A few problems shooting with my first DSLR

[q.g._de_bakker]

Indeed, David. The longest i hand hold is a 300 mm lens. With stabilization.<br>Still not as good as old rule inspired wisdom would help us get. Stabilization is a crutch that is as effective as a real crutch is to someone who broke his leg. You can walk thanks to the crutch. But you can't expect it will help you become olympic 100 m champion.<br>Kids, if the new rule is that quality doesn't matter, you can safely play by those new rules.

[dcstep]

<p>I think of a "crutch" as something that helps you past an injury. OTOH, I think of IS as a "tool" to do something not possible before, without the tool. It's like someone used to fighting with a bow and arrow being handed an M16.</p>

<p>So, following your analogy, a tripod is a crutch, that allows the photographer to make up for the camera/lens combination's inability to hold steady. IS is a tool or component of the camera/lens that allows it to hold steady, on it's own, without need of an external crutch. No longer, within limits of course, does hand holding mean a sacrifice in image quality. </p>

<p>I've done several prints up in the 50" range and such printing requires pixel-level sharpness. When I have the luxury, I'll set my camera on a sturdy tripod, lock the mirror up and use remote release at a low ISO and appropriate shutter speed. IS would probably allow me to hand hold some of those, but I'll use the crutch (tripod) just to be sure. OTOH, at night, on the streets, I'll crank the ISO and let the SS slow down and than the Lord for my IS.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The aim is to keep a camera still. No motion. We can't do that. Our hands are constantly moving. So they invent a mechanism to react to the constant motion and compensate by moving a part of the lens, moving the image around. That's always reactive, i.e. some of it has to happen uncompensated for before compensation can kick in. The succes of it depends on how well the mechanism detects movement, and on how well it can predict how big the movement is, how constant it is and how long it will last. It also depends on how well the lens behaves when part of it is constantly rattling, trying to shift the image opposite to the camera's erratic movement.<br>It can never be as good as a camera mounted firmly on a sturdy tripod. opposite to the movement of the camera. It indeed is a crutch.<br><br>A tripod is a necessary tool. Not a luxury. Just like a pair of legs are rather necessary tools for people trying to win an olympic 100 mm race, and not a luxury. The difference between that and a crutch is that a crutch is a make-do solution for when you cannot do things the way they are done best.<br><br>50"... Wow! ;-)<br>Great to see that you also crank the ISO. Using two crutches can help even more than using just one. A pitty then that you think you should use a tripod "just to be sure". Sure of what exactly?<br>Kids, if the new rule is that quality doesn't matter, you can safely play by those new rules.

[dcstep]

<p>The goal is image quality. If raising ISO does not damage image quality beyond your acceptable level, then do it. If a tripod will hinder your ability to catch a bird in flight (it will), then ditch it. More efficient sensors with higher dynamic range and lower noise are not crutches, they're tools. We're not shooting Kodachrome 25 anymore.</p>

<p>When I shoot a landscape that has reasonable odds of being printed at 50", I want to be "sure" of pixel-level clarity. With my current equipment, in decent light, I can probably achieve that with hand hold, but wear both belt and suspenders in that circumstance, at least most of the time.</p>

<p>Kids, you can ignore the old wives tales and achieve stunning IQ, just understand how your equipment works and what its limits are. Moore's Law is giving us dynamic range, resolution and noise advances with every generation of sensors at undreamed of levels during the film days. (I shot film for decades). Use the tools that you have today and don't live in the past.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

We agree that we have to understand how our equipment works and what its limits are. ;-)<br>That's not the same as believing that how nature works has changed because of things like Moore's law. if that is what not living in the past means, please do live in the past, the days when people understood how their equipment works, etc. ;-)<br>Anyway, kids, don't take people's word for it (another thing you can't do anymore nowadays). Free your mind from whatever you read on the internet and try for yourself. Something easie, quicker and cheaper to do today than it ever was in the past.

[dcstep]

<p>Moore's law does operate within nature. No rule of nature has changed. Faster and smaller processors and higher density pixels are simply moving within natures limits, closer and closer to an ideal imaging machine.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, kids, don't take people's word for it (another thing you can't do anymore nowadays). Free your mind from whatever you read on the internet and try for yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

100% agreement here. Once you've paid for the equipment, the pixels are almost free. So take lots and lots of images, while paying attention to what you're doing and what the camera's doing and what the results look like. There's lots to learn, but you're not having to buy a roll of film and literally pay for each mistake. </p>

 

[frode]

<p>Hi,<br>

I haven't read what the others have responded and neither do i know your camera, but if image #1 is JPG i would have considered reducing contrast drastically and then increasing exposure by maybe 1 stop. If your camera have highlight and shadow recovery settings you could probably have used these instead of or in addition to reducing contrast.<br>

I don't know, but I suspect your camera was on the edge of blowing out the details on the white walls in the background (there are some evidence that suggests that small parts are already blown out). If so, I deem the exposure to have been correct (if keeping all other settings unchanged). I would not say that blowing out the details in the white wall would suit this image. If that was the only option (i.e. only increasing exposure without taking down the highlights and lifting the shadows) I would have recomposed the image in order to exclude these white walls.<br>

Another option is to edit the image now and make the above corrections there.</p>

<p>For Image #3 I would increase contrast and exposure a little.</p>

<p>I don't shoot JPG, but I do believe that if you want to have JPGs straight out of the camera without any post editing, you should at least adjust contrast in addition to setting correct exposure.</p>

<p>Hope this was of any help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the trash.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Frode Langset</p>