General photography questions please!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ~~Just me~~, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. ~~Just me~~

    ~~Just me~~ Guest

    Hi all,

    I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    buy. So other than that, I'm new here.

    Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.

    So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.

    This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.

    I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    it wasn't a steady shot.

    I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    appreciate the help!

    Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?

    Thanks for any replies in advance!

    -Sam
     
    ~~Just me~~, Jan 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~~Just me~~

    Bill Guest

    For the night shots, are you using the highest ISO setting? Your Rebel can
    shoot at ISO equivalent 1600. That would allow the fastest shutter speeds to
    help reduce motion blur.

    As for your coin shots, I don't know how close the kit lens (18-55) can
    focus in macro mode, since I don't own one, but I would definitely redommend
    a tripod, since lenses at macro settings have a fairly shallow depth of
    focus, so it's critical that the camera doesn't move once the focus is set.

    FYI, the S7000 can focus down to 1cm (or 0.4 inches) in super-macro mode.

    Bill

    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    >
    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    >
    > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    >
    > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > it wasn't a steady shot.
    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!
    >
    > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    >
    > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    >
    > -Sam
    >
     
    Bill, Jan 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~~Just me~~

    stanb Guest

    Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld your
    shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on your
    300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher. (300*1.6=480mm). IS
    gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say all
    thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.

    You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this might
    allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but with
    higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!

    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    >
    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    >
    > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    >
    > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > it wasn't a steady shot.
    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!
    >
    > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    >
    > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    >
    > -Sam
    >
     
    stanb, Jan 9, 2004
    #3
  4. ~~Just me~~

    HRosita Guest

    >"stanb" wrote:

    >eedless to say all
    >thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.


    Hi,

    Agree. Not only are they IS but the lenses are very fast (large appertures),
    most use monopods, and the cost of the lens would set you back $1500 at least.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Jan 9, 2004
    #4
  5. ~~Just me~~

    Gavin Cato Guest

    The guys shooting with big lenses are using either IS (or VR with Nikon) or
    using high shutter speeds i.e. 1/500 or faster - to get those shutter speeds
    you often need f/2.8 lenses.

    Gav


    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    >
    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    >
    > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    >
    > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > it wasn't a steady shot.
    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!
    >
    > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    >
    > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    >
    > -Sam
    >
     
    Gavin Cato, Jan 9, 2004
    #5
  6. "stanb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld

    your
    > shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on your
    > 300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher. (300*1.6=480mm).

    IS
    > gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say

    all
    > thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.
    >
    > You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this might
    > allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but with
    > higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!
    >


    A good practice can give you one more stop. Basically, make sure your both
    feet are situated on a steady place, get down a bit on your legs to use your
    knees as shock absorbers and not rigid, pre-focus the subject in manual if
    you can, take a deep breath, stop breathing for about 1/2 to 1 second, take
    the photo, release calmly the shutter and breath again. You may want to take
    2 photos as the second will often be sharper than the first.

    Good luck.
     
    Benoit DONNETTE \(EXT\), Jan 9, 2004
    #6
  7. ~~Just me~~

    Jim Townsend Guest

    ~~Just me~~ wrote:


    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.


    It sounds like your 75-300 doesn't let in enough light for what
    you're trying to do. If you put it on a tripod and take several
    second exposures, you'll get sharp bright pictures of buildings
    and parked cars, but people and moving cars will be a problem.

    You need a fast lens for shooting motion in low light. (street lights)
    Fast meaning a low f number.. f/2.8 or less is good. Your lens
    is f/4-5.6

    You pay a *lot* for fast lenses. The best bargain out there right
    now is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 It's under $100.00

    Don't shoot in Auto mode.. Using the creative modes will let you
    manually select the ISO. You have to bump up the ISO to 800 or 1600.
    1600 should be a last resort because the noise starts to really
    show.
     
    Jim Townsend, Jan 9, 2004
    #7
  8. ~~Just me~~

    Jackals Guest

    In place of handheld when you don't have a tripod in the city, you can use
    any stable thing (car hood/roof, mailbox, etc.). Set up the photo then use
    the auto-timer instead of manually pushing the shutter button.

    That can also help if you have to handhold--brace yourself (ex. Leaning
    against a light post if necessary for stability) then after you click the
    shutter button the timer gives you a few seconds before it fires to freeze
    in position. Even resting your elbows on a fence or cable in a triangle is
    umch more stable than no support.

    With 35mm cameras you can use a shutter-button cable to eliminate shake--I
    don't know if that is avalible on any digital cameras. If so there are
    squeeze-bulb types you can use with your foot also. They screw into the top
    of the shutter button --take a look.

    Then there are various types of handles that screw into the tripod hole that
    make the camera a lot easier to hold in a more natural way. These are basic
    for any level of photography.

    Hope it helps.

    Jackals


    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    >
     
    Jackals, Jan 9, 2004
    #8
  9. ~~Just me~~

    Jackals Guest

    You are not alone: here is part of a previous post:

    From: "Ning" <>
    Subject: Remote shutter control from PC / USB lead?
    Date: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:26 AM

    On a related note, is it possible to get a remote shutter control
    cable, like you can with a conventional camera? I'm taking photos on a
    tripod without much lighting, and I would like to make sure I didn't
    disturb the camera when I take the photo.

    cheers

    ben




    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    >
    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    >
    > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    >
    > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > it wasn't a steady shot.
    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!
    >
    > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    >
    > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    >
    > -Sam
    >
     
    Jackals, Jan 9, 2004
    #9
  10. ~~Just me~~

    scott Guest

    In article <YgvLb.26214$ti2.14541@lakeread03>,
    "Bill" <> wrote:

    > As for your coin shots, I don't know how close the kit lens (18-55) can
    > focus in macro mode, since I don't own one, but I would definitely redommend
    > a tripod, since lenses at macro settings have a fairly shallow depth of
    > focus, so it's critical that the camera doesn't move once the focus is set.


    I think that you'll find that a good scanner works better than any
    camera on coin scanning - always sharp/consistent and a LOT faster
    than photographing them. ... been doing it for years ... after my ten
    year old grandson clued me in! Jeeeesh!

    S
     
    scott, Jan 9, 2004
    #10
  11. ~~Just me~~

    Doc Guest

    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!).


    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!


    > -Sam



    Sam, you sound like a pretty naive guy-- someone who's rather easily taken
    advantage of.

    My advice is to stay away from downtown at night- it's too dangerous for
    someone like you. You'd probably be mugged or taken advantage of by some
    fast woman or a grifter/hustler. (Hey sailor, new in town-- want to take my
    picture-- want to buy this new lens I've got down this dark alley?)

    Consider trying out your shiny new lens someplace safe- like the zoo, or
    maybe outside church Sunday morning...

    Doc
     
    Doc, Jan 9, 2004
    #11
  12. ~~Just me~~

    DHB Guest

    stanb,
    please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
    that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's smaller
    size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the sensor
    in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.

    Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an enlarger
    head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because much
    of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.

    So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens being
    used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR with
    a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a 10D
    the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
    sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
    would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
    because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
    sensor size.

    If my understanding is incorrect, I apologize & would ask somebody to
    explain it better so that I too may learn, but I am fairly certain that I am
    correct as I have given it much thought & it had me a bit confused for some
    time.

    Respectfully, DHB

    "stanb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld

    your
    > shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on your
    > 300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher. (300*1.6=480mm).

    IS
    > gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say

    all
    > thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.
    >
    > You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this might
    > allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but with
    > higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!
    >
    > "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    > >
    > > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    > >
    > > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    > >
    > > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    > >
    > > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > > it wasn't a steady shot.
    > >
    > > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > > appreciate the help!
    > >
    > > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    > >
    > > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    > >
    > > -Sam
    > >

    >
    >
     
    DHB, Jan 10, 2004
    #12
  13. ~~Just me~~

    Jeffrey Guest

    I believe that the 1.6 conversion factor must be included in the rule of
    thumb. The basis for the rule of thumb I presume, is related to the
    magnification of the image, and the effect of that magnification on the
    movement of the lens. If this presumption is correct, then the 1.6x factor
    should be included.

