brians.

<p>Forhood, one trick you can always try is taking a few shots in Auto Mode. If they seem alright check the settings and use them in Manual Mode. If you are looking for the sharpest possible image, without regard to anything else, you can find the "sweet spot" of your lens at sights like Photozone.com. Since you're working manual mode you might want to find out about Depth of Field and other factors that can influence your work.</p>

<p>I had a similar problem come up unexpectedly after about a year with my D90, but I sent it to Nikon and they corrected it. I do find that different lenses and shooting conditions can make a big difference however -- more than with my D50 -- but then I shoot in Manual mode and always readjust for each new condition anyway. If this is a quality control issue with Nikon I've never seen quality control questions addressed adequately in forums. I suppose there are always to many good versions of the camera to condemn a model. </p>

<p>Oh yes, it's about the wedding photos, too...</p>

<p>I agree Mike, this seems like a very negative thread. But are you saying Wade's original post was negative as well? I hadn't looked at it like that. I just thought he was making a subjective observation. Personally, I don't think good photos don't have to meat any particular criteria. And I think it's reasonable to express your feelings. But you really twisted my mind around this one. Because If Wade was making a negative statement, then the nit-pickers I criticized earlier were only trying to put a more positive spin on things by getting to more real issues.</p>

<p>I made my earlier points based on times when I was criticized for not having enough experience to express my opinion properly. I was right about what I observed back then but more experienced photographers discredited what I said anyway. I felt that Wade was not given his subjective dues is all. I Just don't like to see people's opinions undermined because they can't express themselves technically. My first DSLR was a dog. I hated it and said so when ever I got the chance. Experienced photographers hated what I said because I wasn't telling them the details they wanted to hear. Still it was a poor camera. Luckily, I've moved up to better equipment.</p>

<p>It seems there are two issues here now: How should opinionated posts be treated, and should negative posts be given credence at all. </p>

<p>This has turned out to be a very strange thread. Thanks Mike. </p>

<p>Wow, now that's a direct response... you brought expertise and content to the conversation. Way to go Maria! I'm glad I hung around long enough to hear what you had to say.</p>

<p>Is this a trend? When people don't have any real response to offer they criticize the person asking the question? I had a similar reaction to a question I asked in another forum recently. I had the same thought as Wake... get me out of this, shut down the thread! Fortunately, there are a few people here, as there with my question, that sincerely wanted to further the discussion and help. I saw this kind of snobbery happen in DPReview a few years ago (I don't go there anymore), where people got verbally beat up for asking naive questions or simply stating an opinion. I hope Photo.net isn't becoming like that. Good luck Wade, your comments seemed valid to me. </p>

<p>I agree with you Robert. I have the same setup. The 70-300vr is a pretty good lens (one of Nikon's best values), but it won't keep up with large aperture lenses like the 70-200vr f/2.8. I think you'll find that most of super-sharp photos are taken with these more expensive lenses that will let you capture more light and still keep your shutter speed up. I stick with ISO 320 most of the time and accept what results I can get. It's too bad that it costs more to get more, but then that seems to be the way of most things.</p>

<p>Since I live in the bay area it's good to know about this. I often wonder how safe my equipment is. It amazes me that it happened in broad daylight. I sometimes shoot around the Embarcadero at night and have never been bothered -- but my equipment is not as desirable as what you lost. Still it's a good heads-up. Thanks.</p>

<p>I suspect that Photozone's bench tests are what they are, while Klaus has his own preferences that are reflected in the reviews. I find the sample photos to be more revealing than the tests. Of the lenses I own, the samples are spot on, while the bench tests and comments are only close. Also, by Photozone's own statements, versions of the same lens very greatly, even with major brands and popular lenses.</p>

<p>I was very disappointed with Olympus' in-camera stabilization -- it felt non-existent, I got about the same results with it turned off. When I went to Nikon with VRII lenses the world changed -- suddenly I had the control I needed. I assume Canon's IS is just as good. I suggest trying in-camera stabilization -- it may not be all you think it is. </p>

<p>Mostly M, with an occasional A. I learned photography on a good P&S with M settings available and stuck with that. However, I set up the camera for the lens, the scene, and my needs, then simply adjust <strong>shutter speed</strong> only to get balanced exposure.</p>

<p>That's why I wish a factory person would weigh in... I'm sure they have real data on photographer demographics and habits. Still it's fun to explore the possibilities -- maybe they're at least listening (reading). All the best to you Andrew -- have a good one.</p>

<p>Yes, incorporating a set of gyroscopes in a grip would be great. I envisioned a hand-held unit you would mount the camera on. I even bought a gyroscope that was motor/battery driven but it wasn't precise enough to be usable -- it actually induced vibration. I don't have the patience or money to go any further with that, however.</p>

<p>You're really doing a good exploration of the causes of camera shake Andrew. I certainly agree with everything you're saying. Still, since you've never experienced the knee-jerk kind of finger action I'm referring to I don't think you understand that pressing the button can move the whole camera body -- albeit slightly, but it's enough to ruin a good photo, especially if you're using a telephoto lens. I have a friend who can take rock solid photos using a P&S with no stabilization, and she only goes out a few times a year (no practice). But there are some, many that I have talked to, like myself, that are not so lucky. I suspect that much of this has to do with age, I'm 65, and most of those I've talked with are older too. But from what I've read in forums younger people have similar trouble. I've been reluctant to mention that because it's easy to say, it's only a problem with older people. But if that's the case there are lots of photographers getting older all the time, and there is/will be a continuing need for better camera stabilization.</p>

<p>Ok, I'm getting off my horse -- really, I'm not trying to champion a cause. Thanks again Andrew.</p>

<p>Andrew, you covered a lot. But first I'd like to say that an underlying theme seems to be sustained here, "Is there a need for more camera shake stabilization?" When you have lens stabilization to 4 stops and many remote actuators to choose from is there a real need for more technology in this area? Of course my answer is yes, but I don't think anyone else here is as sure about it. It's another reason I wish a manufacturer could weigh in on this -- they would have the data.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone in this conversation realizes there are many people who do not have the subtle motor control to press the button smoothly. For them, there is a huge difference between a cable release and pressing the camera button. And this is true even when the camera is braced properly against the body.</p>

<p>Your point Andrew about camera size and weight seems quite valid to me. Unfortunately, the trend seems toward lighter cameras. Perhaps a weighty grip would make a huge difference. Personally, I've never owned a camera bigger than a D90 and the extra size over earlier cameras is noticeably positive. I suspect the down is that fatigue might eventually make motor control even less smooth. This is the first time I've ever heard of a larger heavier body an answer to camera shake, however. And in case anyone's wondering, I've tried the bunggy chord thing, and I think it's a joke -- it only made matters worse for me.</p>

<p>The gyroscope thing isn't new, but it's usually mounted in a gimbal for large video cameras. There are some YouTube videos of guys experimenting with non-gimbal gyro-stabilization. There's lots of references online: <a href="http://www.camerasystems.com/gyrostabilization.htm">http://www.camerasystems.com/gyrostabilization.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g4hBwgGNX0&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g4hBwgGNX0&feature=related</a><br>

I'm sure it would add a lot to the price of a camera, but with mass-production, who knows? </p>

<p>I agree that the position of the shutter release button is important. I've always assumed that manufactures gave a lot of thought to this, but I often wish for a more front mounted button so you had a pulling action rather than a pressing down action. But then, until you try some of these ideas it's hard to know.</p>

<p>When it comes to causes of camera shake, except for external forces like wind or walking, mirror lock up is the only other source of camera shake that I'm aware of -- that's why I think pressing the shutter release button is the main culprit and so important.</p>

<p>I feel like we're explored a lot in this discussion. For me, it's been a lot of fun. Thank you everyone! The subject has been on my mind quite awhile and getting good feedback is encouraging. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I'm envious Leigh -- you guys with the rock solid fingers. I'm good about 70% of the time but eventually I develop a jerk to my click. Perhaps this is because I've only gotten serious about photography since digital emerged and never developed that kind of fine tuning. However, I still contend that shutter actuation (on the camera) is the main source of camera shake.</p>

<p>Wow, thanks for all the feedback on this idea. There seems to be a resounding negative opinion however. I appreciate the clarification of switch technology also. I especially liked Andrew's thoughts that expanded the possibilities to include proximity to the camera or other incidental triggers (what about detecting a blink?).</p>

<p>For everyone who pointed out that there are plenty of ways to prevent camera shake already, of course there are, but they generally require of a tripod. I purchased a remote viewer/shutter release last Fall but it's awkward to use without a tripod.</p>

<p>My bottom line in this is overcoming the major source of camera shake, activating the shutter release. It would be nice if we could hear from Canon or Nikon R&D if this (capacitive switch) or anything similar has been tried on a DSLR.</p>

<p>The difficulty of activating the shutter release on a touch screen is a good point -- that certainly would not be an improvement. It seems your finger would have be guided in a slot, or other touch feature, to insure pressing the right spot. And if wearing gloves would prevent the switch from actuating then that would kill the idea for many photographers -- I, however cut the tip off the trigger finger of my glove.</p>

