A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kodak blows it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 26th 05, 08:13 PM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message . uk...
Larry Lynch wrote:
[]
Generally, when out in the field, I find myself surrounded by tripods,
monopods, and braces. They are, however disguised as fences, trees,
rocks, car hoods (or bonnets), pick-up truck step bumpers, and more
than once, the rump of a sleeping cow.


Very much my philosophy as well - but even then it's nice to have the
extra stability afforded by IS.

Probably, if I inventory my life, the most often carried piece of
"bracing gear" that I carry is a "bean bag" that fits across the
bottom of my camera bag.. I dont know its weight, probably about a
pound, but Im used to carrying it.


For those longer exposures - say 1/4s or longer shutter opening time -
I'll use tissues or a cloth to protect the camera while it's braced aginst
a tree, railing or building.

But for when you /must/ use pure hand-held, IS is a great benefit.


I agree.
But although I'm a huge IS fan, here are a couple of recent examples of
shots you just can't do without a tripod:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
and:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47771244/original

These were shot at 1 second and 1/2 second.
No matter how good IS is (and I won't buy another tele that doesn't have
it), there are just a ton of things that require support.


  #22  
Old August 26th 05, 08:24 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark² wrote:
[]
I agree.
But although I'm a huge IS fan, here are a couple of recent examples
of shots you just can't do without a tripod:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
and:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47771244/original

These were shot at 1 second and 1/2 second.
No matter how good IS is (and I won't buy another tele that doesn't
have it), there are just a ton of things that require support.


Wonderful shots!

However, whilst I completely agree that support is required, you can often
find natural supports rather than carrying a tripod around. Might have
done at least for the lake shot. Indoors, for studio type stuff, I do use
a tripod, it's just when I have to carry everything that it gets left at
home.

David


  #23  
Old August 26th 05, 08:32 PM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message . uk...
Mark² wrote:
[]
I agree.
But although I'm a huge IS fan, here are a couple of recent examples
of shots you just can't do without a tripod:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
and:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47771244/original

These were shot at 1 second and 1/2 second.
No matter how good IS is (and I won't buy another tele that doesn't
have it), there are just a ton of things that require support.


Wonderful shots!

However, whilst I completely agree that support is required, you can often
find natural supports rather than carrying a tripod around. Might have
done at least for the lake shot.


Hee hee... That shot is misleading.
That "lake shot" is from a tripod, and is of a rock that's only about two
feet high at the beach after sunset.
It looks rather odd, and is difficult to identify the scale without more
information.

Indoors, for studio type stuff, I do use a tripod, it's just when I have to
carry everything that it gets left at home.


I understand.
I gotta mention though...I recently broke down and bought a carbon fiber
tripod, and the difference in my newfound willingness to carry it compared
with my old heavy one is amazing! It os SO much lighter, and I no longer
have a painful dent in my shoulder on hikes (literally). I would highly
recommend that anyone even slightly interested take a serious look at this
expenditure...if for no other reason than the fact that you'll carry it more
often due to light weight and less "pain."


  #25  
Old August 26th 05, 09:16 PM
Mike Berger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have yet to see a camera where image stabilization was
as good as the stability you get with a tripod.

Don Wiss wrote:

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.

  #26  
Old August 26th 05, 09:50 PM
Mark²
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Berger" wrote in message
...
I have yet to see a camera where image stabilization was
as good as the stability you get with a tripod.


True.
But I have yet to see a tripod that works while riding a horse...in a
boat...climbing trees...hanging out the window of a shuttle bus in Denali,
Alaska...in a museum that doesn't allow flash or tripods...or from my seat
at a performance...or any number of OTHER situations I've actually found
myself in...where IS has literally saved the shot. I've used IS in ALL of
the above examples, and it's been truly a life-saver.

I love my tripod (especially my new carbon fiber beauty), and I agree that
IS isn't as steady...but it serves a unique purpose--especially in
situations where using a tripod is out of the question.
Mark


Don Wiss wrote:

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.



  #27  
Old August 27th 05, 01:50 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Lynch wrote:
In article , says...
David J Taylor wrote:
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.

OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
essential.
What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.




I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.

I have been shooting for many years with lenses as long as 300 mm
without stabilization being supplied by the camera.

With or without a tripod, 300mm (and more) can be done without the
camera making up for vibration.

Methinks the public expecteth too much from IS to begin with.

I have a couple of cameras that are in the range of 38 to 380 mm
(equivalent) zoom (one of them is a Kodak) and none of them have IS
because they were built before it became popular (read that as cheap) in
the market.

I have only lost a half dozen frames out of hundreds shot due to motion
blur, and my hands are not particularly steady for a 60 year old guy.

My hands shake quite badly from time to time for no apparent reason
whatever. I just had to learn to do it the hard way, because I started
way back when IS wasnt available.

I heartily recommend to all who do a lot of "long lens" photography that
you take the time to learn to do without the IS even if you do have it.
It will make you a better photographer.

Would I buy a camera that has IS??? Probably, but not because it has IS.

I dont "shun" it, but I dont crave it either.

A NEED for IS is a sure sign you haven't practiced good technique unless
you go past about 400mm.

Of course this is opinion, and not meant to be a statement of FACT
except as an example of how I view the world.



I think a lot has to do with the kind of pictures you take. IS wouldn't
do a lot for the pictures I take. Having been taking pictures for about
55 years, I have found that there are ways to steady the camera for just
about any need. Those who have the time, and don't mind carting around
a lot of gear, a tripod is a great investment. Not only does it work on
any camera, but it doesn't cut down on the light you get into the camera
(effectively), and it doesn't add weight, or complexity to the hardware
of the camera. That said, I have never owned one. It just doesn't suit
the type of pictures I take (candids).


--
Ron Hunter

  #28  
Old August 28th 05, 11:39 PM
Cardamon Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Several respondents have said there's no convenient way to carry a
tripod or monopod on bicycle or while walking in the woods. I know of a
few options:

1) The plastic-and-velcro Ultrapod, which I usually see in Eddie Bauer
outlet stores. It's simple enough of a contraption, and the velcro
strap could be wrapped around a tree branch or the handlebars of a
parked bicycle for stability. $13 at retail.

2) I frequently tote a 20-or-so year-old Kalimar collapsible tripod
that extends to somewhere around 48 inches. It collapses to around 12.
Is it the perfect solution? No, it has a tendency to wobble when a
heavier camera (Nikon FM2a) is placed upon it. But it works with most
of my smaller cameras, and takes next to no room at all. $20 at a flea
market or on &Bay.

3) Hakuba marketed a compact monopod that has two short (~8 inch) legs
near the ball head, enabling it to serve as either a monopod or a
tabletop tripod. Around $30 when I bought it in 1999.

Bottom line? There are inexpensive, portable alternatives to IS.

-Cardamon Dave

  #29  
Old August 28th 05, 11:52 PM
Don Wiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 28 Aug 2005 15:39:35 -0700, Cardamon Dave wrote:

Bottom line? There are inexpensive, portable alternatives to IS.


And more inconvenient. IS exists. The additonal cost is trival to some of
us. No reason why IS shouldn't be in prosumer cameras.

Maybe on September 1st Nikon will add IS to the 8400.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
  #30  
Old August 29th 05, 11:14 AM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark=B2 (lowest even number here) skrev:

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.


Monopods are great - as alternatives to tripods. But being obliged to
bring one as soon as one brings the camera would suck big time for me.
It=B4s easy to just strap a camera around your shoulder whenever you go
out. Having to put a monopod somewhere adds considerably to the hassle,
and, in addition, mentally transforms "giong somewhere with the camera
around just in case" into "embarking on a photograpical expedition".
And the seconds you need to screw it onto the camera can make you miss
the shooting opportunity.

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.


This is but one of several ways of acheiving a steadier aim. My
monopod-free way of doing it is to toggle to LCD display instead of EVF
view, and then hold out the camera in front of your face, until the
neck strap is straightened.

If I can then lean my back against something - such as a tree or a wall
- I have a 30-50% chance of getting a usefully sharp shot at 1/4 of a
second with no IS. I did that a lot in museums back when I only had a
CP995.

OTOH, doing the same thing with my FZ20 - i.e. with IS - doesn't seem
to improve this performance all that much. I suspect that the motion
there is a bit too slow to be detected by Panny's IS gyros.

Jan B=F6hme

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PMAI Announcement Regarding Kodak Walt Hanks Digital SLR Cameras 1 July 12th 05 04:45 AM
Kodak Perfect Touch Processing Jeremy 35mm Photo Equipment 0 October 28th 04 08:16 PM
Buy film, not equipment. Geoffrey S. Mendelson In The Darkroom 545 October 24th 04 09:25 PM
FS: Camera Collection Jerry Dycus 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 16th 03 02:30 PM
FS: Camera Collection Jerry Dycus General Equipment For Sale 0 October 16th 03 02:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.