Kiwi - GKPE - General Ramblings (3)

somethingsimple wrote in post #4767837
wasnt a bedroom lamp,was a lounge one. was photographing the family and pets

the shutter was around 1/20 sec, and theres no camera shake, they are just not sharp

Has to be camera shake at 1/20 unless on a tripod other wise it would be sharp. Logical.

Don28 wrote in post #4767374
Great photo Peter! I like it!

Heard back from Auckland Camera re my queries on 17-55mm IS & the 70-200mm 2.8 none IS. Unfortunately they can't beat what Graham @ progear is offering me. AC is offering me :P 17-55 $1,620.00 and 70-200mm 2.8 none IS $2,099 and will give me a trade in of $200 for my 17-85mm IS if I decide to trade it in.

Graham @ progear is giving me the 17-55mm IS for $1,495 with a $550 trade in for my 18-55mm IS and the 70-200mm 2.8 none IS for $1,825.

Gonna go see him tomorrow after work, I think I'll get the 17-55mm IS for now and get that out of the way.

Woops... edit :P was typing very fast!

FYI Harvey norman will do the 17-55IS for $1419, as will AC.

somethingsimple wrote in post #4767837
wasnt a bedroom lamp,was a lounge one. was photographing the family and pets

the shutter was around 1/20 sec, and theres no camera shake, they are just not sharp

According to the 'rule book' there will be camera shake at 50mm at 1/20s shutter, no matter how steady you can hold the camera.

With practice you should be able to handhold to the reciprocal of the current focal length based on an uncropped sensor, for a cropped sensor you need to multiply the shutter by 1.6.

So you would need to be a 1/50s on a full frame or 1/80s on a 1.6 crop to get a steady shot at 50mm.

But then there are those who say the rules are meant to be broken

There are some other useful rules in the rule book too, but most are not relevant anymore as the likely hood of needing them is not there with a modern camera (i.e. how to meter without a meter).

weka2000 wrote in post #4767890
Has to be camera shake at 1/20 unless on a tripod other wise it would be sharp. Logical.

no shake. they look more slightly oof than shaken... but they had AF lock
maybe im just fussy about what constitutes sharp now that ive used a few Ls

well...ive finally done it. i've got flickr...
now i have to get my work up there... *10 days later*

oh wow - i just realised - ive created a new way to procrastinate!

somethingsimple wrote in post #4767907
no shake. they look more slightly oof than shaken... but they had AF lock
maybe im just fussy about what constitutes sharp now that ive used a few Ls

Prove it by re doing this time with tripod and timmer
In those light conditions im shooting 1/80

somethingsimple wrote in post #4767907
no shake. they look more slightly oof than shaken... but they had AF lock
maybe im just fussy about what constitutes sharp now that ive used a few Ls

Err... how can you tell there's no shake??

momentz wrote in post #4767928
Err... how can you tell there's no shake??

She had IS on

somethingsimple wrote in post #4767733
however, the resulting shots (at f/1.8, ISO 800) were a little fuzzy at 100%, and they were also a bit noisy - surprising for the 40D.

SS being underexposed will also accentuate the amount of noise in the image. I find my XT images are less noisy at 1600 with a histogram to the right than at 800 with an underexposed shot...

weka2000 wrote in post #4767920
Prove it by re doing this time with tripod and timmer
In those light conditions im shooting 1/80

Yeah like I said

momentz wrote in post #4767928
Err... how can you tell there's no shake??

cos i can see its not there
shake looks different to oof

the shots arent BLURRY, they are just soft

weka2000 wrote in post #4767950
She had IS on

yeah that must be it. i got the only nifty with that feature...

The normal gentle oscillations of your body will produce a shake that looks remarkably similar to OOF blur (roughly Gaussian in shape).

somethingsimple wrote in post #4768050
the shots arent BLURRY, they are just soft

Is your nifty normal sharp at f/1.8? I tried one that was pretty soft at 1.8, which is why I got the f1.4 instead. It is soft wide open too but pretty good by f/1.8!

iamaelephant wrote in post #4768108
The normal gentle oscillations of your body will produce a shake that looks remarkably similar to OOF blur (roughly Gaussian in shape).

My body oscillations lack anything resembling rhythm...

Potisdad wrote in post #4768236
My body oscillations lack anything resembling rhythm...

Is that what she said

Potisdad wrote in post #4768224
Is your nifty normal sharp at f/1.8? I tried one that was pretty soft at 1.8, which is why I got the f1.4 instead. It is soft wide open too but pretty good by f/1.8!

well, i did think it was pretty good when i first got it... but that might have been because i hadnt upgraded my gear pack yet

will have to check my earlier shots and compare with last night's lot