<p>I suppose if a company wanted to champion the capacitance switch idea it might find favor with some "shaky" photographers. Only testing could tell. I have friends with rock-solid hands who never need vibration control, but I also talk to many who find current vibration control inadequate. As people age they are more likely to need some kind assistance, and most are not ready to lug a tripod around. Of course I'm not talking about pros. So I feel there is room for further exploration of vibration elimination technology.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for taking an objective look at something that seems to be a relatively new idea. I hope the discussion doesn't end here. I played with the idea of a hand-held gyro-stabilized camera mount for awhile -- still might be possible. Perhaps curling your big toe would be a good way to trigger the shutter release -- who knows? Thanks again.</p>

<p>Andrew, your points are well taken: It's hard to know if there is a real benefit to something like this, it may simply be different and not an actual advancement. I suspect that some kind of a ledge to rest your finger over before touching the button would be necessary. I think these things can only be worked out by building prototypes and trying them. The articulated view screen seemed to be a scrofulous accessory at first but has gained popularity recently. You surely may be correct, that we need the resistance of a mechanical switch but until someone builds one of these capacitive actuated releases, who knows? And yes, what's better than a cable release? But then this would be a convenience item for hand-held shooters I suspect. Thanks Andrew.</p>

<p>Pardon me, I feel a little defensive of the idea... but I really enjoy exploring where this may go.</p>

<p>As Tom pointed out, these switches are not static detection as I thought, but are capacitive in nature. There are several references to this technology online: <a href="http://www.capsense.com/capsense-wp.pdf">http://www.capsense.com/capsense-wp.pdf</a> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitive_sensing</a> . These detectors are used in a wide array of products from lamp switches to motion detectors. Again, could this type of switch be used practically to release the shutter of a DSLR?</p>

<p>Thanks for indulging me Tom. I was beginning to doubt my sanity since I can't fine any reference to this kind of elevator button, and there are hundreds of elevator buttons shown online. Still, these kind of switching devices are out there, I just can't remember where else I've seen them. I guess you are saying these are capacitance discharge systems, not static detection -- I'll go with that. The main thing is that they're <strong>non-mechanical</strong>, thus relieving the reflex jerk that many people experience pressing the shutter release. I hope it's an idea that has some merit and might be looked into by manufactures. I hope others will weigh in on this. Thanks Tom.</p>

<p>Thanks for your response Tom. Sorry, I have no reference to offer -- just my idea. Static actuators have no mechanical throw in the switch at all, not even in the button. The switch is actuated by your body's normal static charge. The actuator senses this minute electrical discharge and provides an electrical trigger for other activities. The most common use, that I am aware of, is on elevators that do not have common buttons, but sense the presence of your finger.</p>

<p>Egad, I just googled elevator buttons and it seems there are many kinds. In my area there are many non-mechanical types triggered by static, as I have said. In the past, my friends have referred to these as static actuators, but more research may be need, as you are suggesting Tom. Thanks. Still the basic premise seems fair: a static actuated shutter release. I'll post more if I can find it. </p>

<p>Without reading the other responses, I have to say this is one of the best questions any photographer could ask. I was so let down going from my Canon A620 to an Olympus 510 that I was convinced the DSLR was defective. Of course you get lots more with a DSLR but the additional cost, often $500 or more above a good P&S, is ridiculous, in my opinion. Also, the introduction of new versicle P&Ss like the S95 has made the need for a DSLR even less important.</p>

<p>Still, if you need more, like better low light exposure, and a wide assortment of lenses, a slew of shooting options, quality flash, and much more, you might be ready to switch. Just be ready to start shelling out the bucks and don't expect the differences from your P&S to be gigantic. Many of my old P&S shots are quality images that no DSLR could have improved upon.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you shouldn't move up, but be aware the next wrung starts to get expensive for what you get. The D3000 certainly is a good place to start, but the kit lens may not meet your needs, you may need a flash unit, a tripod, a carrying bag, the list goes on. Obviously, you're heads-up on this or you wouldn't be asking the question. Good luck on making an informed decision.</p>

<p>I have often wondered if any camera mfg ever tried using a static actuator (like the buttons you sometimes find in elevators) to trigger the shutter release instead of mechanical means. I ask this because a lot of camera shake comes while pressing the shutter release button down. Of course there would be a problem holding the button half way down, but it might eliminate a lot of trouble for jerky shooters. Just a quick tap and viola your shutter's released. I suppose you could end up with an inadvertent shutter release or two, also. Still, it seems like something to try if it hasn't been done before. </p>

<p>This may not be a beginners question but I couldn't see anywhere else to ask it. What do you thing?</p>

<p>Don, I had blank frame problems with my D90 that turned out to be memory card problems. If you haven't done so you might try switching cards.</p>

<p>I had the same problem with my D90, with a 16-85 and 70-300. One day on a trip to the mountains the exposure was suddenly unpredictable. I sent the body to Nikon -- they made corrections and it's ok now.</p>

<p>No, just the sounds that rattle around in my head...</p>