Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-02-2010, 09:29 AM   #46
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 39
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
This is true, but if you crop your images from the shorter focal length to render your subject as large as with the 50, you'll have just nullified the advantage you got from the wider FOV. And if you don't crop the image, then you don't really have any more detail to show for for the reduction in blur in a similar-sized print or display. I suppose if you actually come in closer to shoot with the wider angle lens, then you'd actually see an advantage.
With the 50 1.4, about half the time I find myself stepping backwards to frame a shot, so a 30 mm at f2 would be a wash, pretty much.

Here's today's logical fallacy, appeal to authority:

What Ansel Adams Said

Since Roy was intrigued by my citation of Ansel Adamsí findings, I went back to Anselís book, The Camera, page 116, which states:

Tests I conducted some years ago, photographing leafless trees against the sky, indicated that, using a normal lens with a hand-held camera, the slowest shutter speed that ensured maximum sharpness was 1/250 second. I found that even with firm body support image sharpness was noticeably degraded at 1/125 second, a speed that many photographers consider safe for hand-holding a camera with normal lens.

03-02-2010, 09:47 AM   #47
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,838
1/15 is the slowest I've tried handheld

03-02-2010, 10:53 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
As many have pointed out that it depends on focal length.
The longer the focal length the more critical this seems to become to me - perhaps not quite "exponential" - but I don't think it is a linear relationship at least to me.

Also at shorter focal lengths there is a kind of threshold - where the SLR blackout becomes significant - making it hard to keep one's eye on the target therefore negating "follow through" - for me this seems to be around 1/4 sec but it is also around 18mm - I have managed 1/3 sec as well but not as consistently as 1/4 sec (which is already partial) - I know I mentioned this before but I have managed 1 sec with a compact with a real optical viewfinder - not something I do regularly - but again I have surprisingly "high" rates of success - the latter wasn't to boast but to show that the SLR blackout is significant to my usage.

People have argued that "follow through" can be achieved with SLR's by keeping the non-viewfinder eye open. Yes, this does improve things and I do this - however I wonder how many champion shooters/marksmen shut their aiming eye on firing and use their other eye to follow through? So although keeping the other eye open helps it is remedial at best and SLR blackout is significant - at least for me.

Anyway getting back on focal length -


200mm (=300mm equiv) ISO3200, f/5.6, 1/20 (EXIF attached but PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)
(about 4 stops below the recommended 1/f; or 5 stops below 1/2f)
yes there is some softening at the face - probably due to subject movement - but look at the buttons to see that there is no camera movement.


200mm (=300mm equiv) ISO3200, f/5.6, 1/13
(about 4 2/3 stops below 1/f; or 5 2/3 stops below 1/2f)
this was a "grab-shot" and probably lacked proper technique -
so perhaps less impressive, there is softness - but it is an "acceptable" shot - and softness kind of suits the subject.

All I know is that Pentax SR may not review that well -
but seems to work really well for me,
and I can tell with longer focal lengths
300mm used to be almost impossible for me below about 1/100 sec
now I am getting 1/20 and 1/13?.......
03-02-2010, 12:22 PM   #49
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Soft doesn't mean blurry. I'll take a nice soft, film-like tone over noisy any day. When I shoot landscapes and still life, I will use a tripod and shoot at low iso. When in a dark setting and intimate space, I will work with what I have to produce the best results. In the case of the examples I stated, they turned out fine at iso 1600 and 1/3 t 1/5 sec shutter times, which was the point of my post to begin with.

Jason
What does soft mean???? Zoom in to a soft photo and you'll understand. I don't know what camera you are using, but 3200iso on a k7 is not bad at all. Can easily be corrected with post processing. even 6400iso on k7 can be corrected and still get a decent image which still beats a blurry image. Specially if your subject is not steady.

03-02-2010, 12:46 PM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
What does soft mean???? Zoom in to a soft photo and you'll understand. I don't know what camera you are using, but 3200iso on a k7 is not bad at all. Can easily be corrected with post processing. even 6400iso on k7 can be corrected and still get a decent image which still beats a blurry image. Specially if your subject is not steady.
Maybe he was already at ISO3200 (and possibly something as wide as f/1.4)

Pubs are dark. How much low light shooting have you done?
03-02-2010, 12:55 PM   #51
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
Read the posts properly. He was at 1600iso. Don't assume. The question was to explain what soft means.
03-02-2010, 12:59 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Outside of Philly
Posts: 1,564
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
Read the posts properly. He was at 1600iso. Don't assume. The question was to explain what soft means.
DOAH...Sorry about that

So going to ISO3200 would have bumped him up to 1/10s. Still in the "it's freakin' dark" category

When it gets THAT dark, I hope that the motion blur is such that it "shows" motion in an artistic way and I can explain that I meant for the subject to be blurry (with the surroundings hopefully being sharp due to my image stabilization)
03-02-2010, 01:14 PM   #53
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
Soft means soft, not necessarily (or in this case at all) blurry. The shots came out fine. If you ever get around to looking at the examples I was referring to, you can judge for yourself, or not. If you are of the mindset that every pleasing photo must be razor sharp, then more power to you in your own shooting. I do think you'll find that softness at slow shutter speeds may not always be less advantageous than grainy high iso shots, just for the sake of shooting high iso and correcting them with noise reduction software later.

Everything else aside, there is no need to be bellicose if you have a differing point of view. There is enough of that already on other boards.

Jason

03-02-2010, 01:32 PM   #54
Veteran Member
lurchlarson's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 683
1/8 with SR on using my k200d is the best I've ever done. I was shooting at 40 mm (18-55 kit). I was super lucky though.
03-02-2010, 01:41 PM   #55
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,218
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
....so I snapped this one off (single shot only) of my wife before she noticed and gave me the "take one more picture of me and I'll kill you stare".
I know that look well.
03-02-2010, 02:12 PM   #56
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by egordon99 Quote
DOAH...Sorry about that

So going to ISO3200 would have bumped him up to 1/10s. Still in the "it's freakin' dark" category

When it gets THAT dark, I hope that the motion blur is such that it "shows" motion in an artistic way and I can explain that I meant for the subject to be blurry (with the surroundings hopefully being sharp due to my image stabilization)
artistic?? I don't think so. I wouldn't take my chances that if couldn't get a clear image i may get an artistic shot. I don't' know how much experience you've had with post processing. Here is shot i just took indoor at 3200iso and 1/20 shutter to prove my point. Just as i mentioned previously at 3200iso image doesn't look bad to start with although it does have some noise..

Look at the before and after noise reduction post processing. Shooting 1/20 at 3200iso is allot better then shotting 1/10 shutter with 1600iso. It makes a big difference . 1/20 will result in a sharper image. Noise can be fixed with post processing, blurry images can't. Below is a before and afters shot in both full size and 100% crop.
Attached Images
       

Last edited by Alex00; 03-02-2010 at 03:21 PM.
03-02-2010, 02:15 PM   #57
PFH
Site Supporter
PFH's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 482
This one is taken handheld on 1/4 with my K20D and my DA16-45 @ 45
Attached Images
 
03-02-2010, 02:20 PM   #58
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Soft means soft, not necessarily (or in this case at all) blurry. The shots came out fine. If you ever get around to looking at the examples I was referring to, you can judge for yourself, or not. If you are of the mindset that every pleasing photo must be razor sharp, then more power to you in your own shooting. I do think you'll find that softness at slow shutter speeds may not always be less advantageous than grainy high iso shots, just for the sake of shooting high iso and correcting them with noise reduction software later.

Everything else aside, there is no need to be bellicose if you have a differing point of view. There is enough of that already on other boards.

Jason
soft means soft doesn't explain things much. Soft in this case means slight blur. We are not talking soft due to poor optical quality of the lens. Your soft here is due to not having fast enough shutter which means slight blur.

Last edited by Alex00; 03-02-2010 at 02:50 PM.
03-02-2010, 03:16 PM   #59
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,216
QuoteOriginally posted by PFH Quote
This one is taken handheld on 1/4 with my K20D and my DA16-45 @ 45
Super image, two thumbs up for all that artistic blur. .

My personal best ever was 1.5 seconds at 12mm, sitting down, elbows tucked in and static subject. I did hold my breath also.
Normally 1/45 or so with 18-55 is very good in my book.

Cheers, Mike.

Last edited by Ex Finn.; 03-02-2010 at 03:25 PM.
03-02-2010, 03:26 PM   #60
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by LouD Quote
Here's today's logical fallacy, appeal to authority:

What Ansel Adams Said

Since Roy was intrigued by my citation of Ansel Adamsí findings, I went back to Anselís book, The Camera, page 116, which states:

Tests I conducted some years ago, photographing leafless trees against the sky, indicated that, using a normal lens with a hand-held camera, the slowest shutter speed that ensured maximum sharpness was 1/250 second. I found that even with firm body support image sharpness was noticeably degraded at 1/125 second, a speed that many photographers consider safe for hand-holding a camera with normal lens.
Ah, St. Ansel, I wonder what he'd manage with a decent camera today? I know that I can hand hold my Mamiya 7 at some ridiculously low shutter speeds and the detail holds up under a 40x microscope. SR, quiet shutters, individual heath and age advantage also add the the complexity of the equation. You can take note of as much advise as you like but suck it and see is the best method by far.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Webcams: sometimes the lowest quality cameras can take the best pictures Cannikin Photographic Technique 2 10-27-2010 05:00 AM
K-7 Lowest price I have seen. Uncle_dad Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 05-07-2010 06:59 AM
Shooting at Lowest Contrast? PNTXFTW12 Video and Pentax HDSLRs 2 02-21-2010 06:41 PM
Help plz. widest pentax lens with lowest distortion? kiamon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 06-02-2008 05:41 PM
Pentax K20D Lowest Price maxamillion Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 03-05-2008 01:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top