«

In message news: , Alfred Molon
<> done wrote:

> Took the plunge and just bought my first DLSR. Could so far afford the
> luxury of using cameras without slapping mirrors (my last camera was a
> Sony R1).
>
> Well, this slapping mirror is really an earthquake. When you press the
> shutter, it makes the entire camera vibrate.
> I'm still awaiting delivery of a 70-300mm lens, but I'm wondering if
> this slapping mirror will compromise sharpness at long focal lengths.
> What is the solution here? Using MLU for every shot can't be an option.

Are we psychically supposed to know which camera you bought?

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <g4rct7$ofb$>, says...
>
>> The solution is to not worry about mirror slap. Worry about camera
>> motion due to your own hands moving the camera when you press the
>> button. The mirror simply does not cause problems. Apparently the
>> designers
>> know how to design cameras, at least Canon and Nikon do.
>
> Well, I don't know. I heard that if the exposure is long and you use a
> tripod, the slapping mirror will affect shots at long focal lengths
> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
> I think I'll just wait until the 70-300 lens arrives and will then
> make some tests.

Far more important is that the 70-300mm lens has good image stabilisation.
I have found that on my own DSLR mirror-slap simply is not an issue for my
photography (mostly outdoors). Remember that you can use ISO 800 and
probably ISO 1600 with little loss of quality.

Enjoy your new freedom!

David

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> Well, the Sony A350 has in-camera IS. Not aware of any compatible lens
> with IS.
>
> As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
> yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
> top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
> interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW
> image. In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror
> slap seems to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise
> performance, thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it
> by being forced to use high ISO.
>
> I'll make some tests with the 70-300 lens and see what options there
> are.

Alfred,

Unfortunately, in-camera IS is a poor compromise if you are buying both
camera and lenses from scratch, as you completely lose the stabilisation
effect in the optical viewfinder which you would get from in-lens IS.
This alone would rule out such a camera for me.

But you should enjoy the good ISO 800 performance. I think mirror slap
will be a non-issue in normal use.

Cheers,
David

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
>
> The other day I got a sharp 0.4s exposure at 67mm equiv. focal length
> with the in-camera IS on. I set the camera to continuos mode and took
> a burst of 6-7 shots. The sharpest of these looks very good and is
> quite impressive considering that it is a 14MP image.

With long lenses, like the 70-300mm, I much prefer to have the camera
against my face, with the slightly bent left arm and hand supporting the
barrel of the lens. Only if there is no alternative (like with my compact
Panasonic TZ3) would I hold the camera away from my face. But I guess you
do whatever gives best results for you.

Cheers,
David

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:51:55 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> As for ISO 800 and 1600 I was indeed surprised by the image quality
> yesterday. The A350 with its 14MP on an APS-C sensor is not one of the
> top performers in this category, but the output at ISO1600 is very
> interesting. Lots of detail and fine grain if you process the RAW image.
> In any case, going up to ISO 800 or 1600 to solve the mirror slap seems
> to be a bad thing. On the one hand you improve the noise performance,
> thank you very much, but at the same time you degrade it by being forced
> to use high ISO.

I used Nikon's 700-300mm lens (VR off) at 300mm for distant shots
across a lake several days ago with the sky slightly overcast.
Examining the images at 200% showed no trace of blurring due to
camera movement. If there was any, it was obscured by the
pixelization limit of the 12mp sensor. But then I didn't have the
camera set to the shutter speeds most likely to cause mirror slap
problems. Shots taken in the morning (9:20am) showed settings of
ISO 200, f/8, 1/160 (static shots), and these settings were changed
to ISO 400, f/6.3 and 1/640 or 1/1250 several hours later for
pictures of water skiing teams.

Handheld shots at a closer distance (about 2 feet) and fl at 85mm
also didn't show evidence of blurring due to mirror slap. Shots at
1/15 and 1/30 with VR on and no flash showed sharpness comparable to
shooting at 1/60 when the flash was used. With no flash and VR off,
blurring was noticeable, but much less than I've ever gotten from my
P&S cameras under similar conditions. This is probably due to the
DSLR's much greater weight. If mirror slap contributed to the
blurring, it was probably less than the amount produced by camera
movement. Unless your Sony A350 has a miserably designed mirror
mechanism, mirror slap movement probably won't be an issue except
for shots taken over a very small range of slow shutter speeds that
also need to be printed at very large paper sizes, or for shots
taken by the most demanding pixel peepers.

