Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 92

Thread: Are monopods enough for exposure >1 second?

  1. #41

    Default

    Hah, there's a reason why pros prefer heavier cameras, the greater inertia means it's easier to stabalise. Have you taken physics lessons before?

    I sense you have a problem somewhere, hence your extreme need to prove to us that you can do something that isn't possible. As Kit says, hang around and learn somemore.

  2. #42

    Default

    The fact remains your heavy expensive cameras can't even stabilise at 1/30s. Thats truly pathetic.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    In Paradise
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Originally posted by maddog
    The fact remains your heavy expensive cameras can't even stabilise at 1/30s. Thats truly pathetic.
    Is that a fact(any basis on that?) or just what you think?

  4. #44
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Originally posted by maddog
    The fact remains your heavy expensive cameras can't even stabilise at 1/30s. Thats truly pathetic.
    What's truly pathetic here is someone who doesn't know better trying so hard to convince himself(at least) that he knows the world.

    Btw, I'm not happy with some of my handheld shots at lower speed but they're definitely better than what you've been proud of so far.

  5. #45

    Default

    I see someone has a slight problem here, no matter. Fact remains we do know what we're talking about, and I think we do have a more strigent editing process as well.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Here. An image of mine shot at slow speed handheld(about 1/15 or 1/20) with my elbow resting on the railing. Sharpness turned out to be just ok. Try comparing yours to this image.
    http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=158982

    Sorry, I can't offer a handheld 6secs shot for comparison because its beyond my wildest dream to even think of taking that kind of shots.

  7. #47
    Midnight
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by maddog
    But seriously can any of you guys take shots this sharp at 4-6 seconds? BTW I'm using an Oly C-2100UZ. Think you guys are comparing your huge cameras with heavy lenses with mine. No wonder you can't hold it still. 1/30s for my camera is too easy to stabilize.
    maddog, the 1/(focal length) rule for handholding definitely applies for me with my C-2100UZ... with IS, I get at most 1-2 stops more leeway to work with, but even then I notice camera blur rearing its ugly head. At full zoom (380mm equivalent), I cannot handhold the camera at anything slower than 1/125s even with IS, and at the wide end (38mm equivalent), 1/60s is about the limit for pin-sharpness, with 1/30s shots being only fairly acceptable. And this is the same camera as yours. Moreover, the point that was made about lighter lenses being even harder to handhold is very true indeed.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Originally posted by Midnight
    maddog, the 1/(focal length) rule for handholding definitely applies for me with my C-2100UZ... with IS, I get at most 1-2 stops more leeway to work with, but even then I notice camera blur rearing its ugly head. At full zoom (380mm equivalent), I cannot handhold the camera at anything slower than 1/125s even with IS, and at the wide end (38mm equivalent), 1/60s is about the limit for pin-sharpness, with 1/30s shots being only fairly acceptable. And this is the same camera as yours. Moreover, the point that was made about lighter lenses being even harder to handhold is very true indeed.
    His camera is not much better(if any) than yours. The image said everything didn't it?

  9. #49

    Default

    Sorry, I only have this to say...


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    *wipes a tear*

    Quotes to keep:

    I see you've not heard of IS.
    Its not magic. Its just technology which you guys have not used before. Do you think my six second shot is blurry?
    The fact remains your heavy expensive cameras can't even stabilise at 1/30s. Thats truly pathetic.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    hey! this discussion is getting out of hand!

    perhaps we can invite maddog to do a demonstration he may have some te4 yi4 gong1 neng2
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Originally posted by mpenza
    hey! this discussion is getting out of hand!

    perhaps we can invite maddog to do a demonstration he may have some te4 yi4 gong1 neng2
    Something like carving a poem on a single strand of hair?

    Anyway, imo, the mere pressing of the shutter release button will mostly render the image being not sharp.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Guys guys, hold on Attacking him does not make you a hero. Seems everyone has already expressed himself clearly, let's stop at here, ok?

  13. #53

    Default

    Actually I can handhold a camera for 6 seconds and get a sharp shot.....
















































    .... but only if the shutter speed is 1/300s and above!

    Just an attempt at humour to lighten up the situation. Sheesh... 290 posts overnight. With this kind of thread... no wonder.

