Fast and heavy or poor and light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
>
> shoot
>
>>each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>>
>
>
> Ok, I have done the test, on the light side I used a Nikon Coolpix 995
> and on the heavy side I used a 20D with a 70-300mm zoom.
>
> Weight of the Nikon is 475 gm, the weight of the 20D with lens is 1346
> gm. I shoot both cameras at ISO 100, F/10 and 1/4 sec shutter speed, FL
> of 75mm (equivalent). I used the mirror lockup to avoid the mirror
> from shaking the 20D. I shot a number of shots with each camera and it
> is a toss up as to which one has more motion blurring.
>
> So for my rather unscientific test mass did not seem to aid or hurt
> stability. What the case would be with a much heavier lens is unclear.

1) Don't shoot for a blurred shot (1/4 sec @ 75mm), shoot for something
sharp. Say 1/125 @ 100mm.

2) Shoot 2 SLR's. One heavy system; one light. For example an 80-200
f/2.8 on a 20D v. a 75-300 var-ap on a DRebel.

3) Shoot something with some vert and horizontal line detail.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote

> More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
> smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
> minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
> apparent in the transmitted image.

In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?

> Remember also that a modern lens is composed of multiple lens
> components, each of which corrects for possible errors in the
> others or provides other focal lengths and features. With
> faster lenses that are more sensitive to imperfections, the
> design and shaping of all the components becomes more critical.

Easy to see why the cost curve is so steep.

> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics.
<snip>
> Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
> know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.

Heh heh.. I'm sure not going to go buy lead weights to add to the camera,
but I don't see why such a big deal is made about trimming a few ounces off
last years model... then again I complained about the weight of my kit bag
on my last trip that involved public airports. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com


> Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
> target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
> sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
> doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
> trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
> explosion of the gas.
>
> It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
> hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
> camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
> shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
> photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
> than with a 6 ounce camera.
>
>
> Alan
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:29:12 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<ITube.13586$716.4245@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>> >First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
>>
>> <blink>
>> You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
>> it overhand, or clubbing him?
>
>I'm going to run up to him with a rock and hit him in the head with it.
>Sounds silly, but he won't believe it's really happening until it's too
>late. <g>

>> >Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
>> >center shots in the first place.
>>
>> Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
>> M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
>> in sight.
>
>All those days were wasted in BRM then..

The goal is to get those bullets out there. If some hit your target,
better yet. The most important distinction is between "here" and
"there".

>> >Time to work out. <g>
>>
>> Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
>> (we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
>> probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
>> is much heavier than just about any camera lens.
>
>VAS could be the heaviest material known to man.
>
>I've never gotten tired holding a still camera - you shoot, then it hangs
>around the neck for a bit, shoot some more, etc.. But I tried filming with
>a small video camera for 20 minutes once.. OMG! My arm wanted to fall off.

My problem actually is with the weight around the neck, not in the
hands. Especially now that I have a nice set of binoculars. On our
last trip I had four cords (camera, binocs, glasses, hat) around my
neck. The untangling was hell as well. Getting back to my vest thread,
I am considering a harness system if I can then clip the camera (and
the binocs?) to the harness.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:32:08 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<sWube.25656$5f.14345@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> With a camera having some weight probably helps,
>> but the affect would decrease very quickly as the camera got heavier.
>
>I guess I just don't think of even a heavy camera as heavy. It's not like
>10 pounds or something.

Weight is relative. I have the Sony F707. For me this is great, but I
use two hands. I like holding the lens to shoot. With one hand the
lens pulls, I am sure this is much worse with "real" lenses. I am sure
some one with some good physiology knowledge could explain about
various muscles and such, but holding an object still requires
different use of different muscles than lifting a heavy weight.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 10:39:06 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Alan Meyer"
<ameyer2@yahoo.com> in
<1114537146.682094.171700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Camera Weight
>-------------
>
>Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>photographer's hands.

This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.

>Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
>target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
>sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
>doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
>trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
>explosion of the gas.

Rifles are much heaver than cameras, bringing larger muscles into
play. Also the weight helps stabilize during the recoil, a very
different issue.

>It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
>hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
>camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
>shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
>photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
>than with a 6 ounce camera.

I think that the small muscles tire (and recover) easily. It is not
just at the end of the day, but after holding the camera in place for
a minute or so waiting for a shot that matters.

>Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
>know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?
>
> On the off chance that this was not a rhetorical question,

It was not and I thank you for your answer

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<snip>
> I am considering a harness system if I can then clip the camera (and
> the binocs?) to the harness.

ditto.. funny all this talk about army days has me thinking about an LBE
system.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:12:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein wrote:

>> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>> doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>> photographer's hands.
>
> This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
> muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
> there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.

You've identified a second factor but I don't see why it
invalidates the first or makes it "misleading". Heavier cameras
will tire you sooner, but whatever the weight, light, medium or
heavy, if the muscles tire you should rest.

In addition to the input from the hands that were implied (muscular
movement) there's also the movement caused by hydraulics. I find it
difficult to keep my heart from beating. The effect is quite
noticeable in the viewfinder when using long focal lengths, with the
image hopping around slightly in sync with my pulse. With shorter
lenses this movement will still be there, but it is less noticeable.
I think that lighter cameras (such as mine) are affected more by
this and find that I try to brace the camera more often than I used
to when I used a heavier film camera.

I don't know the details about how IS works, but one thing that
might help if it's not already being done, is in addition to
minimizing the effect of motion, would be for the camera to be able
to sense cyclic movement (such as due to blood pulses mentioned
above) and electronically delay the shutter release for a few
milliseconds until the cyclic movement reaches one extreme or the
other and the camera's movement is at its minimum. This could also
be a relatively low cost method that, because it's not moving any
lens elements or sensors, wouldn't consume much battery power.

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
> doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
> photographer's hands.

I actually played with strapping a big iron weight to my camera via the
tripod post & I did not get good results. I would have thought it should
help more.

A big heavy lens on a regular tripod bounces around like crazy. It's
really bad, one tap reverberates for a long time. The mirror flap really
makes waves.

I saw a web page where someone made a 'steadycam' setup with some 2-foot
pipes, a tee at the bottom and some barbell weights. Maybe it's
different for video but this sort of arrangement didn't help me with
still photos. Maybe put a gyroscope on the mount spinning in the
direction of a propeller facing forward. My task is photographing
flowers & bees at macro range, moving around following bugs & trying
many strange angles.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
> stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
> proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
>
> For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
> heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
> camera back to aim requires less energy.

But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
to find a heavier camera to try this out.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

>>Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
>>stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
>>proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
>>
>>For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
>>heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
>>camera back to aim requires less energy.
>
>
> But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
> the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
> to find a heavier camera to try this out.

Read the fine print... it takes no energy from you to let it fall, but
to stop it and restore it ... F=ma.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Stacey]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so?

Because people won't pay a lot of money for a high quality
slower/lightweight lens. In say the ledium format cameras, the slower
lenses are many times the better performers so speed doesn't always =
higher performance.

I'd MUCH rather have a f3.5-4.5 50-200 that was equal in quality to the f2.8
versions, but they aren't. They could make the smaller lenses just as good,
but they market them to a different audience so you have the $200 lens and
the $1000 lens. Shame they don't make a $700 version of the slower lens for
people who like high quality, but don't need a big heavy fast lens.

--

Stacey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Mkzbe.26165$5f.9227@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Mark Lauter
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> wrote:

> > Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
> > stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
> > proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.
> >
> > For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
> > heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
> > camera back to aim requires less energy.
>
> But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier camera, so
> the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the itch
> to find a heavier camera to try this out.

This connection is not cause and effect.

Why is your hand shaking? Because of the muscle fatigue from trying to
hold it (and what's in it) still. And holding a heavy object creates
fatigue quicker.

I like the bat / golf club experiment. Hold both out and see which one
starts to shake first. It will be the bat, as your muscles fatigue.

If heavier were better, wouldn't there be a market for a lead weight
version of the old autowinder to connect to the tripod mount?

"Mine's 30 pounds, baybee! "

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cvrbe.11502$RP1.11447@fe10.lga>,
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

> It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
> have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
> and get a higher quality picture (less noise).

Duh... the lightmeter determines the amount of light that enters the
camera, and at a certain light-level it will be the SAME with both a
slow and a fast lens; only the shutterspeed will be different.

Lourens

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote

> > But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier
camera, so
> > the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the
itch
> > to find a heavier camera to try this out.
>
> This connection is not cause and effect.

> Why is your hand shaking? Because of the muscle fatigue from trying to
> hold it (and what's in it) still. And holding a heavy object creates
> fatigue quicker.

It always shakes a little.

> If heavier were better, wouldn't there be a market for a lead weight
> version of the old autowinder to connect to the tripod mount?
>
> "Mine's 30 pounds, baybee! "

LOL!!

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote

> > But isn't that the point? It takes more energy to move a heavier
camera, so
> > the effects of normal hand shake can be reduced. Now I'm getting the
itch
> > to find a heavier camera to try this out.
>
> Read the fine print... it takes no energy from you to let it fall, but
> to stop it and restore it ... F=ma.

yeah, I think you're right.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http/www.marklauter.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-A894C2.16471627042005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <cvrbe.11502$RP1.11447@fe10.lga>,
> joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
>
> > It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
> > have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
> > and get a higher quality picture (less noise).
>
> Duh... the lightmeter determines the amount of light that enters the
> camera, and at a certain light-level it will be the SAME with both a
> slow and a fast lens; only the shutterspeed will be different.
>
> Lourens

And the shutter speed affects noise level - particularly in marginal (dark)
conditions.

--
Jeff R.
(don't be too quick with the "duh")