|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
I go by the logic that the longer your lens (focal length), the more pron-ed to camera shakewill itbe. So what happens at the opposite end? (The wide end) [Iassume that it will be the complete opposite?]
|
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
|
![]()
You're still as prone to actual shake, but you won't notice it as much at the wide-angle end because the "shake angle" is a smaller portion of the field of view at wide angle than it is at telephoto.
Imagine a long rod attached to the end of your lens, pointing forward. Your camera shake will move the rod around, creating a sort of cone-shaped pattern with the narrow end at the camera. Now, at the wide angle end of your zoom, your field of view is a huge cone compared to the "cone of shaking" (not a technical term at all :? ), but at the tele end, your field of view is a much narrower cone, and your imaginary shake cone is bigger compared to it than to the wide-angle field of view. The bottom line is that for a given amount of shake, you'll notice it more with longer focal lengths and less with shorter focal lengths. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]()
Thanks for the interesting illustration.
Sois it true that I will be able to keep a wider angle shot more steady and keep it less blurry? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
|
![]()
Think of two lenses. One is a telephoto that covers 10 degrees of the field of view, the other a wide angle that covers 100 degrees.
Now suppose that during an exposure the camera turns through one degree. With the telephoto, one degree is 10% of the field of view. With the wide-angle it is only 1%. The blur due to this motion will be 10 times worse on the tele. You won't be able to keep a wide angle any steadier than any other lens. It just won't blur your pictures as much. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]() Quote:
I am concerned about the blurry part. So the wide angle lens will somehow be less proned to blurry shots compared to a longer focal length. (I meant: kind of less shaky - easier to control) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
![]()
The general rule of thumb in 35mm is that you need a shutter speed 1/FL to handhold and not get blurry pictures.
28mm = 1/30 50mm = 1/60 400mm = 1/500 Just a generalization/guideline, and with dslr dont forget to convert to 35mm equivilent focal lengths. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
|
![]()
I don't know any technical details, but yes, you can use longer shutter lengths at wide angles.
This is a very rare kind of case, but I shot a wide angle picture at one full second shutter speed with no blur... now that is an extreme, no "real" shot could be done like that, I took that while sitting back with the camera resting against my body for very good steadiness, and my camera has image stabilization. Now blind luck aside, if you use a wide angle image stabilization lens, I bet you can take steady shots at 1/4 easily. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
|
![]()
tmoreau wrote:
Quote:
Riley |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|