Any anti shake tests using long lenses?

[clinton_abe]

peter- You're such a hypocrite. Your post have been way off-topic for a while now. Just face it, you have nothing to add, but you LOVE to 'hear' yourself blab on and on and on. I've noticed that you 'contribute' to a number of different photo forum, but only on this forum, are you so verbose. How do you find the time to fix computers and take pictures and driving your Daewoo, with all the time you spend posting?

[bill_thorlin]

Telephone Directory.

 

OH DEAR - what is that sitting on my desk ?

 

OH NO - could it be a digital camera ?

 

OH HEAVENS IT IS A DIGITAL CAMERA !!!!

 

OH WELL - I guess it is made by Sony then ?

 

OH CALAMITY IT'S A MINOLTA !!!!!

[clinton_abe]

bill- Stop hi-jacking this forum. Try posting something that has to do with the original question.

[bacsa]

Clinton, LOL, you are hilarious!

[clinton_abe]

csab, I'm glad I could make you laugh. With all the troubles in the world, I try my best to bring a smile to people's faces.

[bill_thorlin]

Don't do as I do - do as I say.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Thank you, Bill. I was tossing and turning and wondering how to respond, if at all, or not.

 

Humor is a great relief of tension, eh? GREAT!

 

Thinking of Ron's original inquiry, and still not finding any additional web sites doing tests, let alone comparison tests, to offer in response, I thought of additional alternatives to the basic problem -- the problem of preventing capturing camera shake...actually, photographer shake. More later, but ...

 

I found this old quote from four years ago. This line of inquiry about systems to avoid capturing camera/photographer shake has been around since ...

 

=======================

 

Subject: Re: Minolta gears for nature photography

 

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001

 

From: Peter Blaise Monahon <peterblaise@yahoo.com>

 

To: minolta@yahoogroups.com

 

> Ross ross.warner@East.sun.com wrote: "... Better equipment is always a plus, but with proper technique you can get great nature pictures with Minolta gear. http://rosswarner.com/GE_flt1.html - This picture of a Great Egret in flight was taken with a Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 507si/600si/650si camera and a Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 APO G lens -- certainly not a fast combination. http://rosswarner.com/1503.html - This picture of a Snowy Egret in flight was taken with a Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9 camera and Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 APO G lens, 1/2000 sec at f/4. At 1/2000 sec. you don't need an IS lens. Both these pictures were taken with the camera hand-held. Proper tripod technique will let you shoot at very slow speeds, even with a teleconverter. More pictures at http://rosswarner.com/ All Minolta, except for the medium format Hasselblad shots, which are clearly identified. - Ross "

 

 

Peter Blaise responded:

 

Wow Ross,

 

I love your images. And being a Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 507si/600si/650si camera user, I love your gear!

 

But I must question your comment. "... Better equipment is always a plus..." - I can't seem to define "better". "More appropriate...[for...what? Specify!]" maybe?

 

;^)

 

The MYTH of Canon's USM lenses:

 

All other things being equal (which they never are) Canon's USM lenses promise as much as 1 to 4 additional shutter speed stops of freedom from camera shake over non-USM lenses. That is, following the ancient rule of a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal-length seconds for hand held freedom from camera shake, then a 300mm lens shouldn't be hand held below 1/300 second shutter speed, where the Canon USM promises to allow 1/150 second to as slow as 1/19 second shutter speeds can still be hand held. What's wrong with this picture?

 

As already mentioned, all other things are not equal. As already mentioned on this list, some Minolta Photographers already get 1 or 2 additional shutter speeds slower that the minimum shutter speed of 1/focal-length seconds without making themselves unhappy with their images. Money - price out the cost of a Canon USM lens versus a Minolta lens and you see how unequal all things can be. The original commentator of this thread, herbridgemo@y.., eventually mentioned that someone used Sigma lenses and that is all - no comment on who in their "hunting party" used Canon USM and what speed film and so on, again, all things are NOT yet equal in herbridgemo@y..'s reportage! And don't forget that if you're taking shots

of moving subjects, slower shutter speed isn't an advantage - or you'll get subject blur. And Nikon VR brags that they solved many of the problems of Canon USM. Hmm ... Nikon claims Canon USM ain't so "good"? Sound like a battle is waging on without a winner, only whiners!

