Camera tripods, heads, all of them are compromised.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:37:52 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne
wrote:
On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100,
wrote:

I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods
because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I
get a
vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it
would an
extremely heavy and costly device I fear.

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Impractical for most use.

Not for me. It's how I nearly always carry my camera -- bolted to the
top of a monopod. When I want a more extreme angle than can be
accomodated with its foot on the ground it's often possible to lean it
against something. And if not, it's still more stable handheld on the
'pod than simply hand held.

For those rare times when I really need it I always have a ball head
in my pocket.

--
Chris Malcolm


I figure it's just a matter of time till camera manufacturers configure
image stabilization systems to clear up whatever minor vibrations are
inherent in a tripod / monopod support. Look for tripod IS database
configuration systems similar to lens anomaly compensation systems currently
in use. Vibration compensation data for the various tripods would tell the
IS system what to monitor, and how much to compensate, and presto, perfectly
still images.


Not as long as you are using a DSLR. The image jarring during exposure from
the slapping mirror and shutter cannot be preemptively compensated for. IS
depends on the IS duplicating a preliminary pattern of motion. Not *during*
the exposure. This is why DSLRs will always fail the capabilities of IS
methodology.

"ron_tom" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:37:52 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne
wrote:
On 10-04-04 6:17 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100,
wrote:

I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a
tripods
because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I
get a
vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it
would an
extremely heavy and costly device I fear.

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Impractical for most use.

Not for me. It's how I nearly always carry my camera -- bolted to the
top of a monopod. When I want a more extreme angle than can be
accomodated with its foot on the ground it's often possible to lean it
against something. And if not, it's still more stable handheld on the
'pod than simply hand held.

For those rare times when I really need it I always have a ball head
in my pocket.

--
Chris Malcolm


I figure it's just a matter of time till camera manufacturers configure
image stabilization systems to clear up whatever minor vibrations are
inherent in a tripod / monopod support. Look for tripod IS database
configuration systems similar to lens anomaly compensation systems
currently
in use. Vibration compensation data for the various tripods would tell
the
IS system what to monitor, and how much to compensate, and presto,
perfectly
still images.


Not as long as you are using a DSLR. The image jarring during exposure
from
the slapping mirror and shutter cannot be preemptively compensated for. IS
depends on the IS duplicating a preliminary pattern of motion. Not
*during*
the exposure. This is why DSLRs will always fail the capabilities of IS
methodology.


Your crystal ball tells you that IS systems cannot, in the future, be
designed to compensate for real time camera body / lens body vibrations?

I'm sure Canon / Nikon head hunters will be contacting you soon to head
their R&D departments...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:25:26 -0500, ron_tom wrote:

Not as long as you are using a DSLR. The image jarring during exposure
from the slapping mirror and shutter cannot be preemptively compensated
for. IS depends on the IS duplicating a preliminary pattern of motion.
Not *during* the exposure. This is why DSLRs will always fail the
capabilities of IS methodology.

This is only because you have insufficient knowledge and ability - given
time and application you could possibly graduate to the dizzy heights of
adequate.



--
neil
Reverse ‘r’ + ‘a’ and remove ‘l’.
Linux counter 335851

In rec.photo.digital John A. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, "SS"
wrote:

I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods
because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a
vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an
extremely heavy and costly device I fear.

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

--
Chris Malcolm

On 2010-04-06 15:42:07 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:

In rec.photo.digital John A. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:51 +0100, "SS"
wrote:

I suppose it depends on the % of perfection you want, I use a tripods
because I always get camera shake so even with the cheapest tripod I get a
vast improvement in pictures. The truth is to get 100% stability it would an
extremely heavy and costly device I fear.

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

A roll of gaffer tape.

....and a team of equipment bearers.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In rec.photo.digital Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-06 15:42:07 -0700, Chris Malcolm said:
In rec.photo.digital John A. wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

A roll of gaffer tape.

...and a team of equipment bearers.

I can easily carry some ball bungees, string, and a small roll of
gaffer tape in my camera bag or pockets, and often do. No need for an
assistant to help me carry it. Of course if you can afford a team you
don't even need to carry your camera.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 4/7/2010 9:37 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:
On 2010-04-06 15:42:07 -0700, Chris said:
In rec.photo.digital John wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

A roll of gaffer tape.

...and a team of equipment bearers.

I can easily carry some ball bungees, string, and a small roll of
gaffer tape in my camera bag or pockets, and often do. No need for an
assistant to help me carry it. Of course if you can afford a team you
don't even need to carry your camera.

Just bolt it to the stabilized main gun on your Abrams and pray that you
never have to shoot anything.

"John A." kirjoitti
om...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:11:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 4/7/2010 9:37 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:
On 2010-04-06 15:42:07 -0700, Chris
said:
In rec.photo.digital John wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the
monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

A roll of gaffer tape.

...and a team of equipment bearers.

I can easily carry some ball bungees, string, and a small roll of
gaffer tape in my camera bag or pockets, and often do. No need for an
assistant to help me carry it. Of course if you can afford a team you
don't even need to carry your camera.

Just bolt it to the stabilized main gun on your Abrams and pray that you
never have to shoot anything.

Does the Abrams have shoot-in-focus?
But how about Gorilla pods which you can hang in many different places:
http://joby.com/gorillapod

On 10-04-07 15:22 , John A. wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:11:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 4/7/2010 9:37 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:
On 2010-04-06 15:42:07 -0700, Chris said:
In rec.photo.digital John wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010 10:17:43 GMT, Chris
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital wrote:

Have you tried a monopod?

A monopod gives you a very useful increase in stability at a much
lower penalty than a tripod in terms of bulk and weight.

What's more for many uses you can avoid the head and its flexure
problems completely and just bolt the camera directly to the monopod.

Or carry some zip ties around and strap the camera to any handy post,
rail, tree branch, or other stabile fixture or object. Be sure to
bring along cutters, a pocket knife, or, particularly in
higher-security situations, fingernail clippers.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to carry some ball bungees and string?

A roll of gaffer tape.

...and a team of equipment bearers.

I can easily carry some ball bungees, string, and a small roll of
gaffer tape in my camera bag or pockets, and often do. No need for an
assistant to help me carry it. Of course if you can afford a team you
don't even need to carry your camera.

Just bolt it to the stabilized main gun on your Abrams and pray that you
never have to shoot anything.

Does the Abrams have shoot-in-focus?

Fire for effect focus.


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-07 16:16 , Mulperi wrote:

But how about Gorilla pods which you can hang in many different places:
http://joby.com/gorillapod

I doubt their stability with a large/heavy slr and lens - but could be
useful.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.