telephoto lens technique

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Just a quick question which is relevant in helping me decide between the 80-400 zoom and the 300 f4. For those who know the answer this is probably elementary; I genuinely don't know the answer. The question is this: Will a high enough shutter speed eliminate camera shake? In other words, if the shutter speed is sufficiently high (say 1/4,000th+), will one get as good an image as can be achieved with a properly supported camera and lens?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Theoretically I think the answer is yes, but practically a better supported camera and lens is usually much more achievable in real life shooting situations. The "high enough camera speed" may be way too high (depending on the FL of the lens) to get with most cameras. Say you are using the 300 f/4 lens....depending on the amount of shake...there is a chance you couldn't get a high enough shutter speed to eliminate it entirely, although the old adage says to not shoot at less than 2x the reciprocal of the focal length. Erwin Puts years ago did a series of tests with his Leicas, as he was writing his compendium, and concluded that it was very hard to eliminate the bluriness caused by camera shake, by upping the shutter speed alone; his experiments pointed out that even with a normal 50mm lens, and excellent muscle control, shooting handheld at anything less than 1/500 when magnified, camera shake could be detected. Long answer - go for a good solid tripod and lens support system if you want to enlarge your images.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>I'm not sure how answering this question will help you decide between those 2 lenses. Is one of them VR?<br>

In any case increasing the shutter speed will certainly minimize the effects of camera shake, but I doubt that it can ever be effective as "a properly supported camera and lens"; meaning a sturdy tripod and a good secure attachment to the lens itself.</p>

[Two23]

<p>In my own experience, nothing helps sharpness more than a solid tripod. I agree with what both wrote above. I picked the 80-400mm over the 300mm partly for the VR (to shoot from a kayak,) and partly because the zoom range is highly useful.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thanks very much for the answers. I really appreciate the quick responses. But I'm hoping for a few more, after which I'll explain why this is relevant to my decision.</p>

[sgust]

<p>In my experience, if I am shooting around 1/1000 sec. I can get fairly sharp images at a focal length of 400mm. I set the shutter to rapid fire and shoot till the buffer fills. Of the approx. 10 images that result, generally there are 1 or 2 that are pretty sharp. <strong>BUT</strong>, if you start pixel peeping you can see that the images are still a little softer than when a <strong>very solid</strong> tripod is used. However, if I use the tripod with less than perfect footing or with the column extended, I find that I can't tell the difference between the best image in a series of hand-held shots and the mounted shot. I only have a Tamron 200-400mm zoom that can't compete with prime lenses, so if I were to repeat what I mentioned above with a higher quality lens, I might be able to see more of a difference.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>So far, I have had fairly stable technique and have done a lot of low-light photography, hand-held.</p>

<p>All the same, I would not buy a telephoto lens now in production without getting IS/VR/whatever on it. If you could do 1/30 sec., with VR you're easily down to 1/15 and slower sometimes.</p>

<p>It is absolutely right that you can pretty much eliminate shake on any lens with a sufficiently sturdy tripod. But such a tripod is unlikely to be light and easily carried about -- so like everything, "you can't have it all" (K. Hepburn). <br>

You may accept less sharpness for easier access and more speed, if you like.</p>

[StanleyBeck]

<p>I just upgraded from a D200 (10 MP) to a D7100 (24 MP). I was seeing some camera shake on the D7100 that I didn't on the D200 (because of the higher resolution). I started increasing the shutter speed a couple of stops, and it really cleaned up my images. I am using VR lenses, and use a support part of the time for my camera. I like the rule of thumb: Shutter = reciprocal of effective focal length. So, if I have a 400 mm lens, the crop factor makes the effective focal length 600 mm, so anything above 1/600 sec. makes my life much easier. Good camera technique never goes out of style. Hope this helps.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I shoot lots and lots of 1000mm shots hand held. One key is getting shutter speed up over 1/1000 second. Now that I've taken thousands of shots, I can hand hold down to 1/25-sec. at 1000mm, but bumping the ISO up to 800 and letting the shutter speed run in the 1/1000 to 1/2000 range was a key in increasing my keeper rate.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I once was on a mid-sized boat on the Pacific off San Francisco. I set up my 500mm/f4 AF-S lens (no VR) on a tripod. The boat was rocking quite seriously and I managed to capture some very sharp images at 1/2000 sec. However, composing was difficult since I was not on solid ground.</p>

<p>If you intend to use 1/2000 to 1/4000 sec, think about what type of ISO you may need since you are restructed to f4 or f5.6, and you may need to stop down a little more to get the best results.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Hand held off a boat will be easier to track than on a tripod, generally.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The reason I got a 150-500 OS rather than a 50-500 non-OS was for the help stabilization provides when composing. (I'm not a fan of the lens, but that argument was valid.) I find I can cope with up to about 500mm full frame for composition, though shorter is better to line things up; DX may start to make things challenging. One advantage of the zoom is that you can start wide and then zoom in.<br />

<br />

I would say a tripod is your friend, but both the 300mm f/4 and the older 80-400 are known for an iffy tripod collar - though there are third party options. Are you considering the older 80-400, or the new one? The new one (twice the price) is appreciably sharper, especially at the long end - though I saw the old one got some use at last year's Wildlife Photographer of the Year. The 300 f/4 is known for being exceptionally sharp, although a lot of people are hoping a VR version might turn up soon (though we've been hoping that for several years now...)<br />

<br />

I claim pretty good sharpness hand held at about shutter speed = 1 / 2x focal length on a D800, but a heavy lens and camera help, and these weren't testing conditions. I'm also not averse to fixing a fractional pixel of motion blur in post, though I tend to have more problems with my subject moving - seen recently with my 150mm OS macro, where I couldn't stop things swaying in the breeze.<br />

<br />

If you say what you're shooting, it may be clearer whether subject motion is likely to be an issue. My 150-500 needed to be stopped down to f/11 for sharpness at the long end, which removed any benefit from OS anyway; I don't believe the 80-400 is quite that bad, but also bear in mind you might need some of the depth of field you're using to get shutter speed.<br />

<br />

I have always vaguely wondered how bad things have to be before image distortion is an issue - with a flash sync speed of, say, 1/250 of a second, even if you've got a 1/8000s shutter stopping motion blur, the exposure is still taking 1/250s as the shutter aperture moves across the frame. Like rolling video, only for a still frame. I'm probably paranoid...</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Learn when your prospective lens VR is the most effective. Perhaps it could be between 1/10 sec and 1/100 sec ? - but most of advice here recommend use of 1/600, 1/1000 sec and faster.</p>

<p>Sure bet is very fast shutter speed and proper shooting technique or tripod. Using VR is a hit and mis method, and mostly adequate for static objects.</p>

<p>It is better to have the VR even if you turn it off and not use. </p>

<p> </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thank you, everyone. First I should mention that, like Lex, my hands are somewhat shaky. Basically I'm trying to decide how important VR really is for pictures towards the long end of the 80-400 focal range. I currently have a copy of the new zoom and I'm about to decide whether to keep it or not. Yesterday I was standing around in my garden (near Luton in the UK) hoping to catch some birds in flight. Word must have got out because before long a raptor appeared in the sky, circled my house and then returned, presumably to Northamptonshire. I'll post two shots. The first is what I could see in my viewfinder with the lens zoomed to maximum. The second is an enlargement. (I must apologise in advance. This was a quick fix done in iPhoto. I believe I ought to be able to do a better job with Capture NX2, but it's not loaded on my laptop and I haven't got around to it yet.)<br>

The photographs were taken with a D800.</p><div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I'm a little disappointed with the sharpness, hence my question. It may be, however, that the focus is slightly out. On the other hand this bird was very high in the sky. Perhaps I should be satisfied and shouldn't expect more for that reason.</p><div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>These pictures were taken with VR off. If I have missed the focus, it's no fault of the lens. My D800 was one of those with the left focus point issue and that may still be a problem. I had it attended to, but the 'fix' wasn't entirely adequate. It seems the centre focus point is slightly off at the moment. I intend to take the camera back to Nikon within the next couple of weeks for a service before I go to South Africa.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Humm...1/6400th @ f5.6 @ISO 400 @400mm</p>

<p>I think I'd have popped it to f8 1/3200. I suspect it's slightly soft as it's wide open...?</p>

<p>..and maybe 1/3 EV brighter, by ISO adjustment probably....and/or used Spot Metering or even Centre Weighted, but not Matrix. I hate it on my D700.</p>

<p>I don't think speed is the problem, but I would have put VR <strong>ON</strong> for framing stabilization. I never feel very stable pointing a camera straight up.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Despite the D800's copious pixels, that's a huge crop and not a really good sample for evaluating focus accuracy and sharpness. The subject was barely larger than the center AF point. You'll need to get closer to your subjects. For a backlit subject, you need around +1EV and f/8 would have been better than f/5.6, as Mike suggests.</p>

<p>Looks like you're at the beginning of an adventure. Keep trying. Take thousands of images and strive to get better all the time.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Hand held off a boat will be easier to track than on a tripod, generally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally, maybe, but certainly not with a 500mm/f4 lens.</p>

<p>I would rather not hand hold a 500mm/f4 lens on solid ground. Doing so on a rocking boat is an invitation to disaster.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Now, sure a tripod is better.... once you replace the collar of the 300 f/4, as Andrew noted. With the original Nikon foot, I found that I myself was steadier than the tripod in slowish speeds (~1/100th-1/250th). With a (Kirk) replacement collar, the tripod easily wins. The older 80-400VR should be equally challenged, tripod-collar-wise. Either way, a tripod isn't always possible and it's a bit too simple to just reply "use a tripod if you want sharp".<br>

