Simon Worby wrote:
>Thanks for your very full reply. It's what I thought. It wasn't a very sturdy
>tripod, and the ground was not that stable. And there was a light breeze.
>
You might be amazed at how much difference proper wetware technique can
make. In addition to the direct effects on camera/lens, some judicious
downward pressure can completely change the performance of a light tripod.
>It actually makes it difficult to get shots with a reasonable amount of DoF
>with long lenses, and makes me question why they build them to be able to stop
>them down as much as f32...
>
It's there for those who have the technique and equipment. I didn't go
to other techniques that require further equipment. As Winsor already
mentioned, there are specialized tele lens supports that attach to the
tripod and the lens. Resting the lens on a beanbag which is on a solid
surface is also quite effective. For a camera on a tripod, a 5 pound bag
of sand, lead shot, etc. draped across camera and lens is a great
vibration damper. There are other techniques as well, some of which I've
probably missed. Suffice it to say that there are well known ways to
hold these lenses and bodies for long exposures. In fact, out somewhere
beyond 1/2 to 1 sec., the longer the exposure, the less all the
vibrations related to starting the exposure matter, as they start to
comprise a smaller portion of the total exposure.
Something else to keep in mind when contemplating great DOF is that
resolution declines with most lenses at their smallest apertures tending
to offset greater DOF with slightly less overall resolution.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|