Reading mode: Light Dark

MLU---real photos impossible without it

Go to last post
photonut2008 said:
No hard feelings here Walt. As I said in my last reply, I respectfully disagree.
WaltKnapp said:
photonut2008 said:
WaltKnapp said:
photonut2008 wrote:

Here's a hint, the situations where you want the former are mutually exclusive to the situations where you want the latter.

I can think of a few shots where you would want both and cross your fingers too. Around twilight, mostly, or in a deep woods, for instance.
Click to expand...
I would respectfully disagree. If there is so much motion in the scene [such as wind blown trees] that you are pumping up ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed to minimize the blur from that, then the purpose of using a tripod and MLU is defeated and you might as well handhold the shot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Walt said nothing about wind blown trees or pumping up the ISO. When I shoot in deep woods, I am usually shooting something near ground level to shoulder height. So if the trees are blowing I don't really care. I just have to be concerned about using slow shutter speed due to the light and my desire not to increase the ISO for the reasons you mentioned. So I will use a tripod and remote. I might decide to use multiple shots to increase DR, or multiple shots with horizontal offset for stereo so those are other reasons I'll use a tripod. That's when I'll use MLU. I can't see using MLU for handheld photography.

If I do handheld macro in those circumstances, I will use a flash to freeze camera and subject motion, so I don't use MLU.

If I am doing closeup (approx 1:4 mag) shots of flowers under natural light, I'll typically use a tripod to help with composition. I'll stop down a lot f/11-13 to maximize DOF and use low ISO. I will then also use MLU.

Tom
photonut2008 said:
photonut2008 said:
Is that the only condition under which those settings are used? For all photographers? The previous poster also was limited in his vision of the scope of photography in saying never to the combo. Which is an absolute, as in never for any photographer. I simply said that never was wrong and sometimes was right. Some shots would use the combo.
Click to expand...
Take your forest example for instance. Pumping the ISO up reduces DR, thus you are not shooting optimally by doing so. Now you may say that you are trading something in exchange for the reduced DR and increased noise, but then you get back to the question of why you bothered to use MLU under those conditions in the first place.
photonut2008 said:
And here you are with just one out of the galaxy of possible uses.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you are arguing in the abstract. You can "think of a few" situations where you want a fast lens, a high ISO, and a slow shutter speed that tangibly benefits from MLU. I can imagine them, but I would do everything I could to get around some part of that (starting with reducing the high ISO).
photonut2008 said:
I'd not even agree that handholding is necessary. Or even that you want to remove the motion. There are many ways to compose such a shot. You have chosen one.
Click to expand...
The OP was about MLU. Anyway, it's not the one approach that I would select, but the one approach I would not select that is the issue here. For me MLU, and a fast lens with high ISO are mutually exclusive -- YMMV, but I have seen far too many examples where the photographer cranks up the ISO in lieu of more effective solutions.
--
Anthony Beach
Click to expand...
 
In my comment below there are some strikeouts. I have no idea why. The words should not be crossed out.
Tom
tom said:
photonut2008 said:
No hard feelings here Walt. As I said in my last reply, I respectfully disagree.
WaltKnapp said:
photonut2008 said:
WaltKnapp said:
photonut2008 wrote:

Here's a hint, the situations where you want the former are mutually exclusive to the situations where you want the latter.

I can think of a few shots where you would want both and cross your fingers too. Around twilight, mostly, or in a deep woods, for instance.
Click to expand...
I would respectfully disagree. If there is so much motion in the scene [such as wind blown trees] that you are pumping up ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed to minimize the blur from that, then the purpose of using a tripod and MLU is defeated and you might as well handhold the shot.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Walt said nothing about wind blown trees or pumping up the ISO. When I shoot in deep woods, I am usually shooting something near ground level to shoulder height. So if the trees are blowing I don't really care. I just have to be concerned about using slow shutter speed due to the light and my desire not to increase the ISO for the reasons you mentioned. So I will use a tripod and remote. I might decide to use multiple shots to increase DR, or multiple shots with horizontal offset for stereo so those are other reasons I'll use a tripod. That's when I'll use MLU. I can't see using MLU for handheld photography.

