Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DSLR harder to handhold than P&S?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
20D.

The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
so perhaps this is to be expected?

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

More about : dslr harder handhold

Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42525901$0$29785$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Derek Fountain <nospam@example.com> writes
>Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
>shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
>I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
>20D.
>
>The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
>so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
Any SLR (whether digital or film) will have an advantage and a
disadvantage compared with a P&S. The advantage is that the camera is
significantly heavier; this gives it a higher moment of inertia
(effectively, resistance to twisting). Up to a point, this will help
prevent shake; the "point" is where it gets so heavy it makes your
muscles tremble. (Note that in rifle target shooting a heavy gun is
preferred; in fact there are *maximum* weight limits for competition to
limit the advantage.)

The disadvantage is of course the mirror slap which others have
mentioned. However, modern designs are very well damped, and the effects
of this are not as great as they were 20-30 years ago.

The often quoted limit for hand holding (1/focal length in mm) is
historically related to 35mm cameras. A reduced-sensor DSLR like the 20D
actually magnifies the image rather more than a 35mm SLR, so the effects
of shake will also be magnified. I agree this will not apply to a
comparison with a digital P&S. However, I recommend that wherever
possible one should use the next-higher speed or faster. Thus at 50mm
focal length, use 1/100 or 1/125. Or, of course, use an IS lens if
available.

Finally, most DSLRs by default apply little or no in-camera sharpening,
whereas most P&S digitals apply rather a lot. Thus, the unprocessed
results from the DSLR can often look softer. Make sure you are comparing
like with like.

To get to the bottom of the issue, David Littleboy's suggestion is good.
However, do bear in mind the sharpening issue above when evaluating the
results, and either switch off the sharpening from the compact, or apply
optimum sharpening to the DSLR images.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:23:46 +0800, in rec.photo.digital Derek
Fountain <nospam@example.com> wrote:

>Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
>shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
>I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
>20D.
>
>The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
>so perhaps this is to be expected?


Besides David's comments, are you viewing the comparative images at
the same size or 1:1? Could the additional resolution be capturing
enough additional detail to allow you to see the blurring?
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Related resources
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
> landscape shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for
> example, 1/50sec I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's
> blurred with the 8MP 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
> sharper), so perhaps this is to be expected?

That is one reason I always suggest actually picking up the camera you
are considering buying and work all the controls. Some cameras just fit
better than others. What fits me may not fit you. Many years ago when I
sold cameras retail, I quickly learned that young children and older adults
need larger cameras with larger buttons. They will be happier with them and
they will get better photos.

That is an oversimplification for your question but it still applies.
Some people will do better with one camera than another. While general size
is a good indicator it is only part of the story so it means checking each
camera for each user.

As for your issue. As noted mirror slap can play a role, but it is
usually small at normal speeds. I suggest the following practice:

Buy one of those cheap laser pens. Tape it to the camera so it will
shine on the wall which will be your subject. Now practice and watch the
movement of the light. You want to reduce the movement. Note: cameras with
mirrors are designed to prevent shake before and during the exposure, but
not after so this test may not work all that well unless you lock the mirror
up.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
> landscape shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for
> example, 1/50sec I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's
> blurred with the 8MP 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
> sharper), so perhaps this is to be expected?

I went from film SLR to digital non-SLR, and I was surprised by the
difference. My experience was the same as yours. Shots which would have
shown blur at 1/30 could now be easily hand-held at 1/8. We had
discussions about this in this newsgroup a while ago, and I recall:

- there is much less vibration in the non-SLR

- there is much less acoustic noise in the non-SLR (the noise may cause
you to "jump" slightly).

- the design of cameras like the Nikon 990 and now those with swivel LCD
viewfinders) allows you to brace the cameras in ways which are impossible
for an SLR.

- the taking posture may be different between the two camera styles.

- having a finite number of pixels may show camera-shake less than on
slides displayed on a big screen.