    The point that you raise may affect the effective speed of the lens. In
    that situation it might depend on whether it is a EFS or EF Lens. It is my
    understanding that with the EFS lens, the lens is closer to the sensor so
    thal all the light coming into the lens might be seen by the sensor. I
    would presume therefore that with a normal EF lens, the light outside the
    smaller sensor area would be lost. This is probably why, Canon have
    introduced the EFS lens as less glass is required to produce an equivalent
    speed lens.

    Jeffrey


    "DHB" <> wrote in message
    news:1qHLb.199$...
    > stanb,
    > please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
    > that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's

    smaller
    > size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the

    sensor
    > in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.
    >
    > Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an

    enlarger
    > head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because

    much
    > of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.
    >
    > So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens

    being
    > used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR

    with
    > a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a

    10D
    > the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
    > sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
    > would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
    > because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
    > sensor size.
    >
    > If my understanding is incorrect, I apologize & would ask somebody to
    > explain it better so that I too may learn, but I am fairly certain that I

    am
    > correct as I have given it much thought & it had me a bit confused for

    some
    > time.
    >
    > Respectfully, DHB
    >
    > "stanb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Without IS you are limited to the old rule of thumb - to shoot handheld

    > your
    > > shutter speed must be higher than the focal length - ie at 300 mm on

    your
    > > 300d your minimum shutter speed must be 1/500 or higher.

    (300*1.6=480mm).
    > IS
    > > gives you 3 stops - so minimum speed would be 1/60 sec. Needless to say

    > all
    > > thos ehuge white lenses that you see at the footy are IS.
    > >
    > > You may howver gain a little more stabilty by using a monopod, this

    might
    > > allow a stop if your careful. Iso 1600 would allow faster shots, but

    with
    > > higher noise.....Otherwise its back to the tripod!
    > >
    > > "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > Hi all,
    > > >
    > > > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > > > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > > > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    > > >
    > > > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > > > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > > > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > > > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > > > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > > > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > > > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > > > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > > > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    > > >
    > > > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > > > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > > > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > > > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > > > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > > > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    > > >
    > > > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > > > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > > > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > > > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > > > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > > > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > > > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > > > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > > > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    > > >
    > > > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > > > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > > > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > > > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > > > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > > > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > > > it wasn't a steady shot.
    > > >
    > > > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > > > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > > > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > > > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > > > appreciate the help!
    > > >
    > > > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > > > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > > > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > > > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    > > >
    > > > -Sam
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Jeffrey, Jan 10, 2004
    #13
  14. ~~Just me~~

    ~~Just me~~ Guest

    I have to disgree on the scanner being better for coins. With the
    right light setup I can get awesome cartwheels, & the light just
    dances on the strike of the coin. And proofs? Again with the lighting,
    I can get it so part of the deep mirror is black & some is reflective,
    & it just looks beautiful. I could never go back to a scanner.

    -Sam


    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:33:22 GMT, scott <>
    wrote:

    >In article <YgvLb.26214$ti2.14541@lakeread03>,
    > "Bill" <> wrote:
    >
    >> As for your coin shots, I don't know how close the kit lens (18-55) can
    >> focus in macro mode, since I don't own one, but I would definitely redommend
    >> a tripod, since lenses at macro settings have a fairly shallow depth of
    >> focus, so it's critical that the camera doesn't move once the focus is set.

