Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Camera Shake

Reply
Thread Tools

Camera Shake

 
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2004

"rda" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Abf6d.196$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Hi guys, I am currently having a huge problem with camera shake.
> I am using a canon 300D/DRebel with Kenko 300 pro 3x teleconverter on a
> 75-300mm lens.
> I am trying to capture some lunar photos with more detail then the 75-300
> was able to give me on its own (although I did get some good shots).
> The image looks nice and sharp in the viewfinder (suggesting that the
> problem is not with the 3x converter), but the final photos are always a
> little blurry even when using high ISO settings and relatively short

shutter
> times.
> The camera is mounted on a manfrotto tripod & I am using mirror lock up
> (hacked firmware on the camera allows this).
> Is 900mm just to long to expect sharp photos or is there anything else I
> could try?
>
> Thanks


That lens is "soft" to begin with.
When you add the high magnification of 3x to it, you not only magnify the
image, but you do two other things:

-You decrease the incoming light to only 1/6th to 1/8th what you have
without the 3x, and you magnify the already (relatively) blurry image
produced by that lens.

Remember, too, that the moon moves quickly enough to require fairly high
shutter times (higher than one would intuitively guess, anyway).

No, 900mm is not the problem.
The problem is you're using an already slow lens, and then slowing it to a
CRAWL in terms of light transmission.

A 5.6 lens with a 1.4x becomes an f8 lens.
With a 2x it becomes an f11 (!!) lens.
With a **3x** it's a at least another full stop dimmer (only half the light
allowed by a 2x).
This is SOOO dark that you're forcing the camera to use seriously slow
shutters, and severely...optically compromising the lens.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2004
rda <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Hi guys, I am currently having a huge problem with camera shake.
>I am using a canon 300D/DRebel with Kenko 300 pro 3x teleconverter on a
>75-300mm lens.


I've got the Canon 75-300 lens as well.

>I am trying to capture some lunar photos with more detail then the 75-300
>was able to give me on its own (although I did get some good shots).


Magnifying a lens doesn't make it any sharper. It just makes the image
bigger. The 75-300 is pretty soft at 300mm and I cannot imagine that
you'd get a sharp image with a 3x converter.

A rule of thumb with telescopes is that the maximum useful
magnification is 50 times the aperture in inches, and that
assumes near-perfect optics. Beyond that and you're only
magnifying blur.

>The image looks nice and sharp in the viewfinder (suggesting that the
>problem is not with the 3x converter), but the final photos are always a
>little blurry even when using high ISO settings and relatively short shutter
>times.
>The camera is mounted on a manfrotto tripod & I am using mirror lock up
>(hacked firmware on the camera allows this).
>Is 900mm just to long to expect sharp photos or is there anything else I
>could try?


You could try a 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, 1600mm focal
length. At prime focus you'd get pretty sharp images limited mostly
by atmospheric effects. I've used a 10" 2500mm telescope to decent
effect.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mikey S.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
My guess would be the converter is the problem, it may not be up to the
task..and that 75-300 lens isn't the sharpest either.
put them together and it might explain the problem. Try going to less zoom,
maybe 200 and see how that is. Stop the lens down some too.

With mirror lockup and a nice solid tripod you should be able to get a
decent moon shot with the 300D , here is mine ( though I was only using 400
mm ( a canon 100-400 L) and a canon 1.4 converter, so this was 560 mm, then
with the 1.6 multiplier I got an effective 896 ( 900) equivalent ( compared
to a 35 mm camera).
http://photo.mike721.com/gallery/moon



--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"rda" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Abf6d.196$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Hi guys, I am currently having a huge problem with camera shake.
> I am using a canon 300D/DRebel with Kenko 300 pro 3x teleconverter on a
> 75-300mm lens.
> I am trying to capture some lunar photos with more detail then the 75-300
> was able to give me on its own (although I did get some good shots).
> The image looks nice and sharp in the viewfinder (suggesting that the
> problem is not with the 3x converter), but the final photos are always a
> little blurry even when using high ISO settings and relatively short
> shutter
> times.
> The camera is mounted on a manfrotto tripod & I am using mirror lock up
> (hacked firmware on the camera allows this).
> Is 900mm just to long to expect sharp photos or is there anything else I
> could try?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> RDA
> 300D
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2004
In message <Vag6d.35627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.


Not when it is orange.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2004
In message <Abf6d.196$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"rda" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi guys, I am currently having a huge problem with camera shake.
>I am using a canon 300D/DRebel with Kenko 300 pro 3x teleconverter on a
>75-300mm lens.


