Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-08-2010, 06:53 AM   #76
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
Original Poster
Isnt 1/60s too high for a 30mm?
What about your lowest shutter w/ 50% chance of blur free

03-08-2010, 06:54 AM   #77
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
Original Poster
Btw why did you change to Canon?
03-08-2010, 07:05 AM   #78
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
Turning off the SR, my SAFE slower shutter speed is around 1/focal_length ...with the SR turned on is around 1/(3*focal_length/5).
With safe I mean that I'm quite sure to have from very low to no blur. I also have sharp photos with lower shutter speeds (like 1/4 with a 18mm focal length) but those one fall in the lucky-shot category.

On the other side I was able to take a blurry shot at 1/250 with a 18mm focal length and the SR turned on... I still can't figure how I could do such an error!

Bye
Jenner
03-08-2010, 09:56 AM   #79
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by rustynail925 Quote
Isnt 1/60s too high for a 30mm?
The old rule of thumb was 1 / focal_length, and that was for FF and assuming typical print sizes. The crop factor on Canon is 1.6, so that already pushes the base shutter speed to 1/50". Considering that we tend to pixel peep on digital more than we ever did with film, I'd say 1/60" is just about right to achieve the same percentage of success as 1/30" on FF film.

03-08-2010, 11:38 AM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
I thought I'd give it a try with the DA 55-300mm indoors at 300mm. These are the results I got handheld at 1/10 than 1/4 sec.
300mm wideopen at 1/10 sec shutter speed
300mm wideopen at 1/4 sec. shutter speed

So SR is a life saver, and IMO all of the above are usable

It also shows how some shots are sharper than others.... at 300mm wideopen and 1/4 sec shutter speed its all about consistent technique which I do not have.
Those aren't just usable....
those are amazing
300mm (450mm equiv) hand-held should really require about 1/450 - to be able to get any consistent blur-free images -
that is between 5 1/3 to 7 stops gain.

You may think you lack technique - but those shots show that you definitely hit on how to shoot slow on long focal lengths - very impressive.

Were those totally free-hand -
eg: did you rest your arms (or any part of your body) on any support or did you do anything special?
- I ask not to take anything away - but to learn.

Well done!
03-09-2010, 06:44 AM   #81
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
@yeatzee: It's really hard for me to believe that you usually take usable photos with a focal length of 300mm and a shutter speed going from 1/10 to 1/4. That doesn't mean I don't believe what you say, I mean that I would like to know the ratio of usable photos you take with such a slow shutter speed together with a so long focal length.
I also took a sharp shot with a focal length of 200mm and a shutter speed going from 1/20 and 1/15 or, with a focal length of 18mm, I was able to take a very usable photo with a shutter speed of 1 second (it's nice to hear the SR buzzing inside the body... ). But these are lucky shots: if I set a shutter speed so slow I can't count on more than 1 photo every 10 taken (and the more the focal length the lower the ratio).
So, my question is: do you feel safe on taking photos with such slow shutter speeds?

Bye
Jenner
03-09-2010, 07:54 AM   #82
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,235
I admit that the best I could achieve, hand held, was probably using a DA*16-50 at 16mm trying to get a beautiful sunset scene, with a shutter speed of approximately 1/15s. Hand held but with my elbows resting on a large rock for steadiness.

Since I use a 300mm 80 % of the time, I try to NOT go below 1/500s, weather and light conditions permitting. On clear days I prefer using at least 1/1000s.
That is with the SR "on", whether the subject is static or moving.
The problem I have is that I press the shutter button way to hard and that often causes camera shake, which the SR will not help.

With shorter focals, I definitely try to use at least the shutter speed a bit over the focal length.
For example: with a 50mm lens, I will try not to go below 1/50 - 1/60s.

Of course, those values are when I do hand held shooting.

JP
03-09-2010, 10:47 AM   #83
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
Those aren't just usable....
those are amazing
300mm (450mm equiv) hand-held should really require about 1/450 - to be able to get any consistent blur-free images -
that is between 5 1/3 to 7 stops gain.

You may think you lack technique - but those shots show that you definitely hit on how to shoot slow on long focal lengths - very impressive.

Were those totally free-hand -
eg: did you rest your arms (or any part of your body) on any support or did you do anything special?
- I ask not to take anything away - but to learn.

Well done!
Those were taken with me standing straight up against nothing.... I took about 4 shots before getting a usable one. I tried various techniques but the one that worked best for me was doing the whole breathing exercise and setting the camera to highspeed drive mode. The first shot is always blurry but the second was almost always very acceptable.

03-09-2010, 10:52 AM   #84
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
@yeatzee: It's really hard for me to believe that you usually take usable photos with a focal length of 300mm and a shutter speed going from 1/10 to 1/4. That doesn't mean I don't believe what you say, I mean that I would like to know the ratio of usable photos you take with such a slow shutter speed together with a so long focal length.
I also took a sharp shot with a focal length of 200mm and a shutter speed going from 1/20 and 1/15 or, with a focal length of 18mm, I was able to take a very usable photo with a shutter speed of 1 second (it's nice to hear the SR buzzing inside the body... ). But these are lucky shots: if I set a shutter speed so slow I can't count on more than 1 photo every 10 taken (and the more the focal length the lower the ratio).
So, my question is: do you feel safe on taking photos with such slow shutter speeds?

Bye
Jenner
With static objects, sure why not. It obviously works, and If I had rested on something Im sure I could have done better. And no, I do no regularly shoot my DA 55-300mm at 300mm and such low shutterspeeds. This is actaully my first try at it

Like I said above, I took about 4 shots of each subject before getting the ones you see on the last page.
03-09-2010, 11:03 AM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Those were taken with me standing straight up against nothing.... I took about 4 shots before getting a usable one. I tried various techniques but the one that worked best for me was doing the whole breathing exercise and setting the camera to highspeed drive mode. The first shot is always blurry but the second was almost always very acceptable.
Cool!
now I've learnt something -
never would have thought of using continuous Hi-speed drive mode and shooting a sequence of a few (4?) to get a shot that's blur free. Have to try that.

However there may be some "consistency"....
if your second shot seemed to be normally consistently blur-free -
that may indicate the shutter button actuation could be partially responsible for movement -
the second shot then is when things are stabilized -
then the subsequent shots are when one's ability to continue holding still wanes?

I'll have to get off the one-shot habit/basis.

Thanks.
03-09-2010, 11:18 AM   #86
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
Cool!
now I've learnt something -
never would have thought of using continuous Hi-speed drive mode and shooting a sequence of a few (4?) to get a shot that's blur free. Have to try that.

However there may be some "consistency"....
if your second shot seemed to be normally consistently blur-free -
that may indicate the shutter button actuation could be partially responsible for movement -
the second shot then is when things are stabilized -
then the subsequent shots are when one's ability to continue holding still wanes?

I'll have to get off the one-shot habit/basis.

Thanks.
Thats exactly my thought process when I was trying it out. I shot two bursts of two instead of one burst of 4. My camera is in for repair as I speak so I cannot test how well the latter would work though.

Glad I could help you get those lowlight, slow shutter speed shots!
03-09-2010, 12:12 PM   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Thats exactly my thought process when I was trying it out. I shot two bursts of two instead of one burst of 4. My camera is in for repair as I speak so I cannot test how well the latter would work though.
Glad I could help you get those lowlight, slow shutter speed shots!
May have worked for you - but didn't work for me - and I tried.

In the hi-speed continuous drive sequence I found mostly it was my first shot that gave the "best" result.

However going back to single shot mode I found I was getting noticeably higher percentage of success - even here was kind of hit or miss - but I was noticeably better in single shot mode than in continuous drive.

I am kind of experienced in lower light shooting often getting acceptable/success at 1/4 sec on the K-x (but at 18mm)
and have even gotten acceptable shots down to 1 sec! but that's on my compact Canon G10 with real optical viewfinder which does not have the SLR blackout - so I can keep my eye on the subject and follow through.

Anyway here are the results I got - at the longest focal I have 200mm (300mm equiv) free-hand - standing straight, no support aimed at optical test target at eye level - probably my "worst case".

1/8 sec at 200mm (300mm equiv)


1/4 sec at 200mm (300mm equiv)

EXIF attached (PhotoBucket caveat - metadata can be mysteriously dropped)
the 1/8 sec is pretty good - 1/4 is kind of acceptable for the sizes I use so it is "feasible". These are at at 29% - this is about 2x linearly (or 4x area) larger than my normal posted sizes.

But more critically at 100% actual pixels shows that there is shake visible -

1/8 sec at 200mm (300mm equiv) - 100% actual pixels

1/4 sec at 200mm (300mm equiv) - 100% actual pixels


From these, I think I need about 1/15sec for any reasonable consistency at 200mm (300mm equiv) - not as good as yours.....
but this is still a lot better than I expected
- so thanks for making me try that.
03-09-2010, 12:21 PM   #88
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
Out of curiosity what camera did you try it with?

Edit: the Kx? If so maybe the faster FPS has something to do with it? The K200d's high drive mode is pretty pathetic.

Nonetheless, as always ones mileage with vary
03-09-2010, 01:13 PM   #89
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,653
Based on my own testing, I can get about 50% keepers at 1/6 and 135mm using my K-7 with firmware 1.03. Back with 1.01, the best I could manage was 1/13 or faster.
03-10-2010, 03:47 AM   #90
ntx
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 61
@yeatzee: Wow, amazing technique! I must try it.
Thank you for your reply!

Bye
Jenner
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 08:03 AM. | 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