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    OK guys,

    Maddog claimed that he managed 6 sec hand-held with his IS lens, based on a picture he has taken.

    The picture is a wide angle night shot of an HDB flat. He has posted a 1:1 section of the picture earlier in this thread to substantiate his claim.

    To him, the picture is of acceptible sharpness, and he is apparently happy with it. That may not be the case for the others in this discussion.

    To me, the picture is not pin sharp, but is way beyond my capability to achieve (6 seconds hand-held).

    It is clear that there is a difference in expectation of what can be considered sharp here. There is no need to trash Maddog for that.

    I believe many has made their point about what they feel about Maddog's picture. So please stop it here OK?

    - Roy
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  15. #55
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Originally posted by roygoh
    OK guys,

    Maddog claimed that he managed 6 sec hand-held with his IS lens, based on a picture he has taken.

    The picture is a wide angle night shot of an HDB flat. He has posted a 1:1 section of the picture earlier in this thread to substantiate his claim.

    To him, the picture is of acceptible sharpness, and he is apparently happy with it. That may not be the case for the others in this discussion.

    To me, the picture is not pin sharp, but is way beyond my capability to achieve (6 seconds hand-held).

    It is clear that there is a difference in expectation of what can be considered sharp here. There is no need to trash Maddog for that.

    I believe many has made their point about what they feel about Maddog's picture. So please stop it here OK?

    - Roy
    To me, the sharpness takes second place. I don't really care what's sharp to him or his standards of judging. What irks me is the persistant cliffhanging on to a misconception that IS can replace a tripod and pretend that he knows the world.

  16. #56

    Default

    Originally posted by maddog
    What do you think? Pretty good for a six second shot no?
    Since you are shooting a static object, why don't you do a side-by-side test? One 6-sec with tripod, one handheld. This should reveal how close/far the difference is.
    (void *) &NHY;

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by Kit


    To me, the sharpness takes second place. I don't really care what's sharp to him or his standards of judging. What irks me is the persistant cliffhanging on to a misconception that IS can replace a tripod and pretend that he knows the world.
    I was getting to that...

    Maddog,

    I am inclined to say that you are somehow provoked in this discussion. However, that's no excuse for making careless remarks. There are enough experts here to spot any incorrect or misleading claims that anyone might make.

    Let's not turn this into a flame war, OK?

    - Roy
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Oh joy. Just when I thought Clubsnap was starting to get boring...

    [1] We're missing the point here guys. Right that 6 second shot is (very/reasonably/not-anywhere-close-to, delete as appropriate) sharp. But beyond that, what's the point? The shot doesn't really do a huge amount for me sad to say.

    [2] Maddog, I'm ready to believe you can take 6s exposures. Seriously. But equally seriously, you should also have a word with Canon, Nikon and Olympus, because they're only claiming 2-3 stops a difference in shutter speed from using an image stablisation system. Whereas, you're getting about 7-8 stops.

    Or, put another way, you're holding your camera steady about 125 times longer than the average human being.

    [3] Erm, that's about it really. You guys really should have a look at some of my coke bottle pics. Blow your mind away.

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Oh joy. Just when I thought Clubsnap was starting to get boring...

    [1] We're missing the point here guys. Right that 6 second shot is (very/reasonably/not-anywhere-close-to, delete as appropriate) sharp. But beyond that, what's the point? The shot doesn't really do a huge amount for me sad to say.

    [2] Maddog, I'm ready to believe you can take 6s exposures. Seriously. But equally seriously, you should also have a word with Canon, Nikon and Olympus, because they're only claiming 2-3 stops a difference in shutter speed from using an image stablisation system. Whereas, you're getting about 7-8 stops.

    Or, put another way, you're holding your camera steady about 125 times longer than the average human being.

    [3] Erm, that's about it really. You guys really should have a look at some of my coke bottle pics. Blow your mind away.
    Hey, I am also interested in the construction plans of your coke bottle lens. I am trying to put one together using the latest Vallina Coke bottles. Heard that these are actually ED grade.
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    [3] Erm, that's about it really. You guys really should have a look at some of my coke bottle pics. Blow your mind away.
    show? show!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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