    >
    >I think that you'll find that a good scanner works better than any
    >camera on coin scanning - always sharp/consistent and a LOT faster
    >than photographing them. ... been doing it for years ... after my ten
    >year old grandson clued me in! Jeeeesh!
    >
    >S
     
    ~~Just me~~, Jan 10, 2004
    #14
  15. ~~Just me~~

    ~~Just me~~ Guest

    Well, I did save on the initial camera purchase by buying online, & I
    had read a review somewhere else on the digital rebel that also listed
    lenses, & that was the price it mentioned for that lens. Not to
    mention it was in the range with all the local brick & mortar stores.
    Actually this is the first time I've gotten into something where the
    online prices versus the brick & mortar prices where so vastly
    different, & I have a couple other money sink hobbies. I know there is
    savings online, but in photography its rediculous

    I wouldn't say that I'm niave, I just got a little to excited about
    this camera & made a hasty purchase.
    :)




    On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:59:13 GMT, "Doc" <>
    wrote:

    >"~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >> Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    >> overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    >> with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    >> internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    >> the store I bought it from says tough luck!).

    >
    >>
    >> I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    >> send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    >> tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    >> to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    >> appreciate the help!

    >
    >> -Sam

    >
    >
    >Sam, you sound like a pretty naive guy-- someone who's rather easily taken
    >advantage of.
    >
    >My advice is to stay away from downtown at night- it's too dangerous for
    >someone like you. You'd probably be mugged or taken advantage of by some
    >fast woman or a grifter/hustler. (Hey sailor, new in town-- want to take my
    >picture-- want to buy this new lens I've got down this dark alley?)
    >
    >Consider trying out your shiny new lens someplace safe- like the zoo, or
    >maybe outside church Sunday morning...
    >
    >Doc
    >
     
    ~~Just me~~, Jan 10, 2004
    #15
  16. ~~Just me~~

    ~~Just me~~ Guest

    Thanks for all the replies everyone! I'm understanding all of this a
    little better now, & will act on some of this advice & see what I can
    come up with. I guess the night thing really wouldn't be a problem if
    didn't get dark before I got home form work. Its just this time of the
    year, I don't get much daylight for picture takin.

    I also hope to see more replies to what Stan, DHB, & Jeffery have
    going with the 1.6 multiplier deal. It seems everyone is selling it as
    a true magnification factor, & even though I'm not very experienced
    with photography, it didn't seem right. I compared my lense extended
    to 300mm with a friends camera & lens extedned to 200mm, mine didn't
    seemt that much more. And especially not what, 280mm worth more? But
    hey, I'm just a newbie, so what do I know.

    But thanks again! I'm learning, & I appreciate the voices of
    experience.
     
    ~~Just me~~, Jan 10, 2004
    #16
  17. ~~Just me~~

    Don Guest

    Go to this site for a read. Lots of good info

    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/menu/menyou.html

    regards

    Don from Down Under


    "~~Just me~~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I lurked here briefly around Christmas before buying a camera to see
    > what everyone was talking about, helping me make a decision on what to
    > buy. So other than that, I'm new here.
    >
    > Anyway, I decided on the the Canon Digital rebel, & picked up an
    > overpriced Canon 75-300mm zoom lens to go with the 18-55 that came
    > with the kit (I found out later that I paid $120 more than the average
    > internet price for the 75-300mm lens, & I'm still mad about it, but
    > the store I bought it from says tough luck!). I'm comming from a
    > Nikon coolpix 995 & almost bought the finepix s7000, but decided that
    > would be an intermediate step that I didn't need to waste money on. My
    > photography experience pretty much boils down to taking close up
    > pictures of coins witha tripod & perfect lighting.
    >
    > So my next subjects with my new camera are nightime city settings.
    > Bustling streets lighted with signs & billboards, interesting shots
    > inside stores & coffee shops, zipping in on tall buildings, all using
    > my new 75-300mm lens. As you might be ready to guess, out of the 700
    > or so evening/night pictures I've taken, I don't have one shot to show
    > for where I didn't shake & blure the picture.
    >
    > This is where I need help. I'm learning & understanding about the
    > light/aperature thing along with shutter speed & film speed, & I know
    > a tripod will help (however unpractical this is walking around a city
    > at night), and I've also been told to get the Image Stabilizing
    > version of my lens (back to lousy return policy with camera store
    > above), but there has to be something in the technique area I can do
    > to improve my aim with practice. I mean come on.. I've seen these guys
    > at football games with 2 1/2 foot lenses snapping pictures with no
    > tripod, & they must get SOME good pictures.
    >
    > I've been practicing alot. I'll setup a pop can, or something with
    > small writing about 8 ft away, & zoom in on the writing, & snap away
    > for hours. In a mediocre light, I'll get 1 out of about 100 pictures
    > that I find almost exceptable as a steady shot. Maybe I expect too
    > much? But to me, if I can see the lettering fuzz off in one direction
    > or another even the slightest bit when zooming in on the picture, than
    > it wasn't a steady shot.
    >
    > I know this group has to be loaded with good photographers that can
    > send me down the road to enlightenment, so please send some tips &
    > tricks, links to favorite web sites & tutorials my way. If I'm going
    > to practice, I want to make sure I'm doing it right, & I will greatly
    > appreciate the help!
    >
    > Also, my coin pictures aren't up to the quality I had with my coolpix
    > 995. I thought the 18-55 lense would do the job, & its close, but
    > still leaves things a bit burry. Any tips for close up macro work?
    > lens recommendations (that I might be able to afford)?
    >
    > Thanks for any replies in advance!
    >
    > -Sam
    >
     