Yes, the greater mass of the DSLR should produce steadier shots, but only
if it's not so much mass as not to cause extra shaking in your hands. You
may also find that the aperture of the DSLR lenses is rather restricted
especially if you get the cheaper "kit" lens which comes with the camera,
requiring longer shutter opening times.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
No, it shouldn't be more subject to motion blur than other cameras. You
may have a lens problem.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 5, 2005 9:23:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?


P&S has more depth of field so hard to get things out of focus. You may
also be noticing the relatively cheap kit lens and it's limitations such
as being soft at either end of the aperture range and not particularly
fast for low light action.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:35:18 -0400, in rec.photo.digital Ed Ruf
<egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>Besides David's comments, are you viewing the comparative images at
>the same size or 1:1? Could the additional resolution be capturing
>enough additional detail to allow you to see the blurring?

Also, remember P&S cameras typically process their images more in
terms contrast and sharpening. So if you are comparing default auto
jpeg this may also be a factor w.r.t. the dslr images not appearing as
sharp.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> The disadvantage is of course the mirror slap which others have mentioned.
> However, modern designs are very well damped, and the effects of this are
> not as great as they were 20-30 years ago.

Very true, took a group photo for a friend on the weekend with an old Pentax
ME, the thunk when it took a shot was huge compared to my Pentax *ist Ds.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in
news:7tt451tc8rkm4s2sfi2h4nnbv887rukoa2@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:23:46 +0800, in rec.photo.digital Derek
> Fountain <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
>>landscape shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for
>>example, 1/50sec I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's
>>blurred with the 8MP 20D.
>>
>>The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
>>sharper), so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
>
> Besides David's comments, are you viewing the comparative images at
> the same size or 1:1? Could the additional resolution be capturing
> enough additional detail to allow you to see the blurring?
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
>

I wll go out on a limb here and suggest maybe a back focus issue. In your
shots does it appear that the back ground is in focus but the main subject
is soft?

I use Nikon gear and have occasionally moved the focus point and not
noticed, making the camera focus on items away from the main subject.

Mick Brown
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:48:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>Derek Fountain wrote:
>> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
>> landscape shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for
>> example, 1/50sec I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's
>> blurred with the 8MP 20D.
>>
>> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
>> sharper), so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
>I went from film SLR to digital non-SLR, and I was surprised by the
>difference. My experience was the same as yours. Shots which would have
>shown blur at 1/30 could now be easily hand-held at 1/8. We had
>discussions about this in this newsgroup a while ago, and I recall:
>

Which is why some film photographers used rangefinders in addition to
SLR's.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4Ov4e.4315$G8.1862@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>I went from film SLR to digital non-SLR, and I was surprised by the
>difference. My experience was the same as yours. Shots which would have
>shown blur at 1/30 could now be easily hand-held at 1/8.

I think the following picture was taken with a 24mm at f/2.0 and 1/8:
http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/m.3-96-6-28.jpg
(larger version: http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/xl.3-96-6-28.jpg)

I just wanted to take a couple of pictures. I was surprised how sharp they
turned out to be.

I wonder what percentage of camera shake is caused by the camera itself
(mirror, shutter) and what is caused by not holding the camera steady
enough.

Experience with video cameras suggests that even without moving parts, holding
something steady is quite tricky.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 9:23:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <iPu4e.932$5F3.195@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>> The disadvantage is of course the mirror slap which others have mentioned.
>> However, modern designs are very well damped, and the effects of this are
>> not as great as they were 20-30 years ago.
>
>Very true, took a group photo for a friend on the weekend with an old Pentax
>ME, the thunk when it took a shot was huge compared to my Pentax *ist Ds.

Did you set the shutter speed to bulb? At least in older Nikons there is
quite a bit of shake when the mirror is released after the exposure.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 10:31:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:42525901$0$29785$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?

The extra weight of the dSLR should help, but the mirror should hurt.

Here's how to test it. Pick an (equivalent) focal length, e.g. 100mm. Set
your P&S camera lens to that length and take 20 shots at 1/25, 20 at 1/50,
and 20 at 1/100. Repeat for the dSLR. Compare every shot to a standard shot
taken on a sturdy tripod for sharpness and determine what percentage are
sharp at each shutter speed.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 10:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The extra weight of the dSLR should help, but the mirror should hurt.

For some reason I'd assumed the mirror action wouldn't really have much
effect on the photograph. Once you guys had told me what mirror lockup was
(see threads passim) I kind of thought "deal with that if I ever see it."
Are you telling me it should be a consideration for most shots? I'd already
figured more frequent use of a tripod is in order, so perhaps I'd better
get used to this mirror lockup feature!

> Here's how to test it. Pick an (equivalent) focal length, e.g. 100mm. Set
> your P&S camera lens to that length and take 20 shots at 1/25, 20 at 1/50,
> and 20 at 1/100. Repeat for the dSLR. Compare every shot to a standard
> shot taken on a sturdy tripod for sharpness and determine what percentage
> are sharp at each shutter speed.

OK, thanks. That's tomorrow's project. :) 

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 11:06:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I haven't followed all the thread (maybe 20 contributions or so)
but I am willing to make a point and apologise if it has already
been said.

The biggest difference between the P&S and the SLR is often the
User.

Let me explain, I live in a tourist trap (Paris to be precise) and
I see a lot of pictures being taken. Obviously of late most of
these have been digital. My feeling is that the average digital
P&S'er hardly ever uses the viewfinder and takes their photo
holding the camera at arm's length, looking at the screen, in a
way almost perfect for maximising shake. Your SLR (digital or
otherwise) user will brace themselves and thus produce a better
picture.

Obviously a serious photographer will always try hold the camera
in the correct manner but statistically P&S cameras are owned by
P&S people!

Having said all this I own a Coolpix 5400 (P&Sish) and love the
Museum mode which just takes a load and throws away all but the
sharpest. I have had lovely hand held shots in churches at 1/2 and
1/4 second this way.

All the best

PCR


----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v2.1 Beta 2
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 11:06:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PCR wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't followed all the thread (maybe 20 contributions or so)
> but I am willing to make a point and apologise if it has already
> been said.
>
> The biggest difference between the P&S and the SLR is often the
> User.
>
> Let me explain, I live in a tourist trap (Paris to be precise) and
> I see a lot of pictures being taken. Obviously of late most of
> these have been digital. My feeling is that the average digital
> P&S'er hardly ever uses the viewfinder and takes their photo
> holding the camera at arm's length, looking at the screen, in a
> way almost perfect for maximising shake. Your SLR (digital or
> otherwise) user will brace themselves and thus produce a better
> picture.
>
> Obviously a serious photographer will always try hold the camera
> in the correct manner but statistically P&S cameras are owned by
> P&S people!
>
> Having said all this I own a Coolpix 5400 (P&Sish) and love the
> Museum mode which just takes a load and throws away all but the
> sharpest. I have had lovely hand held shots in churches at 1/2 and
> 1/4 second this way.
>
> All the best
>
> PCR
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Posted with NewsLeecher v2.1 Beta 2
> * Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
> * http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
> ----------------------------------------------
>
I agree with you about the holding at arms length, but I also noticed my
nephew doing this with his 10D. Of course, he couldn't actually take
the picture that way, but I wanted to know why he did it, and he said he
wanted to get an idea how the picture would look. I don't see much
value to that on the tiny LCD display on that camera, and he agreed
after thinking about it. He had only had the camera a few days.

Another thing I see is people stabbing the shutter button like
contestants on a game show. Guaranteed blur.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 11:30:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would say that P&S are more idiot proof and therefore more tolerant, but
definitely not sharper than a properly used SLR. So, I am not saying you
are an idiot, but you have all the controls to avoid it with an SLR.