 

So, in some limited situations, Canon USM and Nikon VR technology promise additional clarity in slow shutter speed hand-held image taking ... for appropriate additional moneys in camera and lens costs. Many Minoltians (and Canon and Nikon users who do not use USM or VR lenses) have satisfactory work arounds - tripod, faster film, enhanced camera holding techniques (it's amazing how stable you can be after successfully mastering Yoga and AiKiDo breathing and posture and movement exercises, and how truly stable one's stance can become in Mountain or Warrior Pose!).

 

Finally (oh yeah right, Peter Blaise - do you ever really let things go final?) USM HAS NO PROMISE OF ENHANCING FOCUS TACKING! And focus tracking was one of the main complaints from herbridgemo@y..

 

So, until herbridgemo@y.. tells us what film and lenses and filters and subject lighting, and also scans and shares their images, all we are doing is speculating.

 

Speculating is nice because we cannot be wrong, right?

 

But, speculating is equally useless because we cannot be sure if we are right!

 

Hey, I'm all out of words. Horaayyy!

 

Peter Blaise

 

Take some b-a-a-a-d pictures and share 'em with us, please!

 

--

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

Glossary: thanks to http://www.atomica.com/

 

myth

 

n. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. A fictitious story, person, or thing: ?German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth? (Leon Wolff). [New Latin m[ymacr]thus, from Late Latin m[ymacr]thos, from Greek mythos.]

 

USM

 

Ultra Sonic Motor - an electronic instant mini gyroscope-type motor in some Canon and Sigma lenses that help reduce the effect of camera shake on capturing an image at slow shutter speeds, claimed to add 1 to 4 stops (situationally dependent) over the 1/focal-length seconds rule.

 

VR

 

Nikon's in-lens motors for some of Nikon's lenses designed to reduce vibrations, supposedly smart enough to change it's internal actions to assist in both vertical and horizontal camera movement.

 

speculate

 

v., -lated, -lating, -lates. v.intr. To meditate on a subject; reflect. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. See synonyms at think. To engage in the buying or selling of a commodity with an element of risk on the chance of profit.

 

v.tr. To assume to be true without conclusive evidence: speculated that high cholesterol was a contributing factor to the patient's health problems. [Latin speculari, speculat-, to observe, from specula, watchtower, from specere, to look at.] Synonyms: speculate, verb, To take a risk in the hope of gaining advantage : gamble, venture. Idiom: take a flyer. To draw an inference on the basis of inconclusive evidence or insufficient information : conjecture, guess, infer, suppose, surmise. To formulate or assert as a tentative explanation : hypothesize, theorize. To use the powers of the mind, as in conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and making judgments : cerebrate, cogitate, deliberate, ratiocinate, reflect, think. Idioms: put on one's thinking cap, use one's head. Additionally: speculate, vb. -lated -lating -vi To theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence - A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict. To assume a business risk in hope of gain; esp To buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations -vt To take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence speculator

 

====================

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Sigma and Panasonic have also subsequently released stabilization devices of some kind to prevent recording camera, er, photographer shake.

[clinton_abe]

peter- Another long-winded non-response to the original question posted by Ron Chappel.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Geesh I hate how carriage returns in MS Word disappear when cut and pasted into photo.net. Sorry about the lack of paragraph formatting in my last cut-and-paste -- hard to read -- oops!

 

--

 

The earlier comment from another poster about tethering a digital camera to a computer is interesting on it's own, but I think perhaps unrelated, as at the moment the photographer is at the computer, the photographer is probably NOT also hand-holding the tethered camera, so camera/photogapher shake is probably NOT a concern there. But thanks for the suggestive exploration.

 

--

 

Anyone else have insights and experience on avoiding capturing camera shake?

 

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[peterblaise]

.