So, in those cases, personally, I find the 300 f/3 certainly hand-holdable; also with a TC14 with high shutterspeeds (on DX), I have no issues getting sharp shots with it (using less megapixels than a D800, though, so pixelpeeping does not give me the magnification a D800 has). But I usually have quite steady hands and when using this lens, I do make sure to stand steady, squeeze the shutter gently and keep breathing under control etc. It's not "casually handholdable", so to speak, you have to be aware what you're doing. Sorry, I cannot compare it to a 80-400 VR, as I do not have one. But I chose it over the old 80-400 since it is a sharper lens at 300mm... and well, I usually use it in sufficient light, so VR was never a big concern for my uses.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan has <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm">an article on when to use VR</a>... I've always wondered if it was 100% applicable to the high-end ultralong lenses as the 500 VR etc. But it does all make some sense. If he is right, at the very fast shutter speeds, VR stops being an advantage and might actually work against you. Might be worth reading and checking for yourself how it works out; my VR lenses aren't long enough to see huge differences, so I've never been able to see for myself to which extend this article is right.<br>

So, based on my limited experience, I am inclined to say that high shutterspeeds can complete overcome a lack of VR, hand-holding requires good technique with long lenses anyway (VR has its limits too!).</p>

<p>Watching D800 files at 100% is tricky.... every little mistake in technique, lens flaw and focussing becomes very obvious. It's not always immediately clear - some lenses that have an excellent reputation may still come up short on this high resolution, focussing can be a millimeter game and so on. It can be really hard to exclude the contributing factors unless you take a lot of time, a very sturdy tripod and a very methodic approach....</p>

[rjmelone]

<p>Alastair, I shoot birds exclusively with the 300 f/4 and 1.4 teleconverter handheld. With this combo, I have found that shutter speed is much more important than aperture in getting sharp images. If you use a tripod for BIF, it will be very important to understand the movement of the bird, when to lock-in and track and finally hit the shutter. So, positioning will be imperative in getting good results. Without a tripod, you will have much more freedom.<br>

On a sunny day, I generally start out with 1/1600, f/5.6 at ISO 400. If it is very bright like it is this time of year, or if the bird has plenty of white feathers, I’ll use 1/2000 or 1/2500. These settings should provide a good starting point.<br>

As far as shaky hands go, photographing fast moving subjects is a matter of hit or miss (some might say luck). So, your hand shake may actually work in your favor! :) Just get well positioned on your feet and take a lot of shots. Also, remember that for wildlife photography we tend to get excited when we see something which may cause us to get too aggressive with the shutter (thinking that if we hit it hard we will freeze a special moment). Only the opposite is true! When that special moment fills your viewfinder, gently slide your finger over the shutter and let the camera (and serendipity) take it from there. I think this technique could be more important in getting sharp results then mounting your camera on a tripod (at least for subjects that are not posing). Also, I want to emphasize that good quality front light (2-3 hours after sunrise or before sunset) is as important as image sharpness.<br>

Whether it is with the 300 f/4 or 80-400, these techniques will make all the difference in getting good results. All best of luck!</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Generally, maybe, but certainly not (hand holding) with a 500mm/f4 lens.<br>

I would rather not hand hold a 500mm/f4 lens on solid ground. Doing so on a rocking boat is an invitation to disaster.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, you haven't tried it. Two advantages of hand holding from a boat is that you decouple the lens from the vibrating/rocking boat and you can track fast moving subjects much easier than with a tripod.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>David, I'm not sure all 500 f/4s are equal. I've no problem hand-holding my 150-500 (other than its own sharpness issues) or my 200f/2, and experiments in a shop persuade me that I'd be able to support a 400 f/2.8 for moderate sequences of shots. My 500 f/4 AI-P is completely out of the question - it's way too front-heavy, and the centre of gravity is too far away for me to wedge my elbow against my body (even with a carefully-acquired belly for the purpose). I agree that hand-holding can cushion a lens on an unstable platform, though. I think I'd just not take a 500mm lens on a boat - though the reduced length might mean a 300 f/2.8 + TC17 would be more viable.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm using the 8.5 lb. Canon 500/f4 with a 1.4x and 2.0x TC. I think that the Nikon 500/f4 is around the same weight.</p>

<p>I highly recommend that everyone at least try to hand hold their big rigs. My keeper rate went through the roof after I ditched the tripod.</p>

<p>Leave the stabilization on. Here's 1,000mm hand held at 1/250-sec.:</p>

<p><a title="Beautiful colors by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3793/8992087926_930efe87f4_c.jpg" alt="Beautiful colors" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>David, I'm not going to claim expertise with these especially hand-held (my AI-P lives on a MF393), but the AI-P is 3kg (about the same as the 200 f/2) and very front heavy - it's the weight distribution that troubles me, not the mass. The AFS-II is 3.4kg. The VR is 3.8kg. The latest Canon is only 3.2kg. Though they did revise their range to make them lighter - I guess you're using an older one? I can't comment on how front-heavy it might be.<br />

<br />

I have to admit that I keep hearing reports of people hand-holding a 500mm f/4. Maybe I have short arms. My need to manual focus my 500mm doesn't help the off-tripod ergonomics, admittedly. Nice duck. :-)</p>