Random Photos (4 Viewers)

[1 2 3 GO]

You're doing something wrong if you need to get your sensor cleaned three times a year. FACT

 

[Janer]

I dont need to but I do.
I'm pretty good at keeping a clean Camera.

 

[RSJ]

Going back a bit on hand held shutter speeds - does the physical size of the lens affect the lowest shutter speed you can get away with or a reasonably sharp shot? Reason i ask is i had an old 18-55 2.8-3.5 (think it was tamron) that i could get away with 1/20 and sometimes even 1/15, but with my current lenses (tokina 11-16 and tamron 17-50 2.8) i need at last 1/30 or in the case of the tamron, almost always 1/50. The only thing i can guess at is the old lens had a short barrell, while the tokina and tamron are both reasonably long.

It perplexes me so it does.

 

[jillface]

Like I said over in Gig Photos thread, just started taking photos again in the last year and I'm working only with film cameras. These are from a really old Minolta I have.
Quality of the images is pretty poor, but that's mostly due to the scanning. The prints themselves are a lot clearer and have a lot more texture to them.
In future, I'll get my prints on disc as well so I can actually do something with them.

 

[RayRay]

Where is the last one (top) taken? Its the one of the beach after been cleaned

 

[Space]

I like the two beach ones can you upload them some where so we can get a better look?

 

[jillface]

They be from Ballybunion.
I surely will moose.

 

[1 2 3 GO]

Going back a bit on hand held shutter speeds - does the physical size of the lens affect the lowest shutter speed you can get away with or a reasonably sharp shot? Reason i ask is i had an old 18-55 2.8-3.5 (think it was tamron) that i could get away with 1/20 and sometimes even 1/15, but with my current lenses (tokina 11-16 and tamron 17-50 2.8) i need at last 1/30 or in the case of the tamron, almost always 1/50. The only thing i can guess at is the old lens had a short barrell, while the tokina and tamron are both reasonably long.

It perplexes me so it does.

1 over the focal length. So a 50mm lens 1/50, 20mm lens 1/20

 

[hugh]

1 over the focal length. So a 50mm lens 1/50, 20mm lens 1/20

I don't think you can apply a hard and fast rule like that. Some people can hold cameras steadier than others, some cameras are easier to hold steadier than others (heavier the better I find), and there are a bunch of other factors as well. But, yeah, in general the wider the lens, the slower hand-held shutter speed you should be able to achieve.

It's pretty intuitive why this should be the case. Imagine taking a photo from one side of a street with a postbox on the other side of the street. How sharp the postbox will appear depends on the relative movement of your camera lens with respect to how far away you are from the postbox. If you are using a telephoto so that the postbox fills the frame, then tiny movements of the lens cause the position of the postbox to shift considerably across the frame of the picture. Therefore, tiny movements will give you a blurred postbox so you have to either hold it absolutely rock-steady or else use a really fast shutter speed. However, if you are pointing a wide angle lens at it, then the postbox only takes up a small area within the picture frame. A tiny movement of the lens will only give you a tiny movement of the postbox across the picture frame, so it might still appear sharp, especially since the postbox is a small element in the picture anyway.

I suppose also with wide-angle lenses you are generally getting more depth-of-field anyway so there will be more things in the picture that are sharp.

 

[1 2 3 GO]

I was meaning it as a general rule but was too lazy to say so. It's always worked for me and quite often I've shot with slower speeds and had fine results.

 

[RSJ]

I know the old one over rule, but i was asking about other than that - like i say, the lens i had that was 18-55 got less camera shake than my 11-16, which blows that rule out of the water.

 

[hugh]

I know the old one over rule, but i was asking about other than that - like i say, the lens i had that was 18-55 got less camera shake than my 11-16, which blows that rule out of the water.

Oh right ... sorry didn't read your post properly. I dunno .. it could be the thing about the newer lenses having longer barrels all right. That could unbalance the camera a bit I suppose, especially if the lenses are relatively heavy.

 

[La La]

my friend had a baby.

 

[jonah]

ah here, the little feet! i hate babies, but feet on the other hand.

 

[RSJ]

That's brilliant lala! I tried to rep ya but apparently i don't give out enough these days!

 

[washingcattle]

Have you ever put a babies foot in your mouth ? It's gas they giggle a lot and their parents freak. It's deadly.

 

[magicbastarder]

I know the old one over rule, but i was asking about other than that - like i say, the lens i had that was 18-55 got less camera shake than my 11-16, which blows that rule out of the water.

much difference in weight between the lenses?

 

[RSJ]

Trying to think.... not sure. I think i see what you're getting at though. I'll probably end up getting one just to try it out. Does full frame vs cropped make any difference to the speeds you can get away with?

 

[magicbastarder]

shouldn't really be an issue on a small zoom, but weight obviously becomes an issue (along with the inherent increase in sensitivity to camera shake) the bigger a lens gets. you wouldn't want to handhold a lens weighing several kilos and half a metre long, even if it was still only a 50mm (which is a completely hypothetical situation, obviously)

 

[JohnnyRaz]

photoshop for spas....