Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 7, 2006, 7:13 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You guessed it...Same campfire, same camera, same lens, taken at ISO 3200 :-)

Hand Held at 1/10 second (again).

Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 3:48 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Thanks JohnG! :-)

JimC, those are greatly taken!

I agree with you that getting the best of thethree worldscan bethe best thing ever!! :!::|

BTW, if you didn't have S.R. during those times...I imagine that you might need ISO 12800?? :lol:

Still, a larger aperture lenscan alsoprovide that two stops of advantage!

Great informations!
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 5:32 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Any idea whether the Pentax K100D model will detect the S.R. compensation and adjust the ISO level accordingly? Or would it just ignore the fact that the S.R. is on, and continue using the same ISO level?

Regards.

BTW, the PENTAX K100D holds the HOLY GRAIL! (Good ISO 800 - ISO 1600, and usable ISO 3200) (S.R. that compensates for rotational movements as well) (& Fast F/1.4 primes available!) It has all the THREE aspects!

Lowest ISO level is at ISO 200 (Pretty fast lowest ISO), and that isas good quality as other dSLR camera's ISO 100! (My shutter speed would be a level faster all the time!)

I always shoot at the lowest ISO level possible, when I don't need the higher ISO levels; so if the camera's lowest ISO was atISO 100, I would be shooting with ISO 100 when I don't need the higher ISO levels. :idea:On the other hand, I won't purposely set the ISO level from ISO 100 to ISO 200.

:|



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 6:58 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Shake reduction/VR works independently of iso. SR/VR does not affect exposure in any way (the camera doesn't choose different shutter speeds/aperature/iso because of SR/VR). You simply gain the ability to shoot handheld at lower shutter speeds. You as the photogapher will have to decide how this affects your shooting.


rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 7:33 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Thanks rjseeney!! Now I understand!!

Regards.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 7:52 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Still, a larger aperture lenscan alsoprovide that two stops of advantage!
A brighter lens would also help reduce blur from subject movement.

Those images aren't tack sharp. You're going to get a touch of blur at shutter speeds that slow taking photos of non-stationary subjects, even if you use a tripod. But, the percentage of keepers is high enough for me (probably around one out of three images without too much blur, since the subjects are not moving much).

The convenience of a lighter zoom with good focal range like my 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is nice to have for flexibility (it's my favorite "walk around"), and it all depends on your use for the images. For snapshots at family parties, etc., I'm not going to be printing them at large sizes.

So, the stabilization is a way for me to capture memories of those events, without a lot of trouble.

I actually had an external flash with me (actually two of them), as well as some brighter lenses. I keep a tripod in the car, too. When I realized the campfire was providing enough light for 1/10 second at around ISO 3200 and f/4 (and I shot shutter priority, with the intention of letting it underexpose in the darker areas if need be), I decided not to use the brighter lenses or flash. I sometimes push the camera another stop further than these were taken at.

For one thing, flash is very irritating if you want to capture candid photos at night. This was an annual party that I've taken photos at every year I've attended for over 20 years now. So, they're used to it (most are family members). The guy holding the baby is my brother-in-law and he's holding my great niece (my sister's, daughter's daughter). But, they always complain about the flash (especically around the campfire at night). So, I didn't use it at all this year (inside or outside) for any of the photos taken.

I send a lot of the people attending links to albums each year (for about the past 6 or 7 years I've put images from the party online at photo printing sites they can order prints from after I switched to digital). It's a way to capture kids growing up, etc. (since many of the people attending come from all over the country). Some years, we have hundreds of people, camping out in tents all over my brother-in-law's property. This year, the attendence was small.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 9:37 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

JimC, that sounds great. It must be an enjoyable experience for you.

