Shutter Speed Formula - Not Applicable to Sony DSLR?

<p>I'm so use to 1/focal length formula to control speed with or without IS or VR. I was playing around with A900 together with that light weight zoom lens (third party and I forgot the brand) that goes to 400mm. I was surprised that sharpness still good at 1/60 when shot at 400mm. Maybe I'm out of Sony world when it comes to DSLR but I was really amazed with the vibration control. Is it really that good? I mean the vibration damper is located at the camera, right? I'm not posting this at Canon or Nikon, I'll get a different answers, definitely.</p>

<p>Well, if you have seen the results yourself, you know that it's 'really that good', surely? I use SSS all the time, I rarely need a tripod these days. As for the shutter speed formular - I wouldn't bother with it. Useful for film, not much so with Sony DSLR's. I find it's about getting your technique right and getting used to supporting different lenses... when you do that, there isn't a lot you <strong>can't</strong> do handheld.</p>

<p>Plus: don't forget the added benefits of better and better performance at higher and higher iso. I've gotten sharp results at shutter speeds down to 1/160 with a 400mm manual focus tele on my a700 set to iso 800. It also helps your odds to get at least one sharp image if you shoot in short bursts of 3-5 exposures, your handheld camera and lens tend not to shake equally for every shot in a short sequence.</p>

<p>The shutter speed/focal length ratio was probably a good rule of thumb for film in the 100 iso range, but even in those days you could get away with slower shutter speeds than 1/focal length if you pushed iso at the developing stage, or used faster film. The latter were grainier anyway so a bit more forgiving for slight blur compared to fine grain 100 iso film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The truth is I can't get a sharp image handheld at 200 mm without IS in Canon if speed below 160. I've been Canon user for 10 years but do play around with other brands sometimes. I guess Canon need to learn from Sony when it comes to vibration control. Perhaps they need to consider having the IS in a body, makes the lens lighter. I've been reading reviews and forums about Canon and they are catching up so fast that I think they can occupy the second spot soon than they can realise.<br>

I was embarrassed with the "speed" issue at Sony shop when they demonstrated using my 5DMkii and 200mm. They showed me how good their SSS at low speed. I also think that Sony is really good with color processing and sensor technology. They have all the resources and R&D. If we combine other camera manufacturers, Sony still larger.<br>

If Canon still pricing ridiculously high and on the other hand Sony is on par, maybe that will be the point of switching system for me. I have no problem with that as all my electronic appliances (except DSLR) are Sony. I'll keep my eyes on Sony and see where it goes.</p>

<p>I think the consensus is that in-body stabilisation is only marginally less effective than in-lens stabiliation. The major advantage is obviously that the in-body stabilisation is applicable to all lenses that are mounted on the body. The other minor advantage is that when framing the image, the image does is not jiggling around in the viewfinder unlike in-lens stabilisation.</p>

<p>The 1/focal length is still a useful rule of thumb. Use it to determine what shutter speed is required and then reduce by 2 stops to take into account SSS. In practice, with a combination of good technique and the SSS, I have been able to achieve far better than a 2 stop advantage. I have gotten reasonably sharp shots in low light at 1/30 with a 400mm before. Sony claim that it provides a 2 stop advantage but I believe that they are pretty conservative with their claims and I have consistently achieved a 3-4 stop advantage.</p>

<p>As for pricing, well that is up to you whether you feel it is worth making the switch. But apart from the really high end professional glass, Sony offers far better value for money than either Nikon or Canon. Hence all the fuss about the 24MP FF A850 for less than US$2000.</p>

<p>I suspect that in the long term, both Canon and Nikon will end up with in-body stabilisation anyway because it is so much more cost effective and such a huge marketing advantage. What will be interesting to see if they can somehow manage to sync the in-body and in-lens stabilisation to achieve even greater gains. Theoratically it should be possible but in practice I'm sure it would be incredibly difficult.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that in the long term, both Canon and Nikon will end up with in-body stabilisation anyway because it is so much more cost effective and such a huge marketing advantage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been written before and to me it does sound sensible that both lens and sensor-based stabilization will become superfluous within the foreseeable future, if noise reduction technology and software continues to push new camera models into higher and higher workable iso ranges. So I imagine Canon and Nikon are going to try and stay ahead of Sony in that respect, rather than reversing course and adopting an SSS equivalent.</p>

<p>Andrzej Wotniak pinned himself down on <a href="http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/quest/q09.html">this page</a> in 2005 that it would take about ten years for sensors and shutters to become fast enough for mechanical stabilization to be supplanted by sheer speed of image capture. We're now about half way and usable iso range does seem to be on course. Of course some of his other predictions don't fare so well at this point, for example the predicted death of film turned out to be greatly exaggerated.</p>

<p>As a major (?now the biggest one?) DSLR sensor manufacturer Sony will presumably be in a good position to simultaneously cash in on improved stabilization and noise reduction technologies, and if the A500 really turns out to perform as well at high iso <a href="http://www.alphamountworld.com/previews/sony-alpha-dslr-a500-announced-brief-hands-on">as some are hoping</a> then it will be exciting to see the "iso race" heat up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's been written before and to me it does sound sensible that both lens and sensor-based stabilization will become superfluous within the foreseeable future, if noise reduction technology and software continues to push new camera models into higher and higher workable iso ranges.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to disagree with this somewhat. On the one hand, I see where you are coming from, I just think that as people's expectations are met, their expectations then increase. In film days, we regarded 400 ISO as good and if you really wanted, you could go up to 800/1600 ISO at the cost of grain, colour etc. Now days, we are talking are comparatively high quality 6400 ISO for digital and we whinge about noise and how dare some manufacturer produce a high end DSLR that doesn't perform as well as the D700.</p>

<p>Let's face it, if someone give me a DSLR that has usable 25600 ISO, I will be still be whinging that I can't get a sharp photo of a flying bat in cave taken with a 400mm handheld. Either that or I will be whinging about the price of a DSLR that can! *laugh*</p>

<p>Therefore, I think that stablisation will always have a place as a 2 stop difference is a 2 stop difference. It doesn't cost the manufacturer much to include what is already an established technology.</p>

 

<p>Higher and higher ISO is not always the cure for camera shake, in situations where you would like the main subject to be sharp, but moving parts to have blur. An example would be a guitar player in poor light where I would like the moving hand to show motion blur.</p>

<p>Higher and higher ISO is not always the cure for camera shake, in situations where you would like the main subject to be sharp, but moving parts to have blur. An example would be a guitar player in poor light where I would like the moving hand to show motion blur, with a shutter speed of say a thirtieth of a second, which would definitely benefit from stabilisation.</p>

<p>I don't see that there is a marked "price" advantage to in-body versus "in lens" systems, you can cherry pick examples but Canon and Nikon and others are getting IS in the low end consumer range lenses as it is now. They may or may not catch up with the full line up but that makes the limited selection of Alpha/Maxxum lenses perhaps more problematic from this direction.</p>

<p>However, as pointed out, besides camera motion, there are considerations of subject motion and depth of field that high iso won't help with. A silky waterfall is going to take a long exposure. That's not helped by a higher iso, we're slapping ND filters on at iso 100 for those now, but might be by stabilization to some extent. Charles Atlas aside, stabilization and high iso isn't going to make a heavy lens lighter or reduce the need for tripods/monopods in many cases either.</p>

<p>It all really depends on viewing / print size. If you intend to print large you need IS/VR/AS (whatever Sony calls it) or best, a tripod, cable release and mirror lockup.<br>

I find the a900 anti-shake to be very good for 3:1 over rule of thumb if I'm printing to 12x8 or less. Above that I tend towards 1:1 on rule of thumb - OTOH, I'm definitely a tripod oriented shooter when not in the studio.<br>

All in all, the lens based systems are better than in-camera. However, Minolta set the direction with anti-shake and that's what Sony have pursued. The advantage is of course that all my pre-anti-shake lenses work with it and that includes some seriously expensive lenses.</p>

<p>thanks for all your comments. I've been playing around with a friend's 900 and kind of like it but not to the point of switching... "yet". I still feel that the "L" lenses quality is more superior but not denying the fact that Sony have no problem at all in catching up.<br>

well, a big investment decision here. Not ruling out the possibility but I'll keep on following Sony's development. Thanks again guys.</p>