Mirror Lock up and long lenses - any visible difference?

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka and Dave, my main application for long lenses is for wildlife work. The general point I was making is that if the light is so dim that I need to shoot a long lens at 1/15 sec, in most cases I probably wouldn't bother to shoot that image at all. It doesn't matter whether it is in Finland or right on the equator; dim light frequently leads to poor images and subject movement can also be a serious problem at 1/15 sec. Therefore, I might as well wait for better light and use a faster shutter speed or perhaps use a flash.

 

I am sure you can come up with some exceptions, e.g. using a 300mm for macro work, etc. But I think what Robert is testing is mainly an academic exercise. However, Robert's result and Ilkka's test of his 300mm/f4 on a D70 confirm my finding with the F100: MLU is largely unnecessary on modern SLRs (F100 & D70) as well as the not-so-modern FG.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, I can see that 1/15th of a second wouldn't give good results in wildlife work because of high probability of subject movement. However, I don't agree that light around 1/15th s, f/11 would give poor images of still subjects. Not at all. I also don't see a direct connection between brightness of light and its quality, in fact there is none, especially now that we can have automatic white balance. However, the latitude has a lot to do with quality of light at differents times of day. I quite frequently get nice colours around dusk where the above exposures are needed. In fact, you can run into it in the middle of the day. I give an example of a shot which is around 1/15th, f/11 (or at least in that ball park). It was 105 mm though, but I could've used the 300 mm. If you call the light poor then I don't know what to say.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Sorry, a smaller image.<div></div>

[marco_p1]

My little contribution: when I try to make this kind of tests i do it in the most real conditions. In this case, if the aim is to use the lens for macro, I would do the test at my most used magnifications, and most of all, IN THE FIELD. As Robert correctly points out, his test is relevant in the conditions he shot. I am referring to the concrete floor. The same test with the tripod resting on grass, mud, or foliage could give a different result, and it would be more relevant to practic usage. Referring to the F3 mirror vibrations, we should talke into accuont that it has a fast mirror operation, larger mirror to provide 100% viewfinder coverage and that it came out 1980 and was developed in the seventies. No surprise if F4, F5, F6 have better performances in this regard, as all of them have mirror balancing mechanisms which the F3 to my knowledge lack. I have an F3 and can see no reason not to use MLU when there is time enough. Marco

[niklas_nikitin]

On the Swedish site, <a href="http://www.fotosidan.se">fotosidan.se</a>, Olle Bjernulf have made a test with long lenses, heavy tripods and MLU; <a href="http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10923">http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10923</a>

<p>

I have translated the most important stuff in the article bellow;

<p>

1, light tripod; Velbon maxi 343 weight 1kg<br>

2, medium weight tripod; Manfrotto 055 + heavy ballhead, weight 3kg<br>

3, heavy tripod, (tripod used by surveyor) weight 6kg<br>

<p>

'a', is without MLU and 'b' is with MLU, i.e. '1a' is a light tripod without MLU and '2b' is a medium weight tripod with MLU.

<p>

The camera is Nikon F3 and the lens is a Sigma 500/7.2, shutter time is 1/4s. The photographed item is a newsmagazine photographed on a 7m distance. The published picture is about 1x1 from the slide.

<p>

Also Fritz Pölking has written an article about MLU and image stabilization, you can read it here; <a href="http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm">http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm</a>.

<p>

Cheers,<br>

Nicke

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, please don't take this personally since it is highly subjective, but based on your data, your shot is about 4 to 5 stops darker than sunny 16 (which would have been 1/100 sec at f16 for ISO 100 film) or snowy 22, and the light is quite dull. As a result there is a lack of light/shadow contrast to provide definition and the perception of depth. The fact that the ice is very flat on water doesn't help. So unfortunately, your shot doesn't work for me, but if you are happy with it, that is what matters.

 

If it were up to me, I would prefer to shoot at 1 to 2 stops darker than sunny 16. Therefore, even at f11, I would be using a much faster shutter speed. If we are talking about wildlife work, typically I would be using a long lens wide open or at most 1 stop down and therefore an even faster shutter speed.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, you're entitled to your opinion of my example. As to 1-2 stops down from sunny 16, it is very rare in Finland when we have that much light. According to your criterion, it wouldn't be worth shooting in my country except on clear sunny summer days. Although you don't like my shot above, it is easy to find plenty of published nature landscape photos from Finland which were taken at 1/15 s, and they have plenty of depth created by mist, light shaped by sunlight etc. Yes, in Finland you can have moderately diffused sunlight (looks quite like your 1/2-cloudy) but you still have to shoot at very long exposure times. Because of the low angle of light. I could send you scans of examples by e-mail but I can't post other people's photos on the site. Trust me, great nature photographs can be made in low light in my latitudes. In California, there is pretty much two conditions: 1) sunny, and 2) dark. In the North, things are very different.

 

Anyway, since it is easy to implement prefire in software, and it clearly shows in pictures taken with 400mm:ish FLs, it is not surprising that the higher-end Nikons support it. And I absolutely agree that on soft ground it is useful.

[Robert_Lai]

Going back to the shutter speed issue, Ilkka has a very good point. In northern latitudes, we take whatever light we can get and use it.<p>This is what I see when I came to work about 1 week ago. It's typical for Syracuse, NY at this time of year. Looking at the digicam's EXIF data, the exposure time was 1/20 second at f/3.4. This won't work for animal photography if it is moving in any way, but for landscape and architecture, the slow shutter speed shouldn't be an encumberance.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Come on Robert. I didn't always live in California. For 14 years I lived in New Jersey, not that far from where you are and very close to New York City. There is plenty of light in New York State during the winter.

 

I understand we also shoot landscape under low light. However, at least I mainly use wide angle lenses in those occasions and slow shutter speeds are even a lesser problem. This thread is about using a 300mm lens at slow shutter speeds around 1/15 sec and my point is that at least I rarely use super teles at those slow shutter speeds.

[lex_jenkins]

Just as a point of possible interest, Gary Reese has conducted a fairly sizeable number of tests on nearly the entire Olympus Zuiko lens lineup as well as several Nikkors, Canons and other brands. The results and his methodology can be found here:

 

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

 

The most interesting note in light of this thread would be the comparisons between Olympus OM-series bodies having mirror lockup but no diaphragm pre-fire, those having neither feature, and those having both features.

 

(For the curious, the Olympus OM-1 has mirror lockup but the diaphragm does not stop down until the moment the shutter fires. With the Nikon FM2N, when the self timer is used the mirror locks up and the diaphragm stops down as much as several seconds before the shutter fires, presumably allowing plenty of time for all vibration to settle.)

 

In Gary's tests, almost invariably from lens to lens and at almost every aperture the combination of MLU and diaphragm pre-fire produced superior results.

 

Draw what conclusions you will from Gary's tests. I provide the reference only because it may be of interest to others reading this thread. At this point I'm ducking and running for cover...

[john_morris4]

Robert, I had not read any complaints about the FG being noisy. Compared to an FM2, it's certainly quiet. Maybe it's the tinny, swishy sound that bothers people. I bought one for my 9 year old daughter when she said she wanted a camera "that [she] can focus." She's perfectly happy with it.

 

My problem with vibration and the FG is exactly the opposite. The camera is slow enough, compared to an FM2, that when I'm holding it by hand, I move too much. It's like I expect it to be done with the exposure before it really is. This sounds silly, but I noticed that when I used it for low light hand-held pictures (with a 50mm or 85mm lens, for example), that I saw a lot more camera motion blur in the pictures than I did when I used an FM2 under the same conditions. Since the cameras are about the same size and weight, all I can think is different is the timing. Maybe somebody else has a better idea.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>The general point I was making is that if the light

is so dim that I need to shoot a long lens at 1/15 sec, in most

cases I probably wouldn't bother to shoot that image at all.

--Shun Cheung<br>

<br>

Shun, I can see that 1/15th of a second wouldn't give good

results in wildlife work because of high probability of subject

movement. --Ilkka Nissila<br>

</em><br>

Im not saying that I can shoot super telephotos at 1/15th

second but Moose Peterson says the he can and can do this with an

800/5.6. Hes even said he has little or no use for VR,

lucky Moose! Sometimes wildlife stops moving for a time and there

is a technique of taking a photo at peek moment when otherwise

fast action slows or stops. A high jumper at the apex of the jump

or brief moments in a dance are examples.<br>

<br>

Some have poor fine motor control (like me) and some have

excellent fine motor control. Everyone should cover themselves

with needed photos and then push the envelope and see if they can

beat the odds or improve their technique.<br>

<br>

If a photo fails I feel it should be because Im not up to

the challenge not that Nikon decided to favor style over function

and provide an ineffective tripod collar. I'll also favor a well

dampend mirror for shooting with the mirror down and when it's

useful use MLU.<br>

<br>

Design that fail to follow this rule, Form Follows Function, is

bad design no matter how good it looks.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ShunCheung]

Unfortunately, your guys are still missing the point. I would not shoot wildlife at 1/15 sec not only because of vibration or subject movement issues. Back in 1998, I went on a three-week trip with David Middleton, who is a fairly well known nature photographer and teacher. Middleton pointed out that he doesn't use ISO 400 film much for nature work because if the light is dim enough so that you need ISO 400 film, it also means there is not enough light to give you a good image. The same principle can apply to shooting at 1/15 sec. Sorry Ilkka, but the image he posted earlier clear demonistrates that point. In most cases, you are much better off waiting for the light to improve.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, you have a really very narrow view of photography.

[ilkka_nissila]

To show that quality of light and intensity of light are entirely independent properties, I give a link to a photo which was taken at 1/15 s. I will also try to see if I can get a scan of another picture which is a landscape photo. The trouble is not that there aren't many of these examples, but not all photos come with exposure info attached!

 

Anyway, the bug shot which was taken at 1/15 s in Finland is here:

 

http://www.luontokuva.org/Default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1807

 

I hope you can check it out.

 

And please remember that "good light" is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with whether mirror lockup should be provided or not. I am sure Shun would be happy with a constant-exposure camera set at 1/200 s and f/8. If Nikon were to produce such a camera, he would then say that finally they did the right thing: why would anyone ever want to use any other brightness level for photography?! After all, it results in poor photographs.

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, put it this way, I am demanding. I have shot far too many poor to mediocre images in the past that I am not interested in shooting any more of them.

 

Moreover, I am making a general point and you have a tendency to find a couple of exceptions to argue about things. For example, in some situations the light is not necessarily poor, but the photographer chooses a very small aperture to maximize depth of field in macro or near macro situations, as the image you linked to demonstrates, and that is why the image is still good when the shutter speed is around 1/15 sec. (I cannot verify exposure data, but I'll your word for it.) I thought we had already covered that case earlier in the thread.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, the previous bug shot was taken at f/8 or f/11 as far as I recall, according to the exposure data given in the shot which I will check tonight. So it's about 4-5 stops below sunny 16 yet it looks like it were shot in direct sunlight. This is my point, I'm trying to say that intensity of light can vary widely in different parts of the world while the quality of light can be fairly similar.

 

I agree that if one gets to 1/15 s and f/4 (which is a typical wildlife aperture) at iso 200, then the light is frequently too blue and flat to make a good photograph. This I have no disagreement about but I still think interesting moody shots can be taken in these conditions and from what little I know about wildlife behaviour, animals are most active when it is fairly dark and so biologically interesting shots can require long exposures. But obviously they may not be the most beautiful photographs as such.

 

In macro and landscape situations, I often need 1/15 s even in relatively bright light (as bright as it gets over here) and then it is best to use MLU if available if a long lens is used.

[ilkka_nissila]

Actually the above bug shot was exposed at 1/12 s, f/5.6, 100 mm, iso 100. 6 stops below sunny 16.

 

I'll let photo.net rest a while so that I don't get so agitated. :-)

[lex_jenkins]

Jumping on Shun because of his preferences reminds me, unfortunately, of an endless and pointless debate that raged on the b&w forums a year or so ago.

 

We had, for a while, a very troublesome participant who insisted that if it was necessary to push process film then there was no image worth the compromise.

 

Naturally, some of us disagreed. I do a lot of handheld shooting in low light. I have no choice but to push, even with Delta 3200 or TMZ. If it means the difference between a compromised image or none at all, I'll accept the compromise. Also, I happen to *like* the look of pushed b&w film. When shadow detail is lacking the subject matter - usually people - is isolated and emphasized because it consists mostly of midtones and highlights.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, let alone appreciate my photos.

 

For every preference in photography there is an approach that is most appropriate yet not universally applicable to every situation.

 

What little wildlife photography I've tried persuades me that Shun is essentially correct. My mediocre, slowpoke 300mm f/5.6 T-mount preset Vivitar telephoto, circa 1970, combined with the requisite ISO 400 film in order to have a fast enough shutter speed while stopping down the lens to within its sweet spot, proves to me that wildlife photography is best pursued with the best equipment you can afford and in the best available light.

[ilkka_nissila]

Lex, what Shun was saying is that if you need to use 1/15 s, then the light is so bad that it's not worth taking the shot. Which I proved to be incorrect by example, even he admitted the 2nd example shot was good.

 

I absolutely agree that photography is best pursued at the best available light. But that may be dim. You don't seem to understand that there are six months between August and March where there is nowhere near "Sunny 16" for even a second in my country. You think that means that it's not worth pursuing photography in such a country? Can this get any more narrow-minded than this? This sounds like "since California is so warm, it's not worth living anywhere else". That may be your subjective opinion but dissing other ways of living or photographing shows that you know very, very little about a great many things.

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, let me say this one more time: I am only talking about (1) 300mm and longer lenses in (2) non-macro situations. Those conditions were clearly spelled out in my first response in this thread, dated Feb 17, 5:13pm. The reason is that I wanted to eliminate most landscape shots and those "mood shots" and focus on wildlife situations. Your 2nd example meets neither one of those conditions and therefore proves nothing. And please don't bother to look for a 3rd example. If you look hard enough, I am sure you can find some exceptions. There are always exceptions to any rule, but that doesn't mean a general rule is wrong.

 

Moreover, outdoor photography is usually not at its best during "sunny 16" situations, when the light is frequently too strong. Finland is very far from the equator and the angle of the sun tends to be low. I consider that an advantage as far as photography goes, especially in the summer.

[aardvarko]

So, Shun, you cannot contemplate any possible situation in which someone would need a 300mm at 1/15sec? Or are you saying that the light would be inherently "bad" and the shot worthless?

 

As the moderator of the Nikon Forum, you should be well aware of the properties of light and film. There's this whole lovely concept of "exposure reciprocity" wherein 1/15sec @ F16 is exactly the same amount of light as 1/250sec @ F4. Nothing "bad" about 1/15 of a second - this isn't voodoo. And if you can't think of a reason that one would use a 300mm for something other than shooting tightly-cropped frames of agitated birds and mooses, well, you have my condolences.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Unfortunately, your guys are still missing the point.

I would not shoot wildlife at 1/15 sec not only because of

vibration or subject movement issues --Shun Cheung<br>

</em><br>

Unfortunately Shun, you are still missing the point...<br>

<br>

Sometimes wild life stops long enough for a 1/2 second exposure

or more so if you can pull of an exposure of 1/15 or 1/2 with a

300 or 800mm or whatever you do it unless your dogma is too

strong to allow you to do it. The only thing that counts is did

you get the picture?<br>

<br>

As a wild life photographer you should know that sometimes

animals will stand perfectly still to avoid detection. They might

do this long enough to use an exposure of a minute or so. I see

coyotes standing totally motionless quite often while walking my

dog. I see many animals large and small use this technique. Its

common! They have a pretty good incentive to do this: they do not

want to die.<br>

<br>

What about an ice dance where the action stops just long enough

for 1/15 second exposure? Have you ever seen this? Have you ever

used this to your advantage? What about children? They can be

pretty wild cant they? Look at my mini-portfolio. There is

a photo containing two children. It was taken at 1/15 second. One

wild thing is frozen in time the other is blurred in time at 1/15th

second. No I didnt use a telephoto, I used a normal but

subject motion is about subject speed and image magnification not

focal length.<br>

<br>

If a photographer can pull off a technique that most cannot are

they going to use this technique or say the book says I cant

so even though can I wont?

[david_h._hartman]

Shun, the light in my photo containing children was nice but

low. Low light does not mean bad light. If the light is bad

you dont shoot because you dont like the look. Bad

light can be bright light, e.g. getting good light

at 12:00 noon may be difficult but its there. Just because

the book says you can't get good light at 12:00 noon doesnt

mean you have to stop shooting. You just have to find the light that

serves your purpose.

[ShunCheung]

David, there is no need to keep beating on this same topic. If you disagree with me, so be it.