No, Paul, a sharper lens will not partially compensate for camera shake. A
faster lens partially compensates for camera shake by allowing the use of
higher shutter speeds. The limiting factor is the amount of camera shake.
The best you can do is whatever the lens is capable of with no camera s
First of all it was dead calm. Even the tiniest movement would have caused
the snow to come down. That's the biggest problem. One night we have a heavy
snowfall. I look out in the morning. "Oh Boy its like fairyland!" I say,
getting out the cameras. But by the time the sun is a diameter above the
Nope. On just about every used camera that I get I change the mirror foam to
a home made custom one that slows down the mirror more gently.
Neither my subjects or my style usually lend themselves to tripods so "hand
holdability" is important to me.
BR
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is
- Original Message -
From: Piss Face
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
> Is there a possibility that the foam mirror bumper/light
shield needs
> replacement in your Super Programs/ Super A's? Has it frayed
away or gotten
> hard?
There have been a lot of comm
Is there a possibility that the foam mirror bumper/light shield needs
replacement in your Super Programs/ Super A's? Has it frayed away or gotten
hard?
Regards,
Piss Face
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be ha
Absolutely. I had a Super Program and it looked good, felt good and had nice
features. The problem was is that I got as much blur shooting it at 1/60 sec
(with a 50mm lens) as I did the Program Plus at 1/15 sec. For what they go
for on ebay they are probably the best value of the MF Pentaxes.
BR
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: RE: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
> They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program
Pluses and
> one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".
There was also the studio flash to factor in.
William Robb
spect to "holdability"
would you say the (cheaper) Program Plus is better than the Super Program?
Simon (a Program A owner)
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 22 December 2002 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lens sharpn
They are not the same shutters. I still have a pair of Program Pluses and
one of their strong points is their hand "holdability".
BR
From: Simon King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You seemed to get a sharp one here http://pug.komkon.org/01nov/2Rotties.html
with a Program Plus (same shutter config. as Supe
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>Considering these things I am amazed at how sharp
> some of the pictures people take through long lenses at motor
races, hockey
> matches etcetera actually look.
I actually discover
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Dr E D F Williams
> Subject: Re: Lens sharpn
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
> Getting sharp images with long lenses is an exacting task,
much more
> difficult than meets the eye. Forgive the weak pun. I've been
taking shots
> of tree tops recently with a Sig
PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 11:16
> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
> >Incredibly simple camera. No viewfinder inside. The viewfinder went into
the
> >accessory shoe. The lens was that collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar I think it
was.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Päivä: 21. joulukuuta 2002 9:19
> Aihe: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
>
> >As a student I used to shoot in the 'Pig and Whistle', near the
University,
> >with a Leica F1. I
liams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Pentax-Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat
"Bob Blakely" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Bracing myself with my left elbow in,
hand under the lens barrel, inhaling deeply, letting about 1/2 the air out
of my lungs, holding and shooting between heart beats makes my photos
better. A tripod makes my photos even better yet."
First, let me thank th
Amazing. It's tough to look at those 1/30 sec frames.
On 12/20/02 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
> Look at this:
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/SuperProgram/
> Its a sizable page, I think about 850kb.
Ah yes. I still have the tripod follies on my hard drive
somewhere. The Super Program shakes like a wet dog.
It is a shame indeed because it is a very fine camera otherwise.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now a
In a message dated 12/20/2002 12:40:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, MAILER-DAEMON writes:
> In a message dated 12/20/2002 6:45:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
> > Take a picture with the shutter speed at double and quadruple
> > the focal length ( with a 50mm lens, 1/30 an
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
> Aha. Thanks. I will look for point light sources.
Look at this:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/SuperProgram/
Its a sizable page, I think about 850kb.
William Robb
In a message dated 12/20/2002 9:39:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Camera shake can (usually) be identified by examining a point light source
> in your photograph under a loupe. Instead of being a point as it should be,
> it will show a movement "track". A point light sour
Camera shake can (usually) be identified by examining a point light source
in your photograph under a loupe. Instead of being a point as it should be,
it will show a movement "track". A point light source can be anything from a
street light far away to the glint of the sun off a shiny surface like
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
>
> Hmmm, reading this thread, I realized I am not totally
positive what the blur from camera shake looks like. Do you mean
the blur from a bad lens might just be around the edges
In a message dated 12/20/2002 12:28:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find blur from camera
> shake to be far more disturbing than blur from an unsharp lens. The
> camera shake blurring tends to be of greater magnitude in
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
> Or does blurring work as an equalizer, permitting, in this case, say, no
> more than, say, 30 lpm, no matter how sharp a lens is used?
In the case of camera shake it probably would, for a given focal length.
Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find b
That was also a long time ago when Keppler was using Olympus gear. Yes, every so often
he complains about some features that have been dropped from SLRs, but now he mostly
gushes over every feature laden, fly weight entry level SLR. If you look at Photo
Industry Reporter (http://www.photoreport
William Robb wrote:
> How do you know if your lens is sharp enough if you haven't
> compared it to a known really sharp lens?
I read it on the internet...
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
On 23 Jun 2002 at 21:08, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> One of the hardest things was
> getting something with enough magnification to see what was really on the film.
> I recently got a solution to that problem. They were throwing out a Lietz 10-30x
> stereo inspection microscope. It was way too big
> Keppler is always pushing the latest, greatest, wide range, light
> weight, wonder zoom lens.
Bruce, I cannot argue with your statement for nowadays (since I
don't buy too many photo mags anymore), but, back in the 1970's and
through much of the 1980's, in the late-but-great Modern Photo
magazi
For me, I am interested in relative lens tests: How far down do I have to
stop a lens before it hits a point of diminishing sharpness return? At what
f stop does this zoom come close to that prime? Is lens A better than lens
B? That sort of stuff. I never bother testing lenses stopped down past f8
We compare our photos to those in National Geographic.
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This begs the question:
How many people are satisfied with their lens because they haven't seen a
sharper one?
How do you know if your lens is sharp enough if you haven't compared it to
a known reall
Well said Paul:
I go further. I was flipping through some old magazines just before throwing
them out and I noticed an interesting article by Keppler. I believe it was
titled, How sharp a lens do you need. It was very down-to-earth, and
invormative even now 20 years later
Vic
In a message
Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The man is a 75 year old fool, pandering to novices and a shill for the
camera companies selling entry level dreck.
Bruce,
I don't think Keppler missed the mark in his advice on testing for lens
sharpness. I think he meant, "Resolution, shmezolution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those Ansel
> Adams books..) that the best way to test for Lens sharpness/resolution
> was to take a photo of a newspaper stuck to a brick wall at a
> reasonable distance and then check the neg/print afterwards to
>
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: Lens Sharpness?
> In Pop Photo
>
(http://www.popphoto.com/HowTo/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=193&;
page=5)
> I read the following:
>
> "Whenever anyone asks me how he can tell if his lens is
sufficiently
> sharp, I tell him (or her) to take
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Lens Sharpness?
> I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those
Ansel Adams books..) that the best way to test for Lens
sharpness/resolution was to take a photo of a newspaper stuck to
a brick
I remember reading in a book (I believe it was one of those Ansel Adams books..) that
the best way to test for Lens sharpness/resolution was to take a photo of a newspaper
stuck to a brick wall at a reasonable distance and then check the neg/print afterwards
to determine how well the lens holds
>> Load up with one of those great ISO 400 slide films, wait for a
>> nice bright day, find a colorful scene at mid-distance, and shoot
>> away using a tripod.
> What? use 400 ISO film to measure sharpness???
Not only is 400 speed film not the sharpest to use for testing
(although I like sh
Cool, thanks. I didn't know the exact details.
> Leave the centre of the filter free of Vaseline, and
> use a hood, else the
> Vaseline will show up very white. You can play with
> the ratio between the
> covered and uncovered area.
>
> Frits.
> > I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> photoshop is an option for you.
>
> Scan your sharp portrait into photoshop, create a duplicate layer on top of
> the original, blur the duplicate layer just enough to soften or re
Leave the centre of the filter free of Vaseline, and use a hood, else the
Vaseline will show up very white. You can play with the ratio between the
covered and uncovered area.
Frits.
> I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
> plain(eg. skylight) filter and spreading some vaseline
> on i
I read this tip somewhere about getting a cheap
plain(eg. skylight) filter and spreading some vaseline
on it to soften the picture. Have never tried it, but
it probably works. Although could be a bit messy. Or
just get a softening filter.
> > Hi guys,
> > How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 at 19:26:11 -0600, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ...I don't think I've ever had *any* adult over the age of 25-30
> tell me they actually liked a headshot I'd taken of them, generally
> saying *I* made them look horsey/old/horrid/wrinkly/puffy/had bad
> skin/yellow t
In a message dated 2/2/01 11:54:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< For me, a portrait _should_ please the subject. >>
I agree Bill.
Who else *has* to be pleased? The one who pays my freight, if not the
subject. I only have to be *proud* of my work, that I applied all I
Hi William,
Truthfully, I wasn't thinking of your post when I wrote my response to Fred
and Shel. If you look at the part of my post you didn't quote (was I too
windy?) you'll see that I basically agree with you. What stays with me will
be as sharp as I can shoot, and what goes out will be my be
Hi Collin ...
I've been giving that some thought over the last day or so.
Yesterday I had lunch with a local photographer who teaches aa
portrait lighting class a few times a year, and while we didn't
talk much about lighting, he did mention a few things that he
teaches. One thing he mentioned
Dan said:
> Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as
accurate as
> possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family
should look like
> the people I see and know.
> Dan Scott
>
> Fred said:
> >Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~ as possible.
~I~ want to
jmho, but I suspect that sharpness (or over-sharpness
as it has been alluded to) is not so much a problem
with lenses as it might be with lighting. Softer light
will de-emphasize detail by removing excess contrast
on the subject. It's contrast that makes small facial
hair stand out. Softening l
Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as accurate as
possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family should look like
the people I see and know.
But--and this is a big *but*, while my comment primarily addressed my
wife's *personal* reaction to the sharpness of the
I was going to avoid this thread, but, since today is slow at
work I went out and shot a roll of TX. Coincidentally, I used
an 85mm lens, which some of you call a "portrait lens." But I
didn't use it for portraits, but rather, for some street
shooting. Just because the focal length of a lens le
t; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:28 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Lens sharpness
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I d
> On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> >
> > I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> > photoshop is an option for you.
Another great way to do this is to duplicate the layer, use the median
tool on it and make it just nuttily fuzzy (it's under
Filters->Nois
- Original Message -
From: "herbet brasileiro" Subject: Lens sharpness
> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> little mark in the faces are shown. You can s
On 1 Feb 2001, at 13:53, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> I saw a neat tip on using photoshop for that awhile back, if using
> photoshop is an option for you.
>
> Scan your sharp portrait into photoshop, create a duplicate layer on top of
> the original, blur the duplicate layer just enough to soften or re
"bc" wrote:
>On 1 Feb 2001, at 9:35, herbet brasileiro wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
>> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
>> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
>> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
>> l
On 1 Feb 2001, at 9:35, herbet brasileiro wrote:
> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
> the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
> little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
> lighted colored faci
herbet brasileiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi guys,
>How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
>playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits but
>the lens is so darn sharp that every single tiny
>little mark in the faces are shown. You can see even
>lighted colored facial hair on y
I don't own the 77mm Limited, but the FA*85mm f/1.4 is, perhaps a bit better
for portraits if you use it at f/1.4. When you stop it down, it too is
agonizingly sharp, IMO.
Len
---
> Hi guys,
> How sharp are the FA77mm limited and FA85mm? I was
> playing with my FA100/2.8 taking some portraits b
58 matches
Mail list logo