Sometimes I also like to shoot without theflash, to preserve the pureessence & moodof the scene. Sometimes image stabilization can be very useful when you want to use a lower ISO level to preserve the imagequality, but wished that you could have that extra stop.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 11:58 AM   #18
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Those are more extreme examples. Most people don't take photos of non-stationary subjects at 1/10 second. But, I've actually got some at 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 and even 1/2 second from the same party (away from the fire), and one or two would be OK at smaller viewing sizes (although most have too much motion blur going that slow). lol

The "rule of thumb" for a hand held photo is 1/focal length. So, if you're using a 100mm lens, use 1/100 second or faster. If you're using a 200mm lens, use 1/200 second or faster, etc.

Of course, some people can hold a camera steadier than others, and some may require even faster shutter speeds to reduce blur from camera shake.

Here's an example of a snapshot taken at a concert last month. It was taken at ISO 1600, f/4, 210mm, 1/100 second.

Since the sensor is smaller than 35mm film in a DSLR model like my KM 5D, you'd have the same angle of view that you would using a 315mm lens on a 35mm camera.

So, for best results without blur from camera shake, it would be a good idea to keep shutter speeds around 1/300 second or faster if you're not using a tripod.

With anti-shake, I don't even worry about trying to hold the camera steady at shutter speeds 1/3 that fast.

KM 5D, ISO 1600 using a Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4, wide open at f/4 on the long end of the lens (BTW, this lens is softer on it's long end), hand held at 1/100 second (much slower than the "rule of thumb" for this focal length).

Straight from the camera with no post processing except for downsizing with Irfanview and saved at 85% JPEG Quality.

This is a $79.95 lens (brand new in the box). It would cost me 10 times as much to get a brighter lens with it's focal range (for example, a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ), and the brighter lens would be larger and heavier, too. I've also got a version of it brightened (making the effective ISO speed even higher). This is straight from the camera.


Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 12:30 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Cool...very cool, andgood quality too; not bad for a 80 dollar zoom lens! (But you must thank A.S.) ; )

I personally believe that I can hold the camera steadier than others (Average Joe's), judging bythe way I could managed the ultrashaky Sony DSC-N1 of mine!! :lol::lol::lol: (Seriously, that ultra compact camerawas just "Pure shaky" that's all!) :shock:

Nevertheless, I have been shooting with it for a year already; and I have produced many excellent results with it! :G (Yes, even in a concert!!:shock However sadly, I was stupid enough to crankit's saturation level right up to the max during the concert!! (As if the saturation of that N1camera wasn't already strong enough...) :idea:




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 12:47 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It doesn't seem to be a bad lens for what it costs.

Interestingly, the lens has a bad reputation (from opinion surveys). But, I've noticed that with lenses for Minolta mount, they're sometimes sharper than the same lenses for other mounts (probably because of the AF design with the motor in the body, differences in lens mounts with different distances to the sensor, etc.).

For example, a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 AF lens often gets complaints for being a soft lens on a Canon DSLR at wider apertures, especially on the wider end of the lens. But, it looks relatively sharp wide open on a KM DSLR body. I was surprised when I saw how much difference there is looking at images from users of both.

Of course, lens vendors figured that out pretty fast. CametaAuctions was selling it for something like $149.95. But, when KM DSLR owners starting praising it as being a sharp lens on a KM body, the price pretty much doubled. lol

I'm not much of a sports shooter. But, I just looked through some photos a week or two ago that someone took at a night baseball game using this cheap Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4. They actually turned out much better than I would have expected. The shutter speeds were ranging from about 1/250 to as slow as 1/125 second with it at ISO 1600 (not as fast as you might want for sports, but better than some of the alternatives), and he was even using a TC with it for a number of them. Sure, he had a tad bit of motion blur in some. But, most weren't too bad at all.

I saw some photos from a night soccer game from a KM owner using it that weren't too shabby either.

This lens can shoot at f/2.8 from around 70-85mm, then f/3.2 from around 85-120mm, then f/3.5 from about 120-140mm, with f/4 available from around 140-210mm.

So, you're within a half stop of f/2.8 through much of the zoom range, and only a stop down on the long end. For $79.95, as little as I use a lens with this focal range, it works for me. lol

CametaAuctions has raised the price $10 to $89.95 now. Only time will tell if it will keep going up.

JimC 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 6:36 AM.