Camera Shake

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rda, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. rda

    rda Guest

    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
     
    rda, Sep 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rda

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    The 75-300 is reported to be soft on the long end; many XX-300 lenses
    are that way (I have two that are, one that is not). The Kenko may add
    more softness.

    On a tripod, what "shake" can happen, unless you are next to RR tracks?

    You may also have some focus errors -- not trivial to focus accurately
    on the Moon.

    First thing I would do is back off to 200 or 250 mm on the zoom and see
    if photos get sharper. If so, I would say it is the lens. If not, I
    would consider trying a bracket of (manual) focus.

    Phil

    rda 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 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
    >
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "rda" <> writes:

    > [...] 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).


    The "speed" of the moon (or the stars) due to the earth rotation is
    easily underestimated -- the relative motion of the moon is about
    half its diameter in a minute[1], so even 10 s exposure time will
    introduce noticable blur with a 900mm lens.

    [1] I just did a rough calculation by myself, please correct me if
    it is wrong:

    --
    Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked
    something.
     
    Juergen Nickelsen, Sep 28, 2004
    #3
  4. rda

    Ian Stirling Guest

    rda <> 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 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).


    Point it at something smaller.
    Venus or Sirius.
    This will give you a better idea if it might be shake (which I doubt).
    As they are more likely to show shapes other than a round dot if it
    does shake a bit.
     
    Ian Stirling, Sep 28, 2004
    #4
  5. rda

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Juergen Nickelsen wrote:
    > "rda" <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>[...] 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).

    >
    >
    > The "speed" of the moon (or the stars) due to the earth rotation is
    > easily underestimated -- the relative motion of the moon is about
    > half its diameter in a minute[1], so even 10 s exposure time


    Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 28, 2004
    #5
  6. rda 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 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),


    It may suggest that, but it is far from serious evidence.

    Try taking some daytime images with your setup and see what you get.

    Most of my ideas other than the lens issue have been addressed by other
    writers.

    > 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


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 28, 2004
    #6
  7. rda

    rda Guest

    rda, Sep 28, 2004
    #7
  8. rda

    Ken Oaf Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:12:32 GMT, "rda" <> 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 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?


    Use the self timer to activate the shutter.
     
    Ken Oaf, Sep 28, 2004
    #8
  9. rda

    George Guest

    Wonder if it really is camera shake...it might be atmospheric aberrations.

    "rda" <> wrote in message
    news:Abf6d.196$...
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    George, Sep 29, 2004
    #9
  10. rda

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    George wrote:
    > Wonder if it really is camera shake...it might be atmospheric aberrations.
    >


    Not shake, most likely softness in the lens (I have one) -- and possibly
    seeing conditions (tho I think the poster would know about that).

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 29, 2004
    #10
  11. rda

    Mark M Guest

    "rda" <> wrote in message
    news:Abf6d.196$...
    > 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.
     
    Mark M, Sep 29, 2004
    #11
  12. rda

    Ray Fischer Guest

    rda <> 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
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 29, 2004
    #12
  13. rda

    Mikey S. Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:Abf6d.196$...
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    Mikey S., Oct 3, 2004
    #13
  14. rda

    Guest

    In message <Vag6d.35627$>,
    Phil Wheeler <> wrote:

    >Moon is far too bright for 10 sec exposure.


    Not when it is orange.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 7, 2004
    #14
  15. rda

    Guest

    In message <Abf6d.196$>,
    "rda" <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 7, 2004
    #15
  16. On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <Vag6d.35627$>,
    >Phil Wheeler <> 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
     
    Roger Halstead, Oct 8, 2004
    #16
  17. Roger Halstead wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, wrote:
    >
    > >In message <Vag6d.35627$>,
    > >Phil Wheeler <> 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?
     
    George E. Cawthon, Oct 8, 2004
    #17
  18. On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:43:59 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Roger Halstead wrote:
    >>
    >> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >> >In message <Vag6d.35627$>,
    >> >Phil Wheeler <> 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
     
    Roger Halstead, Oct 8, 2004
    #18
  19. rda

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "George E. Cawthon" <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >Roger Halstead wrote:
    >>
    >> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:36:49 GMT, wrote:
    >>
    >> >In message <Vag6d.35627$>,
    >> >Phil Wheeler <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 8, 2004
    #19
  20. rda

    Guest

    In message <>, I,
    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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PhotoMan

    Re: Camera shake - clarification

    PhotoMan, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    430
    PhotoMan
    Nov 10, 2003
  2. Guest

    How does digital camera efl effect camera shake?

    Guest, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    696
    Guest
    Dec 17, 2003
  3. Rubik

    Anti Camera Shake mechanism

    Rubik, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,299
    Rodney Myrvaagnes
    Feb 10, 2004
  4. John Wright

    Camera shake threshold

    John Wright, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    916
  5. SBFan2000

    Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..."

    SBFan2000, Aug 17, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    903
    SBFan2000
    Aug 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page