«

Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.

I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.

Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.

carl

Buy one and find out for yourself. Only ~$30 for a cheapie. I own 3, and they make for some great night shots!

"carl" <> wrote in message news: m...
> Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
> I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
> pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
> never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
> myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
> possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
> seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
> 400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
> interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
> if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
> Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.
>
> carl

carl wrote:

> Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
> I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
> pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
> never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
> myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
> possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
> seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
> 400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
> interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
> if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
> Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.

Yes, get one.. Even a cheapie will make a difference. I have two.. One very
inexpensive one, and a quality one.. The inexpensive one is light and
compact. It normally stays in my car and goes with me on holidays.

It's something you probably won't need a lot, but when you need one, you NEED
one

Hi Carl,

Why not use the flash? I know it is dependant on the subject, but if people
in close quarters then I'd use it if available lighting is low, as it
freezes the subject as well.

I expect you have changed the white balance settings on the camera for the
required lighting, otherwise its a case of putting up with blurred objects
as they are too fast for the shutter speed needed for the lighting
conditions.

You could try over-riding the exposure meter in shutter priority on the
camera and see if anything can be recovered in Photoshop/Paint Shop, but no
doubt detail will be lost. Experiment is the key I suppose, as with
everything in life.

Cheers,
Stephen
Edinburgh
"carl" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
> I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
> pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
> never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
> myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
> possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
> seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
> 400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
> interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
> if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
> Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.
>
> carl

> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>

remember that if you use fill-in flash a tripod can still be usefull for
shots of people so long as they are not moving to much.

perhaps get a mini pocket tripod to start with. There are very cheap, but
obviously you can't always use them. It'll give you a chance to assess the
benefits of using a tripod.

Luke

It depends on what YOU want. I can answer that I would want one if I
did not have one, but frankly, most people would not bother to use one if
they had one, so it would do them no good at all.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"carl" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
> I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
> pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
> never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
> myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
> possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
> seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
> 400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
> interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
> if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
> Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.
>
> carl

On 29 Jul 2003 21:31:05 -0700, in
<> ,
(carl) said:

>Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
>I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
>pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
>never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
>myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
>possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
>seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
>400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
>interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
>if it's really worth it.

I have an S30, & it's such a light camera that you would only need a
really cheap tripod, which might make a difference to your calculations.

> Blurring is only partially caused by me,
>there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.

<grin> Gaffer tape & cable ties are your friend.

> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
>that reality?

It will help somewhat, but as you say, you'll still get motion blur from
subject movement. Me, I brace my hand on a table, wall, bar or whatever.

> And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
>Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.

What are we, your mother? - You'll have to make up your own mind.
Go buy/borrow a cheapo tripod & give it a try. Even if you don't want it
for people shots, it'll come in handy for ISO 50 landscapes at night,
etc.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

You could try to compromise with a monopod.
They are less obtrusive, help in stabilizing the camera, and you can take them
in places that do not allow tripods.
Matter of fact some manufacturers of canes make them and when not used as
monopods they help when walking on uneven paths.

http://www.stoneypoint.com/monopod_index.html
Rosita

Joseph Meehan wrote:

> It depends on what YOU want. I can answer that I would want one if I
> did not have one, but frankly, most people would not bother to use one if
> they had one, so it would do them no good at all.
>
I don't have one because I like to enjoy myself while I am doing things
that I might be taking pictures of. Having to manage a camera is enough
of a task, detracting from the main pursuit, without carrying and
keeping track of miscellaneous additional parts. But if the main
empahais of your life it taking pictures, you will surely want one.

(carl) writes:

> Ok, I know, it depends, but I'm interested in opinions anyway.
>
> I have a Canon S30, which is a nice consumer camera. I take lots of
> pictures, but one problem I have is blurring, of course. I almost
> never use the flash, so low-light shots are problematic. I've trained
> myself to be fairly good with technique. I brace myself when
> possible, breathe carefully, etc. I also pump up the ISO where it
> seems useful, although this has its own drawbacks (ISO 200 is ok, ISO
> 400 is funky, and ISO 800 is impressionistic, although sometimes
> interesting). Now a tripod would obviously help me, but I'm not sure
> if it's really worth it. Blurring is only partially caused by me,
> there's also the annoying fact that my subjects insist on moving also.
> Would it really improve people shots that much to have a tripod given
> that reality? And the inconvenience seems a trifle much.
>
> Convince me, one way or the other. Thanks.

You can make a lot of progress by just resting the camera on something
-- either bare, or with a beanbag (or "pillow-pod") in between. I've
taken multiple-second exposures (wide-angle lense) with the camera
pressed against the side of a stone pillar using a beanbag, even. A
beanbag doesn't solve the 30-second exposure problem too well, but it
gives you several additional f-stops of shutter speed before you get
blurring compared to handheld, and is *much* lighter and quicker to
set up than a tripod.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd->, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>