Unless this is some lens I have never heard of, no 75-300mm zooms are
sharp enough to warrant using a 1.4x teleconverter, no less a 3x
teleconverter.

Teleconverters are only truly useful with very sharp, expensive lenses.
All they do with mid- and low-quality lenses is magnify the softness.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Halstead
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>In message <Vag6d.35627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.


Even then 10 seconds should be enough to show the surface on the unlit
portion of a half moon.
>
>Not when it is orange.


At ASA 100 I'd still expect 1/25 to1/60 or so which is still far too
slow for a telephoto of that size except on a tripod.

Nor would I expect an inexpensive zoom of that range to be tack sharp
through its whole range. The wide range can be very handy, but even
in expensive lenses the quality would suffer at that wide a range.

The AF Nikor 75 to 300 f4.5-5.6 is a relatively inexpensive lens in
the $300 range. It gives quite good results and focuses very fast on
the D-70 *unless* it has to go through the whole range from close
focus to infinity.

When spending $1000 for a camera body I'd try to give it the lenses to
do it justice. However I have seen the D-70 advertised as low as in
the $700 range.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
George E. Cawthon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004


Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >In message <Vag6d.35627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.

>
> Even then 10 seconds should be enough to show the surface on the unlit
> portion of a half moon.
> >
> >Not when it is orange.

>
> At ASA 100 I'd still expect 1/25 to1/60 or so which is still far too
> slow for a telephoto of that size except on a tripod.
>
> Nor would I expect an inexpensive zoom of that range to be tack sharp
> through its whole range. The wide range can be very handy, but even
> in expensive lenses the quality would suffer at that wide a range.
>
> The AF Nikor 75 to 300 f4.5-5.6 is a relatively inexpensive lens in
> the $300 range. It gives quite good results and focuses very fast on
> the D-70 *unless* it has to go through the whole range from close
> focus to infinity.
>
> When spending $1000 for a camera body I'd try to give it the lenses to
> do it justice. However I have seen the D-70 advertised as low as in
> the $700 range.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


Good Grief, doesn't everybody know that the moon recieves the same
light as the earth. Thus the correct exposure is 1/ASA at f16. For
and ASA of 100 that is 1/100 at f16 or 1/200 at f11, etc. The only
correction you need is for a lousy atmosphere due to smoke, haze etc.
which is likely to be less than 2 f stops (otherwise get the hell in
doors and quit breathing that crap). Which means that at f5.6 1/800
sec is normal and 2 stops more would be 1/200 second. So what is all
this talk about 1/25 second? The moon through dense fog? a forest
fire? Mount St. Helens ash? your sun glasses?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Halstead
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:43:59 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>Roger Halstead wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> >In message <Vag6d.35627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.

>>
>> Even then 10 seconds should be enough to show the surface on the unlit
>> portion of a half moon.
>> >
>> >Not when it is orange.

>>
>> At ASA 100 I'd still expect 1/25 to1/60 or so which is still far too
>> slow for a telephoto of that size except on a tripod.
>>
>> Nor would I expect an inexpensive zoom of that range to be tack sharp
>> through its whole range. The wide range can be very handy, but even
>> in expensive lenses the quality would suffer at that wide a range.
>>
>> The AF Nikor 75 to 300 f4.5-5.6 is a relatively inexpensive lens in
>> the $300 range. It gives quite good results and focuses very fast on
>> the D-70 *unless* it has to go through the whole range from close
>> focus to infinity.
>>
>> When spending $1000 for a camera body I'd try to give it the lenses to
>> do it justice. However I have seen the D-70 advertised as low as in
>> the $700 range.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Good Grief, doesn't everybody know that the moon recieves the same
>light as the earth. Thus the correct exposure is 1/ASA at f16. For
>and ASA of 100 that is 1/100 at f16 or 1/200 at f11, etc. The only


Yup and with that lens and a 3X telextender he's looking at roughly at
f16. Take into account the haze when just above the horizon and you
get 1/25 - 1/60 At least out here in the farm country with summer
haze from the vegetation you get a good 2 f stops when close to the
horizon. Were you out in the Boulder CO area I doubt it'd even be one
stop on most evenings. Of course that'd still leave him with a soft
lens and a 3X telextender to make it even softer. I seriously doubt
he's using a really high quality telextender as they are quite
expensive so in addition it's going to be soft as well.