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news:. ..

> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.


Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?

What is their source ?


michael adams

....




> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
news. ..
> michael adams wrote:
> > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
> > news:. ..
> >
> >> Well, the camera is more stable if I can hold it at about 20-30cm from
> >> the body, with the bent arms acting as shock absorbers.
> >
> >
> > Absorbing which sort of shocks exactly ?
> >
> > What is their source ?
> >
>
> Some folks feel that the return of the mirror creates tremors in the
> camera body that can be noticed in the results.



Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
stance, etc.


michael adams










>
> --
> john mcwilliams

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <>, michael adams says...
>
> > Sorry, I thought the OP was referring to general stability in that
> > particular instance. The relative advantages of various approaches to
> > inmage stabilization - body as against lenses, and adopting the best possible
> > stance, etc.
>
> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.



Surely the point is that when the camera is forcibly pressed against the face
stability results from the meeting of two opposing forces. A force coming
up from the feet which are firmly planted on the ground coming up through the
neck, most usually directed forward, being opposed by the force of the hands
and arms pressing back against this.

This seems to work well enough in practice, in my experience anyway.

In the same way that many people who suffer from a trembling of the hands
may find the symptoms far less marked if they grasp both their hands tightly
together. And thus create an opposition to the trembling motion.
Which is also the most effective way to fire a pistol, I believe.
Two handed.

> To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
> is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
> your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
> glass still.

Having the glass of water balancing on your head brings in extraneous factors
such as the centre of gravity and possible nervousness at the consequences of
spilling the water. Pressing the glass tight to your chest with one or both both
hands would seem to offer a better solution IMO.


michael adams

....







>
> Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
> handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
> unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:00:48 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> Human body shake. When the camera is held against the face it follows
> the movement of the body, while if it is held at a distance the bowed
> arms work as shock absorbers.

Perhaps useful if standing on a platform vibrating within an
advantageous range of frequencies. Otherwise, the photographer's
skeleton should pretty well eliminate vertical movement when the
camera is held to the face. When held at a distance, vertical
oscillating motion is perpetual, with the muscles applying vertical
(up and down) forces to keep the camera from moving too far from the
desired position. You should be able to see how stably you can hold
a camera both ways by using a simple motion magnifier. Get a small
portable radio of approximately the same size as your camera and
extend its antenna. Hold it as you would the camera, with the
antenna pointed towards an imaginary subject, but with the tip very
close to some immovable object, such as the top of a chair, or a
mark on a wall, etc.

Doing this, I can see that extending a camera away from my body
with arms positioned as you describe doesn't work as well for me.
But I also saw that the difference between the two methods isn't
substantial, so your method may work well for you and well enough
for others that use similar bracing and don't excessively extend
their arms. But that technique still looks kind of dorky.


> To illustrate the point, try walking with a glass of water. If the glass
> is on your head it will shake a lot, while if you walk with the glass in
> your hand and bowed elbows it is much easier to hold the water in the
> glass still.

Oh, please. Try taking pictures while you're walking. Of course
the head moves up and down while walking. It's explained by simple
geometry. But that motion doesn't exist while *not* walking, so the
"shock absorbers" have no shocks to absorb. And the constant
muscular correction produced by extended arms *will* create motion.
This is a particularly bad theory that proves nothing but may seem
plausible to those that don't know any better.


> Perhaps an a bit unscientific explanation, but this is how I get sharp
> handheld shots. I wouldn't keep the camera pressed against my face
> unless perhaps my head was leaning against a wall.

Quite unscientific, but it's not to say that you can't use your
'extended arms' method to get sharp shots. Walls can be quite
effective when used as 'found' tripods. But you can do better than
using your face as a quick release plate.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> (unless you use MLU - a feature Sony astutely took out of the A350).
>
> The 2 second timer is the MLU.
>

A very good point that is oft forgotten - if you are not shooting
'action', then your self-timer is your best friend, as most cams have a
short-delay mode... I use mine all the time.