telephoto lens technique

[dcstep]

<p>Yes Andrew, mine is the old version. I'm Jonesing for the Series II, but it's $10,500.</p>

<p>MF is an added complication to hand holding. I sometimes have to grab my MF ring when the AF gets lost (using a 2.0x TC can slow things down a bunch) and that becomes very difficult when hand holding. I don't think that I could successfully MF as my standard mode of operation while hand holding. (Those with AF should at least try it, is still my mantra).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here's an example of relatively low light photography, in this case with an 85mm lens, with attention to breathing and bracing the camera against my body.</p><div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Mmm, some conflicting ideas! Lots of recommendations for using a tripod, although that wasn't really answering my question. I'm not suggesting that those answers are not relevant; after all the title of the thread is telephoto technique. However, I know that given good light, adequate depth of field, good focus etc., using a solidly mounted camera will yield sharp pictures. What I'd like to know is whether that can be matched by upping the shutter speed. Stephen Lewis addressed the question directly and I think you're probably right, Stephen. I've also read Erwin Puts. I wonder whether the increase in shutter speed that he recommends is linear or exponential. In other words if 1/500th of a second is adequate for a 50mm lens, will 1/4,000th be enough for 400mm or does one need to go higher? I think Andrew's point is pertinent here. Because the whole process takes 1/250th anyway, possibly there's no benefit to going above a certain speed; you may be stopping subject motion but not camera shake.<br /> David Stephens, I agree. I need to get closer. I wonder why the red kite didn't come a little lower, after all it travelled a long way to have its portrait taken. I was truly surprised to read that you do better without the tripod, and your duck certainly backs that up.<br /> Robert, I love your duck too, and thanks for the setting suggestions.<br /> There doesn't seem to be any consensus about whether to have VR on or off. I agree that it's helpful for composition, but it may very well be working against you above a certain speed. (Wouter, thanks for the input. I'll take a look at Thom Hogan's article.)<br /> I was thinking that the 80-400 is probably a better bet than the 300 f4, not only for the reach, but because I wouldn't want to carry a big f4 lens around with me all day long in the game reserve. Turns out though that the 80-400 is heavier than the 300!<br /> In the end I've decided to keep the zoom, for much the same reasons as Kent. I need it because it's a zoom. VR is nice if you have to (and are able to) use slow shutter speeds but I don't think we've heard the last word about it yet.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Alastair: The motion blur over a given time should be proportional to the angle covered, which - for small amounts of blur - is very close to proportional to focal length. The old heuristic of "1/focal length in seconds" is still valid, it's just that you might need to add a constant scale factor to compensate for pixel peeping (or larger prints). Note that you'll still avoid <i>blur</i> if the exposure is less than the sync speed - my point was that you might get distortion instead.<br />

<br />

I'm holding on to my 300 f/4 as a (relatively) cheap and portable way to get that level of performance, but if I had the money to throw at it I wouldn't turn my nose up at the 80-400. VR is better than no VR (since you can turn it off), and my experience is that zooms are very useful for tracking wildlife because of the ability to zoom out while finding the subject. With my 150-500, I'd often zoom out to 150mm, find what I wanted, then zoom in to 500mm. With my 500 f/4, especially with a TC-16 making it 800mm, it's tricky to find a fast-moving subject when it's moved out of the frame. It needs a finder scope.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and enjoy your new toy!</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Andrew, thanks. And yes - it is a (very expensive) new toy. At the very least it will be a huge aid to bird identification.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Andrew, I do take your point about distortion, and yes, I suspect that you are paranoid! Surely it can't be significant other than in exceptional cases. I wasn't thinking straight when I suggested that shooting faster than the flash sync. might not have any effect on camera shake. By the way, this is what Erwin Puts says, "The classical rule that the lowest possible shutter speed for hand-held picture taking is the reciprocal of the focal length is nonsense.... Statistically it is not possible to get fine imagery below 1/250th (a big chance factor is involved when shooting that slow). At 1/250th to 1/500th the chances of a good quality picture are higher but it is not fully secure...." He recommends taking a rapid series of pictures to improve the odds of getting a good one if you have to use slower speeds. As Siegried suggests, shoot until the buffer fills.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I do a considerable amount of hand held shooting below 1/250-sec. at 1,000mm with image stabilization engaged. I do agree with taking a lot of shots to improve your odds, but don't think that one big burst is a good idea. Be aware of the extremely low SS and brace yourself and take small bursts of two or three as you breath correctly and stop breathing to shoot, etc.</p>

<p>The following raccoon shot was in deep woods as the sun was almost down, shooting at 1,000mm at 1/20-sec., facing big challenges with very shallow DOF and low light. I'll never mount this on my wall, but lots of viewers think it's cute:</p>

<p><a title="Raccoon kit by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8944425390_5c35f00eb0_c.jpg" alt="Raccoon kit" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Thanks, Dave. That all makes sense. Puts was writing about shooting with Leicas (M and R system), so he wasn't taking VR/IS into account. I've been amazed at the sharpness of pictures taken with my 80-200 VR II at 1/15th. Very cute raccoon - it's the paws that make the picture!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>My experience is that a heavy camera helps - I did better at 1/135s with my 135mm f/2 than at 1/50s with my 50mm. The VR on my 200 f/2 is almost irrelevant - I couldn't shake the thing at high frequency if I wanted to. That may count against Leicas being a good example. One argument for continuous shooting being better is that you're not pressing the shutter at the start of each shot, though how much difference it really makes is debatable. I certainly need a faster shutter to get pixel-level sharpness from my D800 than with my D700, but I'm not shooting everything at 1/8000, and I'm still getting results that I consider to be sharp.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Is Andrew "Puts"? The conversation is confusing me because it's swinging back and forth between current edition cameras (D800) and other stuff, with and without stabilization.</p>

<p>I'm talking about modern cameras with stabilization and focal lengths like 500mm. With this equipment, there's no worry about pressing the shutter at the beginning of a burst. The first shot should be as good and sharp as the 2d and 3d, so long as you use proper technique. If you do a burst of 8 vs. a burst of 3, you start increasing the danger that the AF may not track all the way through for a moving subject.</p>

<p>I consider 1/1000-sec. and above as "fast" in most situations. If you want to freeze a hummingbird's wings, the 1/2000-sec. and above is required.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>David: See Stephen's first post in this thread. I don't own a Leica! (Well, I have a LSM Leica 90mm f/4 for my Bessa R, but I don't own a Leica camera. Though if anyone's offering, I'd prefer an S2 to an X Vario.) The argument for burst mode is that you're moving your hand in order to activate the shutter, though I've got to say it's a pretty tiny effect (and, since you're usually holding the camera and squeezing it and the shutter together, the camera ought to move <i>up</i>, not down as you'd expect). Though I've always kind of felt that "on the top" is about the worst place to put the shutter release from a leverage perspective - the Rolleiflex/Hasselblad trick of pushing the shutter in line with the optical axis seems more sensible.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Ok, the Leica study by Puts was likely old and without benefit of image stabilization, so it doesn't really apply to the modern cameras that I'm referencing. With stabilization engaged and proper shutter release technique those concerns are largely out the window, IME. The "throw" on my shutter release, between AF and stabilization engagement at half way down and release, is very small.</p>

<p>When shooting at slow SS, on a tripod, with mirror lock up and remote release, I've tried a view times to manually release the shutter. If I get my hand steady on the camera and then release the shutter carefully, I can't see a difference at 100% crop. I still take all those precautions when shooting landscapes, but the cameras are really very good these days, if stabilization is engaged.</p>