Kodak blows it

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. Don Wiss

    Larry Lynch Guest

    Actually your view seems about the same as mine. The only difference I
    see in your post is you have used tripods, probably more than me. You
    know technique, you took the time to learn it (or you had to if your
    photography pre-dated IS).

    I almost never bring one into the field to take wildlife or landscape
    shots. I only use a tripod for portraiture.

    As for higher ISO... most of my field photography is done with cameras
    that only do well at ISO 100 or ISO 64.

    I have been in the forest with a neophite photographer and heard him say
    (while lining up a shot) "I wish I had a tripod".. at which point I
    grabbed his arm and drew him to a nearby tree and showed him how to
    brace his upper body to get the shot (and he did).

    Generally, when out in the field, I find myself surrounded by tripods,
    monopods, and braces. They are, however disguised as fences, trees,
    rocks, car hoods (or bonnets), pick-up truck step bumpers, and more than
    once, the rump of a sleeping cow.

    Probably, if I inventory my life, the most often carried piece of
    "bracing gear" that I carry is a "bean bag" that fits across the bottom
    of my camera bag.. I dont know its weight, probably about a pound, but
    Im used to carrying it.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 26, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry Lynch wrote:
    []
    Very much my philosophy as well - but even then it's nice to have the
    extra stability afforded by IS.
    For those longer exposures - say 1/4s or longer shutter opening time -
    I'll use tissues or a cloth to protect the camera while it's braced aginst
    a tree, railing or building.

    But for when you /must/ use pure hand-held, IS is a great benefit.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 26, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    I agree.
    But although I'm a huge IS fan, here are a couple of recent examples of
    shots you just can't do without a tripod:

    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
    and:
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47771244/original

    These were shot at 1 second and 1/2 second.
    No matter how good IS is (and I won't buy another tele that doesn't have
    it), there are just a ton of things that require support.
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #23
  4. Mark² wrote:
    []
    Wonderful shots!

    However, whilst I completely agree that support is required, you can often
    find natural supports rather than carrying a tripod around. Might have
    done at least for the lake shot. Indoors, for studio type stuff, I do use
    a tripod, it's just when I have to carry everything that it gets left at
    home.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 26, 2005
    #24
  5. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    Hee hee... That shot is misleading.
    That "lake shot" is from a tripod, and is of a rock that's only about two
    feet high at the beach after sunset. :)
    It looks rather odd, and is difficult to identify the scale without more
    information.
    I understand.
    I gotta mention though...I recently broke down and bought a carbon fiber
    tripod, and the difference in my newfound willingness to carry it compared
    with my old heavy one is amazing! It os SO much lighter, and I no longer
    have a painful dent in my shoulder on hikes (literally). I would highly
    recommend that anyone even slightly interested take a serious look at this
    expenditure...if for no other reason than the fact that you'll carry it more
    often due to light weight and less "pain." :)
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #25
  6. Don Wiss

    Mike Berger Guest

    I have yet to see a camera where image stabilization was
    as good as the stability you get with a tripod.
     
    Mike Berger, Aug 26, 2005
    #26
  7. Don Wiss

    PcB Guest

    <<Those aren't intended to be used that way...but laik bilong yu...
    How are they intended to *be* used, then?

    <<If you want to trust your nice gear to a mono-tripod thingy that would
    crash over with a light gust of wind...be my guest. :) Wouldn't advise it,
    but who cares what I think...
    Well, I am aware of it's shortcomings - I don't get too far from it anyway -
    but if you've got gear to carry it's a lot less weight than a tripod. Stood
    up fine on the beach a couple of nights ago and without it I wouldn't have
    got the shots I did - but then again, reviewing the shots I *did* get, maybe
    that wouldn't have been so bad <g>.

    Paul
    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //
    PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
     
    PcB, Aug 26, 2005
    #27
  8. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    True.
    But I have yet to see a tripod that works while riding a horse...in a
    boat...climbing trees...hanging out the window of a shuttle bus in Denali,
    Alaska...in a museum that doesn't allow flash or tripods...or from my seat
    at a performance...or any number of OTHER situations I've actually found
    myself in...where IS has literally saved the shot. I've used IS in ALL of
    the above examples, and it's been truly a life-saver.

