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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |