Help choosing an SLR

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

link?

If you are looking for a link to some definitive study by somebody like DPReview, Imaging Resource etc. I can't give you one because afaik no-one has done one.
However, from my own & other users' experience it does work - e.g. there is a chap who uses a 600/4 for (iirc) shots of deer & he's positive it works with that.
However, imo (& with my admittedly poor technique) 500mm is pushing it for handholding anyway - yes, you can do it but a monopod is useful too.

The comments about the sensor not being able to move enough for longer lenses has always struck me as odd as at least in my experience camera shake isn't straight up & down but pivots around the camera body/hand & as such it seems to me that it's not the ultimate distance that the front element moves that matters but the angle subtended by that movement & of course at the sensor plane that's not a lot of distance at all.

As for the pros & cons of a stabilised viewfinder or not you can argue that from both sides:
- from the unstabilised pov you are getting realtime feedback as to how much shake there is & this can help you improve your stance & cut it down (which may gain you an additional stop or 2).
The stabilised camp say that it aids with framing.
I've also seen several people on forums etc. reporting that they've felt ill (like motion sickness) when looking at a stabilised image, probably not a high % of users but something that exists for some.
Overall though I think that it's a pretty trivial thing to argue about & if that's what we are fretting about we don't have much to worry about at all.

No, it's not the angle subtended that matters, but rather the number of pixels shifted in the image. This was probably the source of your confusion.

 

[LockeWiggen]

Just thought i'd let you guys know. I decided to go for the Canon 40D in the end. Reasoning behind it was that it will allow me to shoot paintballing at a high continueus speed and has a decent selection of lenses avalible.

Decided to abandon the d300 idea and the decision was down to the d200 or the 40d. The canon seemed better bang for buck to me. So the money I saved on not getting a d300 will go into some decent lenses.

Cheers again for all your help.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: LockeWiggen
Just thought i'd let you guys know. I decided to go for the Canon 40D in the end. Reasoning behind it was that it will allow me to shoot paintballing at a high continueus speed and has a decent selection of lenses avalible.

Decided to abandon the d300 idea and the decision was down to the d200 or the 40d. The canon seemed better bang for buck to me. So the money I saved on not getting a d300 will go into some decent lenses.

Cheers again for all your help.

Congratulations, and good luck. Post some paintball pics when you've got 'em.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: punchkin
No, it's not the angle subtended that matters, but rather the number of pixels shifted in the image. This was probably the source of your confusion.

but the no. of pixels shifted is going to vary according to the angle of movement subtended ...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

Umm, the most amazing in flight bird photographers I have seen hand hold 500mm f4 lenses.
-edit--
Here is one guy that is known to hand hold.
Osprey at SJWS

i have seen him do this, and no...he is not a big guy. In shape yes, like a Jackie Chan sort of build.

Point. I completely forgot BIF photos. Still, I don't think that's a situation where IS is going to help you since you're tracking the bird as it flies so you'll be moving the camera intentionally. Or maybe that's what I've been doing wrong with my BIF shots and I should hold still.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

You haven't seen much then, have you.

And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

I have seen much. And one can certainly handhold some 500mm lenses, like the Bigma, although maybe not for extended periods. In addition, stabilization is used by many long-lens photogs even when using a tripod. Guess you didn't know any of this-- no sweat.

The recommendations I've seen say to turn IS off when using a tripod. Link. Systems that allow the user to leave the system "on" while mounted on a tripod use sophisticated mechanisms to disable the IS when the system determines that the camera is on a tripod regardless of the user's selection of "off" or "on", and it corrects only for mirror-slap. Link.

And yes, you can handhold a long lens, but that's largely in situations where you're panning with the subject and won't be able to take advantage of IS anyway. When taking BIF shots, you want at least a 1/1000 shutter speed anyway to stop motion which puts you out of the realm of camera shake anyway and I can't think of other hand-holding situation where you wouldn't be panning.

ZV

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

You haven't seen much then, have you.

And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

I have seen much. And one can certainly handhold some 500mm lenses, like the Bigma, although maybe not for extended periods. In addition, stabilization is used by many long-lens photogs even when using a tripod. Guess you didn't know any of this-- no sweat.

The recommendations I've seen say to turn IS off when using a tripod. Link. Systems that allow the user to leave the system "on" while mounted on a tripod use sophisticated mechanisms to disable the IS when the system determines that the camera is on a tripod regardless of the user's selection of "off" or "on", and it corrects only for mirror-slap. Link.

And yes, you can handhold a long lens, but that's largely in situations where you're panning with the subject and won't be able to take advantage of IS anyway. When taking BIF shots, you want at least a 1/1000 shutter speed anyway to stop motion which puts you out of the realm of camera shake anyway and I can't think of other hand-holding situation where you wouldn't be panning.

ZV

You managed to find a page full of nonsense, but also including this:
"The IS on the super-teles definitely works very well on a tripod, in just about any conditions." This is true. You've exposed your lack of knowledge once again-- please stop spreading nonsense. Guess you're full of it, and instead of admitting it you're just being obstinate about handholding a 500mm lens...

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
No, it's not the angle subtended that matters, but rather the number of pixels shifted in the image. This was probably the source of your confusion.

but the no. of pixels shifted is going to vary according to the angle of movement subtended ...

... and the focal length, and the pixel density of the sensor.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin
I'm not much of a believer in the efficacy of in-body stabilization at lengths like 500mm...

you may not be but it demonstrably works.

Not from what I've seen.

You haven't seen much then, have you.

And anyone hand-holding at 500mm is a friggin' idiot to begin with. 500mm is not exactly a walk-around focal length; it's something you'd use with a tripod (or at least a monopod). stabilization is nice, but it's not going to compensate for bad form like hand-holding a 500mm lens.

ZV

I have seen much. And one can certainly handhold some 500mm lenses, like the Bigma, although maybe not for extended periods. In addition, stabilization is used by many long-lens photogs even when using a tripod. Guess you didn't know any of this-- no sweat.

The recommendations I've seen say to turn IS off when using a tripod. Link. Systems that allow the user to leave the system "on" while mounted on a tripod use sophisticated mechanisms to disable the IS when the system determines that the camera is on a tripod regardless of the user's selection of "off" or "on", and it corrects only for mirror-slap. Link.

And yes, you can handhold a long lens, but that's largely in situations where you're panning with the subject and won't be able to take advantage of IS anyway. When taking BIF shots, you want at least a 1/1000 shutter speed anyway to stop motion which puts you out of the realm of camera shake anyway and I can't think of other hand-holding situation where you wouldn't be panning.

ZV

Whoopsie. -- go check your second link again. <snip -DrPizza>

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: punchkin


... and the focal length, and the pixel density of the sensor.

which are all known factors (the lens tells the camera the working focal length even on a zoom) & computed by the camera - the variable is the angle of movement.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
When taking BIF shots, you want at least a 1/1000 shutter speed anyway to stop motion

obviously my problem
with what I shoot we are often using ~400mm lenses trying to pan following a jet doing 100s of mph & get a nice motion blurred background or using 1/160 or less to get prop blur (static props on flying aircraft just look odd).

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: punchkin


... and the focal length, and the pixel density of the sensor.

which are all known factors (the lens tells the camera the working focal length even on a zoom) & computed by the camera - the variable is the angle of movement.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
When taking BIF shots, you want at least a 1/1000 shutter speed anyway to stop motion

obviously my problem
with what I shoot we are often using ~400mm lenses trying to pan following a jet doing 100s of mph & get a nice motion blurred background or using 1/160 or less to get prop blur (static props on flying aircraft just look odd).

The problem is not the camera knowing about the movement, it's moving the sensor enough, and rapidly enough, to compensate.

 

[Heidfirst]

which they can do.
You may be interested to know that the Sony SSS is actually at it's weakest ~200mm (there is a reason but I can't remember why) & gets better above that as well as below it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
which they can do.

Not at longer focal lengths, like for example the 500mm that is being "discussed" to death here. You're going to have to point to something real for me to believe you (sorry).

 

[GoingUp]

I have a 40D and I love it.