MarkČ wrote:
"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" wrote:
I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.
Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
They could have done one better.
How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
frame.
Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.
-Mark
I'll second the stabilising effect a "non-grounded" mono pod has. I took
apart an old tripod with cylindrical legs and turned it into a mono
which slips into the front straps of my Tamrac 3 backpack. The camera
actually feels steadier when the unextended legs are braced against my
body. The bag's always ready to go, with camera, 2 lenses, a flash, mem
cards, spare battery and mono pod ... right next to my desk. The tripod
hangs on the wall and mostly gets a cursory glance as I head for the door.
|