View Poll Results: Which gave you steadier aiming and less camera shake? (see post #9)

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Camera and lens alone

    3 30.00%
  • Camera, lens and extra weight

    7 70.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by MrB View Post
    But muscles have a greater tendency to tremble when they have to work harder!

    Philip
    When pushing cars perhaps, but I don't think the difference between two lenses would make a lot of difference (I can hand hold a 1Ds3 + 70-200/2.8L + 580EX II flash with no problems).

  2. #22
    Dizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Concrete, WA. USA
    Posts
    686
    Real Name
    Mike

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    When pushing cars perhaps, but I don't think the difference between two lenses would make a lot of difference (I can hand hold a 1Ds3 + 70-200/2.8L + 580EX II flash with no problems).

    But can you push a car?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizzy View Post
    But can you push a car?
    I own a Ford, so it kinda goes with the territory!

  4. #24
    shreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,502
    Real Name
    Ian

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    The balance and grip on the body must also be taken into account. On D3 with a 70-200 mm lens, the balance is wonderful, far better than some other lenses in the range, and I have managed pin sharp images, handheld where I would have not anticipated such good results. So I have to say that whilst this combination is very weighty, it balances superbly and as such is easy to get sharp shots, whereas for example, the same lens on say a D200/300 is not as inherently stable! IMHO

  5. #25
    benm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    316
    Real Name
    Ben

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Enough debate. Have you and your friend done any actual testing? And the result is ... ?

  6. #26
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Texas
    Posts
    831
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    I decided to try my hand at hand hold shooting with this:

    Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    My Orion 1,250mm f/13.9 ( 90mm Ø ) Maksutov Cassegrain on my Sigma SD14 with Power Grip and a combined weight of 2.877 kg, 6 lbs 6 oz. The 35mm equivalent focal length is 2,125 mm. Hand held really is horrible. The 0.95° x 0.63° field of view meant that I could not keep the image steady at all. The manual focus was even harder since I needed one hand to hold the scope and camera leaving the other to adjust the focus and, of course, the stability was even worse.

    To even get an acceptable exposure was also a challenge. The fixed aperture of f/13.9 left me with only ISO and shutter speed. Even with full Sun, I needed 1/2000th to achieve even a minimal stable image at an ISO of 1600 ( The highest ISO available on the SD14 ). Not having military sniper training, and even those guys don't hand hold, I tried my best to focus and frame on my Horse Waco who was out across the pasture as I stood ( I considered shooting from a seated position, but thought that would be cheating - This has to be done standing ) on a second floor balcony. This is the result:

    Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Some details about the image itself. This is right out of the SD14. I always shoot RAW, but the SD14 cooks and embeds a JPG within the X3F RAW file. Apart from extracting and saving the embedded JPG, nothing was done to the image.

    I am actually surprised by the quality I was able to achieve. The focus was fine enough for individual tail hairs to be clearly defined, but the Maksutov Cassegrain's extremely shallow depth of field resulted in Waco's front legs and face being already border line on achieving an acceptable focus.

    Now who's up try try to shoot a hand held photo with something like a 200mm Ø Ritchey-Chretien ( far better image quality ) ?
    Last edited by Steaphany; 27th September 2011 at 11:45 PM.

  7. #27
    Dizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Concrete, WA. USA
    Posts
    686
    Real Name
    Mike

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Steaphany View Post

    Not having military sniper training, and even those guys don't hand hold, I tried my best to focus and frame on my Horse Waco who was out across the pasture as I stood ( I considered shooting from a seated position, but thought that would be cheating - This has to be done standing ) on a second floor balcony. This is the result:

    Now who's up try try to shoot a hand held photo with something like a 200mm Ø Ritchey-Chretien ( far better image quality ) ?
    Steaphany, considering how that weight was packed into such a short distance, I think you did remarkably well. Waco didn't seem to mind..

    A 200MM R/C from Astro-Tech with the carbon tube weighs in at 16.5 lb, and the 250mm unit from Orion is closer to 34 lb. No thanks..I couldn't hold it up long enough to get an exposure..

  8. #28
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Texas
    Posts
    831
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: Shutter Speed for Hand Holding Zoom Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizzy View Post
    A 200MM R/C from Astro-Tech with the carbon tube weighs in at 16.5 lb, and the 250mm unit from Orion is closer to 34 lb. No thanks..I couldn't hold it up long enough to get an exposure..
    Mike,

    You saw through my joke.
    But, I also figured you would

    Waco was far enough away ( I'm guessing she and I were 200 to 300 feet, 61 to 92 meters, apart ), and napping, so she never noticed. If she did, she would have come over asking for treats.

    My usual Horse photography is macro photos of noses, they come right up to me wanting treats and to see what I'm doing so they could help.
    Last edited by Steaphany; 28th September 2011 at 04:57 AM. Reason: Added a bit more

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •