long lense technique vs remote cord at 500mm+

[tele_tele]

Hi,

 

what is in your opinion a better option to get sharper images at 500mm+ at moderate to slow shutter speeds

(1/30-1/250) (mainly for slow moving wildlife and mammals)?

 

- shutter release with a cord or wireless remote (no holding of equipment whatsoever)

- long lens technique (bracing lens, eyecup, ...)

- combination?

 

I do not have a wired remote yet, so I wonder if it will improve my images.

 

Thank you in advance.

[don_cooper]

It's probably just me but I have better results not using the remote release. I work with a good solid tripod, wimberly head, with a Nikkor 500mm and 1.4 & 1.7 convertors. I know it's not the recommended way but I simply grab the body, brace my elbows into my chest, and fire away. I'm sure others have better results using different methods.

[mats nilson photography]

If one does have the opportunity to lock-up the mirror, tighten a solid ballhead, weigh down ones tripod, etc etc, then I suppose a cable

release or remote would be preferable to touching the rig at all. However, in real life, subjects move about and one simply doesn't have a

choice but to manuever the camera and lens with ones hands. And then it's just not practical to use a cable release - the right index finger

is anyway in the right position to fire. So for static subjects, by all means try it, else proper long lens technique and as short a shutter

speed as possible is my best bet. Incidentally, I rather increase ISO and accept any noise, than having a noise-free but blurred image.

Obviously, this is easier with a Nikon D3 than with most any other camera.

[Ed_Ingold]

The "Moose Peterson" long lens technique adds mass and dampening to the camera, stabilizing it during the

exposure.

 

Using a remote release avoids perturbations which come from pressing the shutter release by hand. Vibrations

induced by the camera (mirror flopping) or the environment are unaffected (e.g., wind), which are often the most

significant contribution to camera shake when mounted on a tripod. Good technique includes the way in which the

shutter release is pressed - squeezed rather than jabbed.

 

I rest part of my finger on the camera body and roll into the shutter release. This works well even on cameras which

have a stiff, mechanical release, like an Hasselblad. It's not so important on cameras with electronic releases, like

any Nikon from the F3 onward, but sometimes good habits are hard to break too.

[stemked]

I use either a remote shutter release with cable or an IR system on various Takumar 500mm f4.5 + Pentax body combinations. Works great. What you loose, of course, is the ability to move (as) rapidly the lens and respond to animal movements when you simply have your hands directly on the body's shutter release. I've gotten used to it although it is rather awkward.

[greg s]

I use a cable release down to 1/2 sec. There are times when the light is that dim and I don't want to use flash, and those slow shutter speeds are the only option. It's actually kinda amazing how slow a speed can be used for some wildlife... when they stop moving they really stop (calm & steady). I always have my cable release along when I photograph wildlife... an integral part of my equipment. :) -g-

[sergey_oboguev]

Depends on whether your lens has IS/VR and on your handshake. What worked best personally for me

(YMMV) on 600/4 IS was release cable + tensioning (not locking) Wimberley knobs + pushing the body

down by the finger on the battery compartment against the tension of the knob.

 

For non-IS lens I guess bracing would have worked much better.

[alex_lofquist]

<p>For me it's a judgement call. I prefer the electric release to the mechanical "plunger". I always mount my 500 on a Sidekick. For higher shutter speeds, the Moose Peterson method is fine. But sometimes at speeds around 1/30th or less, I try to lock up the mirror and watch the subject through binos to determine when to fire. </p>