    Don, Jan 10, 2004
    #17
  18. "DHB" <> writes:
    > please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my understanding
    >that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's smaller
    >size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the sensor
    >in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.


    So far so good. The lens focal length is really still 300 mm. The
    extra enlargement happens between the image on the sensor and print or
    screen.

    > Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an enlarger
    >head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because much
    >of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.


    Right. Some of the lens image circle is no longer being used.

    > So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens being
    >used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR with
    >a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a 10D
    >the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
    >sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
    >would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
    >because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
    >sensor size.


    But here you're wrong. The "shutter speed equals inverse focal length"
    rule is based on the overall magnification of the optical system. With
    a certain amount of shake, a 50 mm lens produces a certain amount of
    blur on the film/sensor, which is enlarged to a certain size blur on the
    print. When you switch to an 80 mm lens, the same amount of shake
    produces a larger-sized blur on the film and on the print because of the
    greater magnification of the longer lens. So you need to raise the
    shutter speed to about 1/80 (in practice 1/100) to keep the blur the
    same size on the print.

    If you keep the 50 mm lens but switch to a 10D or 300D body, you get
    the same size blur *on the image plane* as the 50 mm lens on the
    full-frame camera. But the smaller image from the 10D needs to be
    enlarged more to produce the same-size print, and so the amount of blur
    *on the print* is larger by a factor of 1.6 X. Thus, you also need to
    use 1/80 sec or higher to get the same size blur on the print.

    The key is magnification of camera shake between camera and print.
    Either using a longer focal length with the same size image, or using a
    smaller image size with the same focal length, increases this
    magnification and so you need a faster shutter speed.

    Another way of looking at it: a 50 mm lens on a 10D has the same field
    of view as an 80 mm lens on a full-frame camera. Thus, the same amount
    of camera shake produces the same amount of blur in the final print at
    the same shutter speed. That, whatever shutter speed you need for the
    80 mm/full frame case is also what you need for the 50 mm/10D case.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jan 10, 2004
    #18
  19. ~~Just me~~

    DHB Guest

    Dave Martindale,
    thank you for taking the time to explain this
    concept in such detail. Apparently I wan only looking at it from an
    optical/technical perspective. There is a more practical application side
    to this "shutter speed equals inverse focal length" rule than I had
    considered. If I now understand it correctly, than 1 should be looking to
    even faster shutter speeds if I'm planning to print 8X10" prints or larger.

    Thanks to the willingness of people like you with more practical
    knowledge than I have, I live & learn from my mistakes & the shared wisdom
    of others. My DSLR pictures are improving but I am still on the
    camera/lenses learning curve & enjoying it all a great deal.

    Thanks again to all, because I read much more than I contribute & I
    always welcome corrective criticism because it's such a great way to learn.
    My ego does not stand between me & learning, life is too short for that!

