1.5X Sensors VS. Full Frame and other questions...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. Alfred Molon wrote:!By the way, don't forget that even if a tripod is light, you still
    You must be using it wrong! It does not double as a seat.
     
    John McWilliams, May 2, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. If I might put again a french grain of salt, I might emphasize the fact
    that Alfred Molon has no mirror in his cameras (neither in the Oly 5050
    nor in the Sony R1 imho).

    While I've generally rather heard "1/(2 or 4)*f.lgth" as a rule for
    pin-sharp hand-held pictures with 35mm-like SLRs or dSLRs, I've also
    heard leicaists say they could use slower speeds than 1/f.lgth with
    very good hand-held results - and you know the amounts of money they
    put at the feet of sharpness'goddess statue...
    The fact is that they have no mirror flipping while they shoot and very
    little vibration induced by the shutter, and that seems a significant
    factor for blur induced by camera shake, all other factors equal.
     
    nikojorj_jaimepaslapub, May 2, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don't you mean 1/2f? 2/f is slower (i.e. if 60mm ... 1/60s, or using your
    rule 2/60s is 1/30s ... I think you meant 1/120s).
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 2, 2006
    #83
  4. My tripod and head is about 4 pounds and it will fit in a small bag. It is
    not hard to carry .. in fact, that is why I bought it.

    As far as "looking crisp", why not post one of your 100% crisp images here ...
    in RAW format if you have it?
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 2, 2006
    #84
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    ASAAR Guest

    Those can contribute to vibration, but even in cameras where
    they're not a factor a tripod will help. The discussion was about
    blur caused by handheld shots, and the person doesn't exist that can
    hold a camera as steadily as a tripod. Mass helps reduce the effect
    of vibration, sharpshooters and snipers being well aware of the
    benefit conferred by very heavy barrels, and not just because they
    reduce the effect of recoil. Alfred's C-8080 may not be an
    ultralight P&S, but it's less massive than many DSLRs, especially
    those with large lenses attached. Looking through the viewfinder of
    my camera I can easily see how bracing it (or my hands) against a
    tree, wall or other solid object reduces camera movement, which is
    produced by opposing muscle forces and pulsing blood pressure.
     
    ASAAR, May 2, 2006
    #85
  6. LOL
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 2, 2006
    #86
  7. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    2/f, slower than 1/f.

    This is a handheld 10MP shot, taken at 1/50s, F4.8, 120mm (35mm equiv),
    ISO160:

    http://www.molon.de/P4150676.jpg (large file, 3.5MB)

    There is no camera shake, despite the fact the exposure time is 1/50s
    and the equivalent focal length 120mm. We are at 2.4/f here.

    And yes, I guess the fact that the Sony R1 has no mirror plays a role.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 2, 2006
    #87
  8. The spire under the cross doesn't look that sharp to me. That could be
    because of movement, but it appears to be because of a lack of depth of fiend
    and a close focus on the closest subject. If you could have stopped down, the
    spire would have been sharp. Af far as motion blur goes, you appear to have
    done alright ... at the expense of depth of field.
    I am not sure why a mirror would have much to do with it. For one, mirror
    slap would not likely affect the image at 1/50s. And second, any effect from
    mirror slap would be dwarfed by your hand movement ... even yours.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 2, 2006
    #88
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    True, I hadn't noticed that. So F4.8 doesn't give you sufficient DOF in
    such a situation? Although the situation is not too terrible because the
    main subject is in focus. Sigh. That's a disadvantage of big sensors.
    With the 8080 lack of DOF was never an issue.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 2, 2006
    #89
  10. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    If you are that unfamiliar with depth of focus, it seems a little odd that
    you have been arguing with such tenacity. ...On the other hand...that may
    explain a lot.
    :)
    Big sensors?
    What sensor are you referring to? Your Sony?
    F4.8 is not what most would consider "stopped down" for DOF.
    :)
     
    Mark², May 3, 2006
    #90
  11. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    This image is miles away from what I would consider critically sharp, which
    illustrates my point:
    We simply have different definitions of what "sharp" is.
     
    Mark², May 3, 2006
    #91
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Although the DOF calculator here
    http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    gives me 24-117 metres of DOF with the subject at 40 metres and F4.8
     
    Alfred Molon, May 3, 2006
    #92
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But it is sharp and there is no visible camera shake at 100%.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 3, 2006
    #93
  14. Progressiveabsolution

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Go ahead and show us a full size, critical sharp image from your camera.
     
    Alfred Molon, May 3, 2006
    #94
  15. Progressiveabsolution

    Rich Guest

    Landscape shot in daylight usually means about 1/500th second at
    f5.6-f8. Tripod? Not needed. Unless you are using a piece of crap
    kit lens that needs to be stopped down to f11 to produce a decent
    image.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, May 3, 2006
    #95
  16. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    You think?
    Ee-ghad!
    No it isn't.
    Then what is causing this shot to look so blurred?
     
    Mark², May 3, 2006
    #96
  17. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    Who was talking about "decent"? The question is a lens at its best.
    Even top-level lenses are typically at their sharpest in the range of f8 -
    f11.
     
    Mark², May 3, 2006
    #97
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    Mark² Guest

    I don't post full size images, but perhaps I'll post a 100% crop from one.

    In the mean time, what part of this subject do you consider sharp?
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/59601718/original
     
    Mark², May 3, 2006
    #98
  19. I would expect f/8 or f/11 would do alright.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 3, 2006
    #99
  20. I don't think that subject was 40 meters aware from the camera.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.