Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fast and heavy or poor and light

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:22:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?

- Siddhartha

More about : fast heavy poor light

Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:46:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Yes. Some progress seems to be coming in liquid lens technology. This
could simplify all aspects of lens operation.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 26, 2005 12:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?


I think it's just a matter of geometry. Fast lens just means large
aperture opening which is... large... and therefore harder to make
acceptable quality. I guess the odds are good that full frame sensors
will never be affordable and the crop frame DSLR's will continue to be
relevant in which case more DX (smaller) lenses will be made. Corrrently
there aren't any fast crop frame lenses because people looking for fast
don't want to chance spending on a crop frame lens they think won't be
usable on future full frame cameras but it seems likely that won't be a
problem.

<http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials...;
<http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials...;
shows relationship of cost and sensor size due to quality control for
number of defects.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
shoot
> each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

I will give this a try and let you know. I have a Nikon 995, which is
pretty light and a Canon 20D, which it not so light, I will use a heavy
zoom lens on the Canon.

Scott
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> > Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture
> > are heavy and expensive. The lighter variable focal length
> > aren't great performers but are cheap. Why is this so?
> ...
>
> I think it's just a matter of geometry. Fast lens just means
> large aperture opening which is... large... and therefore
> harder to make acceptable quality.
> ...

Lens Speed vs. Quality
----------------------

I think this is exactly right. Here's why:

Fast lenses require a larger diameter. A larger diameter means
more glass has to be precisely milled to the correct shape.

More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
apparent in the transmitted image. Hence the shaping of the
lens must be more precise to achieve the same quality.

Remember also that a modern lens is composed of multiple lens
components, each of which corrects for possible errors in the
others or provides other focal lengths and features. With
faster lenses that are more sensitive to imperfections, the
design and shaping of all the components becomes more critical.
There may even be a need for more internal components. The
movement of the internal components in focusing becomes more
critical too.

So the design and manufacturing are both more expensive.

Camera Weight
-------------

Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
photographer's hands.

Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
explosion of the gas.

It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
than with a 6 ounce camera.

Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.

Alan
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In pure lens design the diameter of the front element equals the focal
length divided by the max aperture. So fast lenses equal big front
elements for gathering more light. Make that a zoom lens and you need
more and more glass. Just for a quality 20-200mm lens you have to
correct for aberations all through the focal range, a lot of
correcting. Mtal barrels are good but many zoom lenses have internal
groups held in plastic, why, metal expands too much in heat, this is
especially bad with telephoto zooms and is why Canons long lenses are
ugly white. Someone who knows more about lenses could go on forever,
but I hope this helps.

Tom
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:
> "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
> > smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
> > minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
> > apparent in the transmitted image.
>
> In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?

On the off chance that this was not a rhetorical question,
and for the benefit of those who didn't follow the original
argument, I'll go ahead and answer it with some elaboration.
[Which is a short way of introducing my long winded claptrap]

All parts of the image are equally affected by imperfections
in the lens, but it's the focused parts that show the problem.

An imperfection in the lens scatters the light or directs it
to some place other than where it belongs relative to the
original scene. If a point in the scene is out of focus on
the camera sensor, any imperfections in the transmission of
that point are also out of focus and the imperfections are
less visible. The imperfections give us a bit more blur
within the blur.

But imagine an imperfection that causes some photons to focus
one millimeter in front of or behind the spot where they
should focus. If the depth of field at the sensor is 3
millimeters, that imperfection is invisible. If the DOF is
1 millimeter it's visible. [The right way to explain this
is with a diagram showing the difference between lines
converging from a narrow lens opening vs. lines converging
from a wide one, but the reader will have to use his
imagination for that.]

This won't be true for every type of imperfection, but it's
obviously true for abberations affecting focus, e.g., places
where the lens does not have a perfect curve of the right
parabolic (or whatever) shape.

Also, getting the lens curves exactly right is more difficult
the further you get from the center of a lens. Cheap tiny
cameras sometimes use sections of spheres for the lens because
they're easy and cheap to make and, for small lenses, they're
a close approximation to the right parabolic shape. But wide
lenses made as sections of spheres would produce horrible
results.

Maybe modern computer controlled glass cutting machinery
has eliminated the extra cost of creating more perfect lens
shapes. I don't know. But I'm guessing that it's still more
expensive to shape the wide lenses than the small ones.

Alan
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:48:18 PM

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

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1114503765.949044.73210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
I'm not shure if it's possible.
I do know that they wont do it because thats were they make there money.
It's a bit like in the games world. The hardware is cheap and you pay the
mainprice for the software.
Same with camera's. They make no profit on the body's. The profit comes from
the accesories like fllashes, lenses etc.
(you've heard the story before in think, about printers en ink)
Greetz
Div
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:48:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
shoot
> each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>

Ok, I have done the test, on the light side I used a Nikon Coolpix 995
and on the heavy side I used a 20D with a 70-300mm zoom.