    Respectfully, DHB

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:bto9vp$7n2$...
    > "DHB" <> writes:
    > > please correct me if I am wrong but it's become my

    understanding
    > >that the Field Of View (FOV) crop factor is a result of the sensor's

    smaller
    > >size. Thus a 300mm lens would act like a 480mm lens only because the

    sensor
    > >in smaller not because the lens is actually a 480mm lens.

    >
    > So far so good. The lens focal length is really still 300 mm. The
    > extra enlargement happens between the image on the sensor and print or
    > screen.
    >
    > > Thus "if I" understand this correctly it's just like moving an

    enlarger
    > >head closer to the photographic paper, you get a cropped image because

    much
    > >of the focused image is now outside the photographic paper's size.

    >
    > Right. Some of the lens image circle is no longer being used.
    >
    > > So nothing has changed with regard to the focal length of the lens

    being
    > >used regardless if it's used on a full 35mm sensor size DSLR or a SDLR

    with
    > >a FOV crop factor of 1.6x such as a 10D or 300D. With a 50mm lens on a

    10D
    > >the minimum shutter speed should be 1/50th of a second or above so a 1/60
    > >sec. would work even though the effective FOV is actually 80mm. So you
    > >would not need a minimum shutter speed above of 1/80th or 1/125 sec. just
    > >because it's going to yield an effective FOV of 80mm due to it's smaller
    > >sensor size.

    >
    > But here you're wrong. The
    > rule is based on the overall magnification of the optical system. With
    > a certain amount of shake, a 50 mm lens produces a certain amount of
    > blur on the film/sensor, which is enlarged to a certain size blur on the
    > print. When you switch to an 80 mm lens, the same amount of shake
    > produces a larger-sized blur on the film and on the print because of the
    > greater magnification of the longer lens. So you need to raise the
    > shutter speed to about 1/80 (in practice 1/100) to keep the blur the
    > same size on the print.
    >
    > If you keep the 50 mm lens but switch to a 10D or 300D body, you get
    > the same size blur *on the image plane* as the 50 mm lens on the
    > full-frame camera. But the smaller image from the 10D needs to be
    > enlarged more to produce the same-size print, and so the amount of blur
    > *on the print* is larger by a factor of 1.6 X. Thus, you also need to
    > use 1/80 sec or higher to get the same size blur on the print.
    >
    > The key is magnification of camera shake between camera and print.
    > Either using a longer focal length with the same size image, or using a
    > smaller image size with the same focal length, increases this
    > magnification and so you need a faster shutter speed.
    >
    > Another way of looking at it: a 50 mm lens on a 10D has the same field
    > of view as an 80 mm lens on a full-frame camera. Thus, the same amount
    > of camera shake produces the same amount of blur in the final print at
    > the same shutter speed. That, whatever shutter speed you need for the
    > 80 mm/full frame case is also what you need for the 50 mm/10D case.
    >
    > Dave
     
    DHB, Jan 10, 2004
    #19
  20. "DHB" <> writes:
    >If I now understand it correctly, than 1 should be looking to
    >even faster shutter speeds if I'm planning to print 8X10" prints or larger.


    Ultimately, it depends on the visual angle covered by the print, and
    your own standards for sharpness.

    If you view an 8x12 inch print from twice as far away as a 4x6 inch
    print, the standards are the same for both. But if you view the 8x12
    from the same distance as the 4x6, it covers twice the andle, and you
    should be using a shutter speed twice as fast to limit the blur to the
    same apparent size.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jan 11, 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. Rudy Von Tschudi

    Win98se versus XP for PhotoShop, general photography.

    Rudy Von Tschudi, Dec 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    67
    Views:
    1,355
    Harry Da Hat
    Dec 18, 2003
  2. Steven Wandy

    Opinion on General Photography Magazine

    Steven Wandy, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    647
    John McGraw
    Jun 26, 2004
  3. Progressiveabsolution

    Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography

    Progressiveabsolution, Mar 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    679
    Frank ess
    Mar 24, 2005
  4. EAL
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    7,030
    amalapaka
    Jan 25, 2009
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Is this the de facto general photography newsgroup?

    Paul Ciszek, Dec 1, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    376
    Robert Coe
    Dec 14, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page