Why P&S's should do some reading before taking the plunge with realcameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 30, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Perfect example. Guy shoots a Panasonic GH1 hand-held at 1/3 sec and
    f16 and wonders why his shots aren't sharp. P&S's are weaned on
    cameras that have infinite DOF and limited apertures (often don't
    close down to lower than f6.3) so to them, the discipline needed to
    shoot a DSLR or EVIL camera is alien.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35451698
     
    RichA, May 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    DanP Guest

    DanP, May 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 30, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    DanP Guest

    DanP, May 31, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    DanP Guest

    In 35mm terms that is 840mm.
    I have taken this http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4629841983/ at
    250mm, it has been cropped to 390 pixels square.
    Yours is cropped to 1024 x 816.

    Your day shot looks better than mine but your next does not.
    To be fair it could have been better, the settings used (ISO 1600,
    1/1250 s and f/8) were not the best choice.
    Try ISO 100, 1/250 s and f/5.6 for a night shot of the moon.

    The EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS has cost me £140, no warranty. I could
    have got it for £180 with warranty.


    DanP
     
    DanP, May 31, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    I have been posting exactly this view - that P&S users will encounter
    focusing problems with Micro Four Thirds and larger sensors - for some
    weeks now.

    They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I
    thank you for your sincere flattery. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 31, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    $300.00 I built it myself. All it is is a 120mm wide, f8 1000mm
    achromat.
     
    Rich, May 31, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Good thing though, the EVIL cameras have much less shutter slap and
    are able to produce sharper images with extremely long lenses.
     
    Rich, May 31, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    The only camera I owned that had a problem with shutter slap was a
    Zenit B 35mm SLR, and that was back in 1973.

    I must give shutter slap some credit, though. It is a red herring
    that has been around for a great many years, but still appears fresh
    to some people. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 31, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Better Info Guest

    Just because you've never measured the image degradation it causes in your
    own cameras bought today doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Others have
    measured it. It still exists, at all shutter speeds.
     
    Better Info, Jun 1, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    DanP Guest

    Find a better shot of the moon taken with a P&S.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jun 1, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    You want me to trust you? A bit of a stretch, I think ..

    Seriously, though, I accept that there might be a problem at longer
    focal lengths than I normally use. I rarely go beyond 300mm but I
    have just bought a 400mm lens so I will carefully monitor the results
    for shutter slap. Perhaps I will need a heavier tripod. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jun 1, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    John A. Guest

    You'd think the heavier lens would help, but maybe the greater moment
    arm counters that. Depends on the lens, I guess.
     
    John A., Jun 1, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Perhaps some sort of counterweights in the camera, moving opposite the
    mirror & shutter, would help. Are there higher-end cameras with such
    features?

    Making the moving parts of the mechanism more lightweight would help
    too.
     
    John A., Jun 1, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    DanP Guest

    So explain me why my shot of the moon taken with a Canon SX100 at
    360mm equiv is worse than the one taken with the Canon 500D at 250mm?


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jun 1, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    James Nagler Guest

    This is true, but for the pixel-peeper, the above is valid information. You
    will not get pixel-level resolution on any DSLR unless you lock up the
    mirror and allow vibrations to damp-down before the exposure is made.
     
    James Nagler, Jun 1, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, it is a telescope. Basic refractor telescopes are uncompressed
    optics (for the most part), no heavy negative elements to make them
    small. The lens and cell came from Sky Instruments, about $220 it and
    the focuser. The tube was surplus aluminum tube. The rest I did
    myself.

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/125151707
     
    RichA, Jun 2, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    DanP Guest

    So, for the moon shot, what was the focal lengths for the eyepiece and
    camera?
    Magnification is huge.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Jun 2, 2010
    #18
  19. Unless the shutter speed is fast enough.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 10, 2010
    #19
    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.