Sfleming
Sep 1 2004, 11:38 PM
I would think these are definitely the types of vibration that could denigrate an image. I always shut the motor off.
I have s similar wondering about shooting from a boat. I was out in my canoe the other day which I normally only use as a transportation device to get to shooting subjects but I found two giant long dead cypress trees sitting in very calm water which would make very interesting subjects. They cannot be shot like I want from land. Being one who almost always shoots with slow tranny film I'm wondering if I can set up my tripod (collapsed legs) and shoot them from the canoe. This would negate my shaky hands but no matter how calm the water there is still some small motion in a boat. I'm wondering what speed I can get away with?
Bobtrips
Sep 2 2004, 10:40 AM
Take the 'target shooting' advice one step further. Squeeze the trigger, er, shutter button. Don't "push" it. Don't push against the camera but squeeze the camera in your hand.
I've watched people bend into their camera as they "pushed" the shutter. My aunt was famous for chopping off the tops of people's heads when she was shooting. She had a sort of bowing motion that she used at the critical moment.
Bobtrips
Sep 2 2004, 11:29 PM
Consider an image stabilized lens.
Or a image stabilized camera such as the Panasonic FZ10 or FZ20 for casual wildlife photos. 35-420 mm eq. lens, 2.8 through the whole range.
John Camp
Sep 1 2004, 10:02 PM
Or do I have a different problem? For reasons not worth explaining, I've been taking a series of mini-landscapes (averaging perhaps six feet wide) and some of them I've shot from a parked, but running, car on a roadside. A number of the shots show overall blurring, like the kind you get with camera motion. I was handholding a Kodak SLR/n, shooting in bright daylight, with a Nikon VR lens. Others are perfectly sharp. I began wondering if (1) car vibration alone is enough to blur photos -- the car is a V8 that runs very smoothly. I may have rested my hand on the window edge, which would transmit vibration more directly than if I'd not leaned against the car; also (2) is it possible for the vibration to interact with the VR and put a double whammy on me, with the VR trying to counteract a vibration that is simply too fast? I don't believe that any of the shots I took from outside the car show the blurring, but I'm not sure I remember where I was for each shot. Any opinions?
JC
The tripod will increase vigration in this instance, not reduce it. It will transmit every little ripple up to the camera.
Better to hand hold, where your body serves to absorb some of the vibration.
Hold your forearms in to your chest with the camera up against your face. Hold the camera firmly, but no too hard, because if your arms or hands are too tight the muscles will start to tremor.
Breath in and then breath out slowly. At the end of the breath release the shutter. Do so in a smooth motion rather than a poke at the release. Take the shot several times in the hope that one of them will be sharp.
BTW, this technique is the one that target shooters use. It's a good idea to practice this sitting at home and to test what shutter speed you can achieve.
Michael
Sfleming
Sep 2 2004, 02:47 PM
Thanks Michael and Bob,
I used to have a lot more confidence in my hand holding ability but alas, I am no spring chicken any more. I think I have developed a tad of a tremor from somewhere as well. I've noticed it when really paying attention while looking through the viewfinder.
The day I was out in the canoe I also came across two Cottonmouth Water Mocasins mating. They were dancing and twining with utter abandon. I hovered no more than fifteen feet from them and they paid me absolutely no mind. Since I don't usually shoot from the boat I had no film in the camera. I dug it out of the bag and loaded up a role of 120 but of course all I had was 100 asa. I was shooting them at f/4 and 1/15th. Probably just be a blur. I was pretty excited. Not sure I even got the exposure right as the camera is almost always on manual and I had such 'buck fever' I didn't even notice I was over-exposing by a stop or so untill about the third frame. Maybe I got lucky. We shall see.
Regardless it will be a severe crop situation as my longest lens was 80mm. I now have the 120 Macro but really need the 210 .... and some faster film if I'm going to do this nature stuff. I hardly ever do but the situation with these creatures really gave me the bug.
If only I had had the 10D with me.
Alberio
Sep 3 2004, 04:47 AM
QUOTE (Bobtrips @ Sep. 03 2004,00:29)
Consider an image stabilized lens.
Or a image stabilized camera such as the Panasonic FZ10 or FZ20 for casual wildlife photos. 35-420 mm eq. lens, 2.8 through the whole range.
Er, the guy did say he was using a Nikon VR lens, not sure what you're smoking here ....
Again, definitely no leaning any body parts on a vibrating object, no matter how rotund and absorbent you might think you are. I usually try to keep my rear end as my upper body's closest connection to a running vehicle. So, no leaning the hood against a train window or resting an elbow on a car window frame. Moreover, the floating "correctional" lens inside an image stabilized lens is on an extremely light and easy-to-move frame and is probably very susceptible to high-frequency vibration, but in general all lenses are affected.
Bob My dad is a worse offender: you can see the camera rotate toward the shutter button when he presses it! Maybe even worse is that his understanding of autofocus on point-and-shoot cameras is to press the shutter halfway and then reframe. This includes moving backwards and forwards ....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.