 

PS - What did everyone think of Ross Warner's links -- hand-held shots telephoto without even any anti-shake?

 

http://rosswarner.com/GE_flt1.html

 

http://rosswarner.com/1503.html

 

More at

 

http://rosswarner.com/

 

My "counterpoint" to Ron's original question, and Ron, PLEASE address this -- what is your experience with long lens shots in the past? What are you planning on comapring to, what are your needs? Can you tell us more?

 

Me? My % of successful shots goes w-a-y down the longer lens I use. So, I wonder if our desire for the "magic promise" of systems that avoid capturing camera/photographer shake is really just a desire to deal with other problems that come with longer focus lenses -- narrow angle of view, smaller apertures, airborne dust, and so on?

 

I'm curious what are other's experiences with long lenses regardless of "anti shake" or not. Ron, this is especially important to learn from you to help us put your inquiry in perspective. Thanks!

 

Links and stories of our own, anyone?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[bacsa]

"PS - What did everyone think of Ross Warner's links -- hand-held shots telephoto without even any anti-shake?"

 

Peter, these two shots are of a flying big bird without ANY motion blur. Obviously the shutter speed was high enough to freeze the motion, therefore it should be more than adequate to prevent camera shake, i'd say. Antishake is invented for situations where it is needed, one does not HAVE to use it constantly.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Earlier in this thread: "... these two shots are of a flying big bird without ANY motion blur...the shutter speed was high enough to freeze the motion, therefore it should be more than adequate to prevent [recording] camera shake, I'd say. Antishake is invented for situations where it is needed, one does not HAVE to use it constantly..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Great observation.

 

Ron, how about it?

 

Can you explore your photographic history and plans and tell us more about the situations where now you cannot capture the images you want, and where some competitive form of system that prevents capturing camera shake might help you capture those images?

 

I guess I'm not only asking you, Ron, to get specific, but I'm asking all of us to imagine HOW we'd do a fair test where all other things are equal and the only thing being tested was each manufacturer's system for preventing capturing camera shake.

 

Then I guess we can assign a dollar value to the cost of the system.

 

Then we can measure the cost against the effectiveness of the systems tested ...

 

...and...

 

... against the perceived benefits each different photographer values from the system.

 

In other words, if only 1% of MY work might benefit, I'd weigh the results differently than someone who's work might be in the 20% or more benefit range.

 

Fun, eh?

 

I don't think there's any way to simply assign a number like Minolta 95%, Nikon 44%, Canon 83%, Sigma 29%, Panasonic 54%, Samsung 21%, Casio 32% and so on. What could that POSSIBLY mean to the reader, or to two readers, or to 100 readers of differing photographic skill sets and expectations?

 

How many focal lengths, zooms and prime, does each maker have available PLUS third part lenses, that are part of their "prevent capturing camera/photographer shake" system?

 

What aperture range does each maker have available PLUS third part lenses, that are part of their "prevent capturing camera/photographer shake" system?

 

Minolta wins because ALL lenses, including third party lenses, are effectively AS Anti Shake.

 

Maybe the gyroscope wins in the end because it even works across ALL your cameras, including those with non-interchangeable or fixed lenses!

 

Just saying 2 to 3 stops improvement does not say what the starting point was on each system, as Ross pointed out the 1/focal-length "rule" may not REALLY be the starting point.

 

And few people understand that the 43% APS sensor size does NOT change the focal length, so a 500mm lens mounted an a hand held Konica Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7/5/Sweet Digital with the AS Anti Shake turned off does NOT require 1/750 seconds shutter speed to prevent capturing camera shake!

 

So, where do we BEGIN?

 

Does anyone have DIOLOGIC thoughts?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

--

 

Definitions of dialogic [edited] on the Web:

 

* In English, Dialogic is a term used by the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin in his work of literary theory, The Dialogic Imagination. Bakhtin contrasts the dialogic and the "monologic" work of literature. The dialogic work is in continual dialogue with other works of literature. It is not merely a work that answers, corrects, silences, or extends a previous work, but one that is being informed and informing the previous work. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogic