Discussion in 'General Chat' started by JetBlast, Jan 9, 2007.
I love IS.
Personally I baby my stuff. Some consider that not that great and others will agree. When you have $2K+ worth of equipment the last thing you want to do is have it break and have to replace it. Especially since I am in HS and that shit would take a long time to save up for.
I have to agree on the tripod though, I really only need it for self shots or long exposures. I know that the sports photographers use monopods because of the weight of their lens, but if you are doing sports IMO it would be pointless to be using a tripod unless of course you needed the field level. That isn't to say if you wanna use a tripod, go for it. I know with my 50 @ 1.2 the DOF is so thin that even at 1/4000th of a second the pictures can be blurry if I move my camera back and forth less than an inch. IS won't even help that.
Yup, I briefly touched on this, but the 2.8 is twice the weight and takes up a lot more space in your bag than the 4.
I like IS, especially because I'm rarely in the mood to carry a tripod around with me. Still, you bring up a good point re: the equipment trap, and the Canon 70-200mm L lenses are a good example....you can buy the 70-200 f4 non-IS for a quarter of what the f2.8 IS version costs, and from f4 on up in non-IS situations who's going to be able to tell the difference in your shots?
A general rule of hand held photography is the slowest shutter speed you can get away with is 1/focal length. (Don't forget about crop factoring if necessary.) So a 200mm lens on a full frame camera can be shot at 1/200 of a second without much worry.
Again, I'm never opposed to buying what you actually need to get the job done effectively and efficiently. There is a place for IS lens stabilization. The problem is the actual useful range for that function is very limited if you think about it. For instance that 200 mm lens should be able to be shot hand held down to about 1/60th of a second before you are stuck with having to use a tripod. Around here we talk about the importance of buying the best glass you can afford. Internal stabilization is not glass. It's very expensive solution to a very limited set of shooting conditions and that's it. Add in the fact that it goes against the KISS rule of engineering and no thanks I'll stick with the non IS lenses.
^Devil's advocate - do you use AF?
IS on the 70-200mm L lenses is pretty advanced (3-4 stops), so you're looking at 1/12 to 1/25 on the 200mm end.
The f2.8 non-IS isn't too far off price wise from the f4 IS. Personally, I'll take the f4 IS...but hey, that's why they make them both!
Some want IS some don't...
I absolutely hate bringing this lens to school - but I absolutely love the pictures it is able to create.
Wish I used a faster shutter speed for this.
Il ciclista: cool picture! As for the advice, can't you do the shot over? Much earlier in this thread Crane's gave the advice that you should get the shot right from the camera - at the time I was under the impression that photoshop can fix most stuff, but I'm starting to see that he's right really. Surely this shot can be retaken under more favorable conditions?
As for myself I'm thinking about photojournalism and editorial stuff: from all the pictures I've taken in the past year, the ones that have a story to them mean much more to me than the pretty landscapes, churches, animals and landmarks. I guess that means that I'm growing as a photographer and as a person. But where can I learn about this sort of thing? The technical stuff is covered by strobist.com and I can get the inspiration from the NY times lens blog and world press photo archive - but what are common techniques used? What method achieves a certain effect? Or have I arrived at a point where I am ready to develop my own style, that I'm no longer a young grasshopper?
Cool effect NOBD, but may I suggest cropping out the lower 4th? Try to scroll your screen down so the pic is cut off just below the bottom row of boats and see what you think...
Thanks for the input, but unfortunately I can't think of any favorable conditions where just the hand can be lit up and the rest dark, any suggestions?
here are some with more contrast, some with less..from a science and history museum.
Kill ambient, snoot the flash. White t-shirt on the model if you want to see the out of focus torso, black t-shirt if you don't.
I think that would work, Kaplan. I like the colour in the foreground though, which repeats itself in the roofs in the background. And it provides a calm "run-up" to where the acion is. On the other hand, that run-up would be provided by the unsharp row of boats in "your version". Good suggestion.
It still wouldn't solve my problem with the background being completely black. I'm going to reattempt it in the dark with a flashlight directly on the hand and see how that turns out
Separate names with a comma.