Weight of the Nikon is 475 gm, the weight of the 20D with lens is 1346
gm. I shoot both cameras at ISO 100, F/10 and 1/4 sec shutter speed, FL
of 75mm (equivalent). I used the mirror lockup to avoid the mirror
from shaking the 20D. I shot a number of shots with each camera and it
is a toss up as to which one has more motion blurring.

So for my rather unscientific test mass did not seem to aid or hurt
stability. What the case would be with a much heavier lens is unclear.

Scott
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
>expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
>but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
>glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
>expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
>new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?

It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
and get a higher quality picture (less noise). But it costs more to
make a good lens, and the extra glass makes it heavier.

By contrast, a small lens is less expensive to manufacture and ends up
weighing less, but it lets in less light (= slower, lower quality).

Ironically, a smaller sensor with denser pixels can often make better
use of a smaller lens, which is why many of the current mid-range P&S
models with their inexpensive, small, lenses give fbetter results than
higher-priced lenses on dSLR's. (But good lenses on dSLR's are still
much better!)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive.

When I was in the army I had to carry both the M-60 and my personal M-16 AND
my tool box every time we trudged the normally half a mile hike from the
tent to the aircraft located on the site perimeter. Yes, I bitched about it
incessantly. But now I can't understand why photographers always worry
about a few ounces here and there. Yeah, my kit bag can get a little heavy
when fully loaded, but it's not like being loaded down with 90 pounds of
combat gear every time I have to fix a helicopter.

The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds stability.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:29:35 PM

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

Mark Lauter wrote:
[]
> The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
> stability.

Heavy for me means that the kit gets left at home, so I get fewer photos.

David
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:44:24 PM

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

> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
> > stability.
>
> Heavy for me means that the kit gets left at home, so I get fewer photos.

I need a work out buddy. Let's go to the gymn together. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
stability.
>
> A somehwat false notion. Try accurate fire at 100 yards standing with
> your M-16. After 30 minutes you're not getting those center shots.

First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
center shots in the first place. ;) 

> Try shooting standing without a monopod and an 80-200 f/2.8 at low
> shutter speeds (1/125). Same thing. Blurry images getting more blurry
> as time goes on.

Time to work out. <g>



--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

> First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
> Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
> center shots in the first place. ;) 

Très drôle.

Of course the only marksmanship medal that matters (in the US Army) is
the CIB. You get that when the targets are shooting back.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:49:10 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<Wptbe.13573$716.7889@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
>stability.
>>
>> A somehwat false notion. Try accurate fire at 100 yards standing with
>> your M-16. After 30 minutes you're not getting those center shots.
>
>First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.

<blink>

You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
it overhand, or clubbing him?

>Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
>center shots in the first place. ;) 

Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
in sight.

>> Try shooting standing without a monopod and an 80-200 f/2.8 at low
>> shutter speeds (1/125). Same thing. Blurry images getting more blurry
>> as time goes on.
>
>Time to work out. <g>

Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
(we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
is much heavier than just about any camera lens.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:15:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:

> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore

Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.

For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
camera back to aim requires less energy.

As an exercise. Hold a baseball bat at the end of your arms and keep it
level with the horizon. Do the same with a golf club.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:25:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Of course the only marksmanship medal that matters (in the US Army) is
> the CIB. You get that when the targets are shooting back.

Roger that.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:29:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
>
> <blink>
> You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
> it overhand, or clubbing him?

I'm going to run up to him with a rock and hit him in the head with it.
Sounds silly, but he won't believe it's really happening until it's too
late. <g>

> >Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
> >center shots in the first place. ;) 
>
> Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
> M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
> in sight.

All those days were wasted in BRM then.. :( 

> >Time to work out. <g>
>
> Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
> (we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
> probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
> is much heavier than just about any camera lens.

VAS could be the heaviest material known to man. :) 

I've never gotten tired holding a still camera - you shoot, then it hangs
around the neck for a bit, shoot some more, etc.. But I tried filming with
a small video camera for 20 minutes once.. OMG! My arm wanted to fall off.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:32:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> With a camera having some weight probably helps,
> but the affect would decrease very quickly as the camera got heavier.

I guess I just don't think of even a heavy camera as heavy. It's not like
10 pounds or something.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
>
> shoot
>
>>each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>>
>
>
> Ok, I have done the test, on the light side I used a Nikon Coolpix 995
> and on the heavy side I used a 20D with a 70-300mm zoom.
>
> Weight of the Nikon is 475 gm, the weight of the 20D with lens is 1346
> gm. I shoot both cameras at ISO 100, F/10 and 1/4 sec shutter speed, FL
> of 75mm (equivalent). I used the mirror lockup to avoid the mirror
> from shaking the 20D. I shot a number of shots with each camera and it
> is a toss up as to which one has more motion blurring.
>
> So for my rather unscientific test mass did not seem to aid or hurt
> stability. What the case would be with a much heavier lens is unclear.

1) Don't shoot for a blurred shot (1/4 sec @ 75mm), shoot for something
sharp. Say 1/125 @ 100mm.

2) Shoot 2 SLR's. One heavy system; one light. For example an 80-200
f/2.8 on a 20D v. a 75-300 var-ap on a DRebel.

3) Shoot something with some vert and horizontal line detail.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote

> More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
> smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
> minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
> apparent in the transmitted image.

In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?

> Remember also that a modern lens is composed of multiple lens
> components, each of which corrects for possible errors in the
> others or provides other focal lengths and features. With
> faster lenses that are more sensitive to imperfections, the
> design and shaping of all the components becomes more critical.

Easy to see why the cost curve is so steep.

> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics.
<snip>
> Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
> know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.

Heh heh.. I'm sure not going to go buy lead weights to add to the camera,
but I don't see why such a big deal is made about trimming a few ounces off
last years model... then again I complained about the weight of my kit bag
on my last trip that involved public airports. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com


> Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
> target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
> sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
> doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
> trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
> explosion of the gas.
>
> It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
> hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
> camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
> shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
> photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
> than with a 6 ounce camera.
>
>
> Alan
>
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:06:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:29:12 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<ITube.13586$716.4245@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>> >First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
>>
>> <blink>
>> You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
>> it overhand, or clubbing him?
>
>I'm going to run up to him with a rock and hit him in the head with it.
>Sounds silly, but he won't believe it's really happening until it's too
>late. <g>

>> >Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
>> >center shots in the first place. ;) 
>>
>> Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
>> M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
>> in sight.
>
>All those days were wasted in BRM then.. :( 

The goal is to get those bullets out there. If some hit your target,
better yet. The most important distinction is between "here" and
"there".

>> >Time to work out. <g>
>>
>> Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
>> (we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
>> probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
>> is much heavier than just about any camera lens.
>
>VAS could be the heaviest material known to man. :) 
>
>I've never gotten tired holding a still camera - you shoot, then it hangs
>around the neck for a bit, shoot some more, etc.. But I tried filming with
>a small video camera for 20 minutes once.. OMG! My arm wanted to fall off.

My problem actually is with the weight around the neck, not in the
hands. Especially now that I have a nice set of binoculars. On our
last trip I had four cords (camera, binocs, glasses, hat) around my
neck. The untangling was hell as well. Getting back to my vest thread,
I am considering a harness system if I can then clip the camera (and
the binocs?) to the harness.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:32:08 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<sWube.25656$5f.14345@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> With a camera having some weight probably helps,
>> but the affect would decrease very quickly as the camera got heavier.
>
>I guess I just don't think of even a heavy camera as heavy. It's not like
>10 pounds or something.

Weight is relative. I have the Sony F707. For me this is great, but I
use two hands. I like holding the lens to shoot. With one hand the
lens pulls, I am sure this is much worse with "real" lenses. I am sure
some one with some good physiology knowledge could explain about
various muscles and such, but holding an object still requires
different use of different muscles than lifting a heavy weight.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:12:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 10:39:06 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Alan Meyer"
<ameyer2@yahoo.com> in
<1114537146.682094.171700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Camera Weight
>-------------
>
>Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>photographer's hands.

This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.

>Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
>target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
>sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
>doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
>trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
>explosion of the gas.

Rifles are much heaver than cameras, bringing larger muscles into
play. Also the weight helps stabilize during the recoil, a very
different issue.

>It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
>hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
>camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
>shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
>photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
>than with a 6 ounce camera.

I think that the small muscles tire (and recover) easily. It is not
just at the end of the day, but after holding the camera in place for
a minute or so waiting for a shot that matters.

>Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
>know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:41:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?
>
> On the off chance that this was not a rhetorical question,

It was not and I thank you for your answer :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:42:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<snip>
> I am considering a harness system if I can then clip the camera (and
> the binocs?) to the harness.

ditto.. funny all this talk about army days has me thinking about an LBE
system.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 12:02:46 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:12:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein wrote:

>> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>> doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>> photographer's hands.
>
> This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
> muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
> there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.

You've identified a second factor but I don't see why it
invalidates the first or makes it "misleading". Heavier cameras
will tire you sooner, but whatever the weight, light, medium or
heavy, if the muscles tire you should rest.

In addition to the input from the hands that were implied (muscular
movement) there's also the movement caused by hydraulics. I find it
difficult to keep my heart from beating. :)  The effect is quite
noticeable in the viewfinder when using long focal lengths, with the
image hopping around slightly in sync with my pulse. With shorter
lenses this movement will still be there, but it is less noticeable.
I think that lighter cameras (such as mine) are affected more by
this and find that I try to brace the camera more often than I used
to when I used a heavier film camera.

I don't know the details about how IS works, but one thing that
might help if it's not already being done, is in addition to
minimizing the effect of motion, would be for the camera to be able
to sense cyclic movement (such as due to blood pulses mentioned
above) and electronically delay the shutter release for a few
milliseconds until the cyclic movement reaches one extreme or the
other and the camera's movement is at its minimum. This could also
be a relatively low cost method that, because it's not moving any
lens elements or sensors, wouldn't consume much battery power.
April 27, 2005 1:28:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
> doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
> photographer's hands.

I actually played with strapping a big iron weight to my camera via the
tripod post & I did not get good results. I would have thought it should
help more.

A big heavy lens on a regular tripod bounces around like crazy. It's
really bad, one tap reverberates for a long time. The mirror flap really
makes waves.

I saw a web page where someone made a 'steadycam' setup with some 2-foot
pipes, a tee at the bottom and some barbell weights. Maybe it's
different for video but this sort of arrangement didn't help me with
still photos. Maybe put a gyroscope on the mount spinning in the
direction of a propeller facing forward. My task is photographing
flowers & bees at macro range, moving around following bugs & trying
many strange angles.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:33:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
> stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
> proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
>
> For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
> heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
> camera back to aim requires less energy.

But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
to find a heavier camera to try this out. :) 

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:33:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

>>Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
>>stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
>>proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
>>
>>For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
>>heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
>>camera back to aim requires less energy.
>
>
> But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
> the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
> to find a heavier camera to try this out. :) 

Read the fine print... it takes no energy from you to let it fall, but
to stop it and restore it ... F=ma.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 27, 2005 4:03:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so?

Because people won't pay a lot of money for a high quality
slower/lightweight lens. In say the ledium format cameras, the slower
lenses are many times the better performers so speed doesn't always =
higher performance.

I'd MUCH rather have a f3.5-4.5 50-200 that was equal in quality to the f2.8
versions, but they aren't. They could make the smaller lenses just as good,
but they market them to a different audience so you have the $200 lens and
the $1000 lens. Shame they don't make a $700 version of the slower lens for
people who like high quality, but don't need a big heavy fast lens.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:24:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Mkzbe.26165$5f.9227@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Mark Lauter
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

> > Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
> > stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
> > proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
> >
> > For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
> > heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
> > camera back to aim requires less energy.
>
> But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
> the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
> to find a heavier camera to try this out. :) 

This connection is not cause and effect.

Why is your hand shaking? Because of the muscle fatigue from trying to
hold it (and what's in it) still. And holding a heavy object creates
fatigue quicker.

I like the bat / golf club experiment. Hold both out and see which one
starts to shake first. It will be the bat, as your muscles fatigue.

If heavier were better, wouldn't there be a market for a lead weight
version of the old autowinder to connect to the tripod mount?

"Mine's 30 pounds, baybee! "
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 8:47:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cvrbe.11502$RP1.11447@fe10.lga>,
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

> It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
> have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
> and get a higher quality picture (less noise).

Duh... the lightmeter determines the amount of light that enters the
camera, and at a certain light-level it will be the SAME with both a
slow and a fast lens; only the shutterspeed will be different.

Lourens
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:18:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote

> > But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier
camera, so
> > the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the
itch
> > to find a heavier camera to try this out. :) 
>
> This connection is not cause and effect.

> Why is your hand shaking? Because of the muscle fatigue from trying to
> hold it (and what's in it) still. And holding a heavy object creates
> fatigue quicker.

It always shakes a little.

> If heavier were better, wouldn't there be a market for a lead weight
> version of the old autowinder to connect to the tripod mount?
>
> "Mine's 30 pounds, baybee! "

LOL!!

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote

> > But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier
camera, so
> > the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the
itch
> > to find a heavier camera to try this out. :) 
>
> Read the fine print... it takes no energy from you to let it fall, but
> to stop it and restore it ... F=ma.

yeah, I think you're right.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:10:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-A894C2.16471627042005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <cvrbe.11502$RP1.11447@fe10.lga>,
> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
>
> > It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
> > have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
> > and get a higher quality picture (less noise).
>
> Duh... the lightmeter determines the amount of light that enters the
> camera, and at a certain light-level it will be the SAME with both a
> slow and a fast lens; only the shutterspeed will be different.
>
> Lourens

And the shutter speed affects noise level - particularly in marginal (dark)
conditions.

--
Jeff R.
(don't be too quick with the "duh")
!