    I love my tripod (especially my new carbon fiber beauty), and I agree that
    IS isn't as steady...but it serves a unique purpose--especially in
    situations where using a tripod is out of the question.
    Mark
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #28
  9. Don Wiss

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I think a lot has to do with the kind of pictures you take. IS wouldn't
    do a lot for the pictures I take. Having been taking pictures for about
    55 years, I have found that there are ways to steady the camera for just
    about any need. Those who have the time, and don't mind carting around
    a lot of gear, a tripod is a great investment. Not only does it work on
    any camera, but it doesn't cut down on the light you get into the camera
    (effectively), and it doesn't add weight, or complexity to the hardware
    of the camera. That said, I have never owned one. It just doesn't suit
    the type of pictures I take (candids).
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 27, 2005
    #29
  10. Don Wiss

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Excuse me? A monopod doesn't crash over in a light wind, unless, of
    course YOU do.
    Nor would a properly deployed tripod.
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 27, 2005
    #30
  11. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    He's not talking about while you hold it!
    -He's talking about how his MONopod has little tiny legs that can pop out at
    the bottom, which allows the single leg of the n=monopod to stand up. We're
    talking about little TINY legs that might be about 6 inches long. I think
    they are intended to give very temporary support (like while it sits right
    in in front of you at a ferformance, while you change lenses, etc.).

    He was talking about leaving the monopod standing there with his camera, and
    using it as a tripod. I was assuming he meant for self-portraits, or
    something. I guess if you're standing right there and just want to
    momentarily use it for stability, it could be of some use. Seems rather
    iffy to me.
     
    Mark², Aug 27, 2005
    #31
  12. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    And more inconvenient. IS exists. The additonal cost is trival to some of
    us. No reason why IS shouldn't be in prosumer cameras.

    Maybe on September 1st Nikon will add IS to the 8400.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 28, 2005
    #32
  13. Don Wiss

    kashe Guest

    As can taking the lens cap off. Use a quick release instead of
    screwing things. I takes no longer than lens cap removal.
     
    kashe, Aug 29, 2005
    #33
  14. Don Wiss

    Paul Allen Guest

    Oh come now. This is quibbling just for the sake of quibbling.
    You're not in danger of losing a shot when you're taking the
    camera off the tripod, now are you? :)

    Just out of curiosity, which slow-release tripod heads do you
    have experience with? I'm sure we'd all like to avoid them.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Aug 30, 2005
    #34
  15. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    Your "opposition"?
    :)
    And you claim your not just "quibbling"?
    lol
    So in other words, you haven't used them, and therefore haven't a clue what
    you're talking about.
    Wow. I guess "seeing them" is "experience" enough to pretend, aye?
    Maybe I'm just grympy today or something, but your post has a strange
    resemblance to someone speaking directly from their arse.
    Well they're a he-- of a lot faster than screwing the camera on as you say
    you do, for crying out loud!
    Sheesh.
    -Some people will argue no matter what, I guess.
    Perhaps that's what happens when, like you, one thinks of posters here as,
    "the opposition."

    -Grumpy Mark
     
    Mark², Aug 30, 2005
    #35
  16. Don Wiss

    Paul Allen Guest

    Is that what you're doing here? Countering your opposition?
    Interesting.
    My old-fashioned screw-on thing wore out, so I bought a new QR head
    for it. The camera drops right in with a click, and pops right out
    again with the flip of a lever. It's hard to imagine there's a market
    for slow quick-release tripod heads. I ask again. Are you going to
    let us know the brands of slow QR tripods you have experience with?
    As owners of long zoom equipment, many of us will be interested.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Aug 31, 2005
    #36
  17. Don Wiss

    Paul Allen Guest

    You were arguing, for sure. I did not see anyone arguing with
    you. Noone claimed a monopod adds zero extra hassle, for example.
    Your claim that your experience with such things had been that
    quick-release tripod heads are slow to connect looked like simple
    stubbornness to me.
    I guess word choice is a secondary issue. You might want to
    think first about your purpose in posting before you start
    selecting words. Not everyone here is an enemy. Not even me.
    Yup. Your recent posts in this newsgroup appear reasonable in
    comparison what you've said in this thread. Your writing
    exhibits virtually no accent, by the way. :)
    Well, because you claimed experience with quick-release mechanisms,
    of course. I assumed that you meant you had relevant experience.
    I see. I'm going to go quiet now. Have a nice day.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Aug 31, 2005
    #37
  18. Don Wiss

    kashe Guest

    Halfway through the above drivel string, I decided it wasn't
    worth parsing any further. To make it simple, learn to use the tool;
    then stress and hurry won't be an issue.
     
    kashe, Sep 1, 2005
    #38
  19. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    But 28mm isn't vary wide angle. 24mm is what others consider wide. Plus no
    view finder. A complete deal breaker IMO. After seeing no view finder I
    stopped reading the page. (As for macro I plan to hang onto my Nikon 950
    for whenever I need macro capability.)

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Sep 14, 2005
    #39
  20. Don Wiss

    ASAAR Guest

    In addition, the USA isn't one of Ricoh's markets.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 14, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.