If you shot in RAW, check the focus points on your PC to see what it was
focusing on. Maybe something in the foreground?
Is your blurring due to depth of field? Or is the whole pic blurry?
If the whole picture is blurry, were you holding the camera as steady as
possible and gentle when you pressed the button?
What was the lens focal length when the shot was taken?

Do some test shots on similar scenes:
What happens if you increase the ISO speed, and thus a faster shutter speed?
What happens if you use a tripod and timer?
If the focus points are correct and the problem disappears when doing the
above 2 thing, then it is an operator problem. If not, a hardware problem.

I use mirror lock-up, but only because the function is there and it has no
negative aspects, not because I notice and difference when I don't use it.
I don't think this is your problem.




"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:42525901$0$29785$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
> --
> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
> http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
> href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ZjR8W2BeMnUCFwjZ@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
says...

> Any SLR (whether digital or film) will have an advantage and a
> disadvantage compared with a P&S. The advantage is that the camera is
> significantly heavier; this gives it a higher moment of inertia
> (effectively, resistance to twisting). Up to a point, this will help
> prevent shake; the "point" is where it gets so heavy it makes your
> muscles tremble.

Well, I've noticed that it's easier to "freeze" an object in mid-air if
it's very light, which means that a very light camera has an advantage
here. It was easy to get sharp handheld 1/13s shots with an Olympus
5050, but with the much heavier Olympus 8080 the limit seems to be
around 1/20s.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:52:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:23:46 +0800, Derek Fountain wrote:

> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?

My Nikon F90x (yes a film SLR) works very nicely handheld, even when it's
fully loaded with an added vertical grip and an SB28 flash. I even had
a bit of luck with a 300mm shot once, but that was an exception. Can't
comment on digital SLR's, my D70 hasn't arrived yet.

The F90X doesn't have mirror lockup (which is a crying shame!) so I try to
keep the angle as wide as possible and my shutter speed as high as
possible when shooting out of hand. Also I am very fond of my tripod
combined with the self timer set to just a few seconds.

If you're shooting landscapes from a tripod, you'll hardly experience
camera shake from the mirror. If you do and it's really bothering you,
then I'm afraid you're going to need some higher class equipment that does
have mirror lock-up.

Another trick could be to stop down the lens as far as it will go and put
the camera in its lowest ISO mode available. You'll get a _slow_ shutter
speed which may also eliminate camera shake for the most part. Since the
shake only takes place for a very short part of the total exposure (which
could take seconds), it may get canceled out by the rest of the light
from the exposure. Tripod and a static scene required though as you may
now get motion blur in things like birds and waving trees!

Bas
April 6, 2005 12:55:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <ZjR8W2BeMnUCFwjZ@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
> says...
>
>
>>Any SLR (whether digital or film) will have an advantage and a
>>disadvantage compared with a P&S. The advantage is that the camera is
>>significantly heavier; this gives it a higher moment of inertia
>>(effectively, resistance to twisting). Up to a point, this will help
>>prevent shake; the "point" is where it gets so heavy it makes your
>>muscles tremble.
>
>
> Well, I've noticed that it's easier to "freeze" an object in mid-air if
> it's very light, which means that a very light camera has an advantage
> here. It was easy to get sharp handheld 1/13s shots with an Olympus
> 5050, but with the much heavier Olympus 8080 the limit seems to be
> around 1/20s.


You amaze me. I can't even hold my thumb up absolutely steady without
bracing. It keeps on shaking continuously. I contribute the ability to
archieve reasonable sharp pictures to pixel dimension and focal length
(and time), rather than the weight of the camera, unless, it's really heavy.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 2:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:42525901$0$29785$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
> landscape
> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example, 1/50sec
> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
> 20D.
>
> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is sharper),
> so perhaps this is to be expected?

Two things:

1. You're looking at a FAR more enlarged detail with your 20D simply due to
the full-res view on-screen (since you have so many more pixels to view.
Down-size a 20D image to teh equivalent of 4MP and you'll see what I'm
referring to).

2. Canon makes the assumption that DSLR users want control over the
sharpening process rather than let the camera stab at it. This means very
little in-camera sharpening is applied compared with point-and-shoot
cameras. Learn to skillfully use un-sharp mask in Photoshop, and you will
be pleased.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 2:03:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MarkĀ²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:X2K4e.68288$le4.37000@fed1read04...
>
> "Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
> news:42525901$0$29785$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
>> landscape
>> shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for example,
>> 1/50sec
>> I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's blurred with the 8MP
>> 20D.
>>
>> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
>> sharper),
>> so perhaps this is to be expected?
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. You're looking at a FAR more enlarged detail with your 20D simply due
> to the full-res view on-screen (since you have so many more pixels to
> view. Down-size a 20D image to teh equivalent of 4MP and you'll see what
> I'm referring to).
>
> 2. Canon makes the assumption that DSLR users want control over the
> sharpening process rather than let the camera stab at it. This means very
> little in-camera sharpening is applied compared with point-and-shoot
> cameras. Learn to skillfully use un-sharp mask in Photoshop, and you will
> be pleased.

One more thing...
In all likelihood, your focus depth fo field is shallower due to larger
sensor/larger aperture use with the 20D. If you're shooting with larger
apertures, you could be introducing slightly out-of-focus elements rather
than capture tack-sharp with smaller apertures (f8-f16 or so).
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 2:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain <nospam@example.com> writes:

>> The extra weight of the dSLR should help, but the mirror should hurt.
>
> For some reason I'd assumed the mirror action wouldn't really have much
> effect on the photograph. Once you guys had told me what mirror lockup was
> (see threads passim) I kind of thought "deal with that if I ever see it."
> Are you telling me it should be a consideration for most shots? I'd already
> figured more frequent use of a tripod is in order, so perhaps I'd better
> get used to this mirror lockup feature!

Camera-shake is more of an issue with an SLR than with a rangefinder
(Leice M3 &c.); yes, the mirror slap is in fact an issue in some
ranges of shutter speeds. I personally find myself in that range of
shutter speeds far too often.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:22:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4252e1a9$0$12968$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, PCR says...

> Obviously a serious photographer will always try hold the camera
> in the correct manner but statistically P&S cameras are owned by
> P&S people!

I've noticed that there is less motion shake if the camera is about 20-
30cm from the face. This way I get sharp handheld shots up to 1/13s. If
I held the camera against the face I wouldn't be able to get such long
exposure times and still have sharp photos.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:22:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <4252e1a9$0$12968$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, PCR says...
>
>
>>Obviously a serious photographer will always try hold the camera
>>in the correct manner but statistically P&S cameras are owned by
>>P&S people!
>
>
> I've noticed that there is less motion shake if the camera is about 20-
> 30cm from the face. This way I get sharp handheld shots up to 1/13s. If
> I held the camera against the face I wouldn't be able to get such long
> exposure times and still have sharp photos.


That contradicts the laws of physics, unless you have some kind of
nervous condition, your head (quite a nice mass) should contribute quite
a lot of inertia to the system.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:24:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <RWC4e.4263$44.1201@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, leo
says...

> You amaze me. I can't even hold my thumb up absolutely steady without
> bracing. It keeps on shaking continuously.

Don't misunderstand me - perhaps you should see a doctor, if your thumb
shakes continously. By the way, can you imagine if that happened to a
surgeon ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 10:59:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No, 1/250 in fact in bright sunshine.


>
> Did you set the shutter speed to bulb? At least in older Nikons there is
> quite a bit of shake when the mirror is released after the exposure.
April 11, 2005 3:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <UoH4e.1461$7H1.658@fe04.lga>,
rphunter@charter.net says...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > In article <4252e1a9$0$12968$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, PCR says...
> >
> >
> >>Obviously a serious photographer will always try hold the camera
> >>in the correct manner but statistically P&S cameras are owned by
> >>P&S people!
> >
> >
> > I've noticed that there is less motion shake if the camera is about 20-
> > 30cm from the face. This way I get sharp handheld shots up to 1/13s. If
> > I held the camera against the face I wouldn't be able to get such long
> > exposure times and still have sharp photos.
>
>
> That contradicts the laws of physics, unless you have some kind of
> nervous condition, your head (quite a nice mass) should contribute quite
> a lot of inertia to the system.
>
I have a very light-weight P&S and have noticed that on the
occasions that I use the view finder (for example when the
LCD display is strongly back-lit by the sun), I hold the
camera very losely against my face (fingers just brushing my
nose and elbows out like wings) - whereas when I hold the
camera at the 30 cm mark, I tend to keep my elbows clamped
against my rib-cage and notice no reduction in sharpnes.

Using a film SLR I have my elbows less far out and tend to
brace my hand much more firmly against my cheek. Perhaps
because the SLR is heavier I intuitively brace it better...
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 3:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v26551t72e0hnfmrk1rm8dbm58kpr46oe3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:48:00 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>>Derek Fountain wrote:
>>> Since I got my 20D I've noticed more blur than I'd expect in many
>>> landscape shots. I attribute this to camera shake. I notice at, for
>>> example, 1/50sec I can get a clear picture with a 4MP P&S, but it's
>>> blurred with the 8MP 20D.
>>>
>>> The DSLR is heavier, and of course it has more pixels (and so is
>>> sharper), so perhaps this is to be expected?
>>
>>I went from film SLR to digital non-SLR, and I was surprised by the
>>difference. My experience was the same as yours. Shots which would have
>>shown blur at 1/30 could now be easily hand-held at 1/8. We had
>>discussions about this in this newsgroup a while ago, and I recall:
>>
>
> Which is why some film photographers used rangefinders in addition to
> SLR's.
>
>
>

True, I use to use a little Richo rangefinder for these reasons as an
alternative to my old Canon FD system.

There does not seem to be a useful equivalent in digital though that do not
suffer from shutter delay, unless someone knows better?
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 6:49:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message news:<42639253$0$26335$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
<snip>
> > Which is why some film photographers used rangefinders in addition to
> > SLR's.
> >
> >
> >
>
> True, I use to use a little Richo rangefinder for these reasons as an
> alternative to my old Canon FD system.
>
> There does not seem to be a useful equivalent in digital though that do not
> suffer from shutter delay, unless someone knows better?

Practical, affordable digital rangefinder camera?
Not that I've heard of.
The Epson RD-1 is the only digital rangefinder that I've ever heard
of.
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail....;
It uses Leica M-mount lenses and M39 lenses (with adapter), the
downside is that it lists for $2,999.99 on the Epson site and also has
a 1.6 crop factor.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 11:29:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dj NME" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4959b3a4.0504190149.4e0925df@posting.google.com...
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<42639253$0$26335$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
> <snip>
>> > Which is why some film photographers used rangefinders in addition to
>> > SLR's.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> True, I use to use a little Richo rangefinder for these reasons as an
>> alternative to my old Canon FD system.
>>
>> There does not seem to be a useful equivalent in digital though that do
>> not
>> suffer from shutter delay, unless someone knows better?
>
> Practical, affordable digital rangefinder camera?
> Not that I've heard of.
> The Epson RD-1 is the only digital rangefinder that I've ever heard
> of.
> <http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail....;
> It uses Leica M-mount lenses and M39 lenses (with adapter), the
> downside is that it lists for $2,999.99 on the Epson site and also has
> a 1.6 crop factor.

A little expensive I think - I used to call my little Richo my poor man's
Leica for the reson it was cheap but did the job. No interchangable lenses
though.
!