>correction you need is for a lousy atmosphere due to smoke, haze etc.
>which is likely to be less than 2 f stops (otherwise get the hell in
>doors and quit breathing that crap). Which means that at f5.6 1/800
>sec is normal and 2 stops more would be 1/200 second. So what is all
>this talk about 1/25 second? The moon through dense fog? a forest
>fire? Mount St. Helens ash? your sun glasses?


Typical visibility here is 10 to 15 miles in the summer. On good days
it'll be a bit over 20 to 30 and on very rare days it may push 50.
Compare that to the Western states where 75 is typical and 125 is not
unheard of. I've spent over 1300 hours flying over much of the
country East of the Rockies in the last 10 years. Nearly all was under
10,000 feet Visibility varies widely, but a normal day here in
central Michigan would be considered terrible in Colorado. <)

It's not uncommon to find mornings and evenings here where you can
look directly at the sun with no eye protection.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"George E. Cawthon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>Roger Halstead wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> >In message <Vag6d.35627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >Phil Wheeler <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.

>>
>> Even then 10 seconds should be enough to show the surface on the unlit
>> portion of a half moon.
>> >
>> >Not when it is orange.

>>
>> At ASA 100 I'd still expect 1/25 to1/60 or so which is still far too
>> slow for a telephoto of that size except on a tripod.
>>
>> Nor would I expect an inexpensive zoom of that range to be tack sharp
>> through its whole range. The wide range can be very handy, but even
>> in expensive lenses the quality would suffer at that wide a range.
>>
>> The AF Nikor 75 to 300 f4.5-5.6 is a relatively inexpensive lens in
>> the $300 range. It gives quite good results and focuses very fast on
>> the D-70 *unless* it has to go through the whole range from close
>> focus to infinity.
>>
>> When spending $1000 for a camera body I'd try to give it the lenses to
>> do it justice. However I have seen the D-70 advertised as low as in
>> the $700 range.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Good Grief, doesn't everybody know that the moon recieves the same
>light as the earth.


The sun shines with equal intensity on both bodies. However, when the
moon is on the horizon, its reflected sunlight has to pass through much
more atmosphere than when it is high in the sky. The amount of
atmosphere between moonrise and moonset would chart something like this:


* *
* *
* *
** **
** **
*** ***
***********************


>Thus the correct exposure is 1/ASA at f16. For
>and ASA of 100 that is 1/100 at f16 or 1/200 at f11, etc. The only
>correction you need is for a lousy atmosphere due to smoke, haze etc.
>which is likely to be less than 2 f stops (otherwise get the hell in
>doors and quit breathing that crap). Which means that at f5.6 1/800
>sec is normal and 2 stops more would be 1/200 second. So what is all
>this talk about 1/25 second? The moon through dense fog? a forest
>fire? Mount St. Helens ash? your sun glasses?


Your assumptions are incorrect. On my Canon 10D, even on nights when
the stars are visible, sunny f16 results in a way-underexposed moon,
even if the sun is high in the sky.

There are two problems with your theory:

1) Digital sensors are not film. Film receives its optimum exposure in
the middle zones, and it is usually best to expose things centered
around 18% reflectance. Digital cameras give their best performance
when exposure is just short of clipping the data. The moon is mainly
grey, not white, so there is room to pull the exposure for the moon.
Also, many digital camera are really metering for lower-than-stated
ISOs, by film standards.

2) The moon loses a bit of light to the atmosphere, even under
relatively clear conditions. When you look through the atmosphere at
distant objects during the day, you lose light from each of your
subjects, but you regain a lot of that light anyway, as it hits the film
or sensor at some other angle, causing a loss of contrast. The moon
does not have "neighbor" subjects to swap light with. It can only lose
light, as the rest of the sky has little light to contribute.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, I,
(E-Mail Removed) hastily wrote:

>On my Canon 10D, even on nights when
>the stars are visible, sunny f16 results in a way-underexposed moon,
>even if the sun is high in the sky.


Sorry, that should have been "moon".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..." SBFan2000 A+ Certification 0 08-17-2006 09:58 PM
Camera shake threshold John Wright Digital Photography 37 10-03-2004 06:43 PM
Anti Camera Shake mechanism Rubik Digital Photography 36 02-10-2004 03:46 PM
How does digital camera efl effect camera shake? Digital Photography 0 12-17-2003 10:30 PM
Re: Camera shake - clarification PhotoMan Digital Photography 7 11-10-2003 08:36 PM



Advertisments