots

thanks


kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2006, 7:05 PM   #26
Member
 
honus402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 38
Default

I think it might be a toss-up. ASA 400 without IS or ASA 100 with it. I tried the FZ30 before I bought my S9000. The FZ30's IS does work well. The FZ30 has a lot more noise at a given ASA but the FZ30's IS allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds when hand-held.

I bought the S9000 over the FZ30 for several other reasons important to me, like AA batteries, CF memory and slightly wider angle. I liked the dual command wheels on the FZ30 and I am impressed with the lens.

For hand held low-light, it would be a toss-up to me.
honus402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 6:55 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
kenmck15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,568
Default

honus402 wrote:
Quote:
For hand held low-light, it would be a toss-up to me.

i own fz30, and i have to say in a lo light situation the hi iso capability does have much greater benefits.

as you can see in my shots at 1/6 shutter with IS object is stationary. OIS Only helps on stationary items. Portraits or cars etc in lo light OIS helps big time. As soon as you try to photograph sometime moving quickly in low light OIS is useless. Doesnt make any differnece

Now hi iso on th eother hand increases shutter speed which not only reduced blurring on stationary items but also on faster moving items. Ofcourse the flip side is more noise but on a cam like s9000 noise isnt really an issue until higher iso values are met.

ken
kenmck15 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:14 AM.