If I do handheld macro in those circumstances, I will use a flash to freeze camera and subject motion, so I don't use MLU.

If I am doing closeup (approx 1:4 mag) shots of flowers under natural light, I'll typically use a tripod to help with composition. I'll stop down a lot f/11-13 to maximize DOF and use low ISO. I will then also use MLU.

Tom
tom55604 said:
tom55604 said:
Is that the only condition under which those settings are used? For all photographers? The previous poster also was limited in his vision of the scope of photography in saying never to the combo. Which is an absolute, as in never for any photographer. I simply said that never was wrong and sometimes was right. Some shots would use the combo.
Click to expand...
Take your forest example for instance. Pumping the ISO up reduces DR, thus you are not shooting optimally by doing so. Now you may say that you are trading something in exchange for the reduced DR and increased noise, but then you get back to the question of why you bothered to use MLU under those conditions in the first place.
tom55604 said:
And here you are with just one out of the galaxy of possible uses.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you are arguing in the abstract. You can "think of a few" situations where you want a fast lens, a high ISO, and a slow shutter speed that tangibly benefits from MLU. I can imagine them, but I would do everything I could to get around some part of that (starting with reducing the high ISO).
tom55604 said:
I'd not even agree that handholding is necessary. Or even that you want to remove the motion. There are many ways to compose such a shot. You have chosen one.
Click to expand...
The OP was about MLU. Anyway, it's not the one approach that I would select, but the one approach I would not select that is the issue here. For me MLU, and a fast lens with high ISO are mutually exclusive -- YMMV, but I have seen far too many examples where the photographer cranks up the ISO in lieu of more effective solutions.
--
Anthony Beach
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There are problems with that first shot that had nothing to do with not using MLU. What are those red blotches and edge artifacts?
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
I have no clue, especially as I do not see them (I swear I don´t!!!)...

But even if, I couldn´t tell, as said, they´re jpegs converted from raw through Aperture without any processing. The only difference between the shots is the shutter setting, and MLU. Oh yeah, and TOD: 11:04:12 pm vs. 11:05:05. :D

So what I´m looking at, is an overall sharper image, corner to corner, being the one on which I used MLU.
 
Blazingly fast autofocus featuring 9 or more cross sensors.
9fps or faster.
1/250s or faster flash sync.
In-camera HDR.
24MP FF. Preferably true RGB capture.
Clean ISO 25,600.
DOF preview.
Live view.
Bright pentaprism viewfinders.
Vertical control grips.
Every kind of lens imagineable including tilt & shift.
A mode.
S mode.
P mode.
Matrix metering.
Any kind of built in metering.

Should we all be shooting Kodak Brownies ?
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
domk275 said:
chych wrote:
and how many times do you use a tripod in photography?

While I agree that MLU is of limited use, this has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever. Most macro photographers would likely be on a tripod 90%+ of the time.
Click to expand...
Well, I am a macro shooter and I hate to say it but macro is moving more and more to flash. Part of this is convenience, especially with moving things. And part of it is discoveries that the shutter speeds necessary to get by the last bits of blur from motion are not possible from camera shutters but only by using the much higher effective "shutter speed" of flash.

Even outdoors in good light I'm often using fill flash blended with the natural lighting and doing it hand held.

But, most certainly if I'm doing macro from a tripod then MLU is on. Just as it is at the other end of things, long tele from tripod.

Walt
 
tompower53 said:
way it is if you want to get serious about your photography.

No doubt using a tripod is the first step to getting sharp images on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
For most there are several steps to arriving at using an appropriate tripod in an appropriate way. Most start with handheld and go through several stages of that first and it's only when they advance enough to notice that their shots are not averaging as good as others that use a tripod that they even try one. And even then it takes some time and probably several changes of tripods to really get into what's possible with their lenses. It's a growth process towards advanced high quality photography.

As such MLU will be a mystery to those at a lower level on this progression. It's just part of what will be learned as they advance.

Walt
 
jamesdak said:
chych said:
More like, it's impossible to take good photos with MLU. Impossible to get any action shot with MLU,
Click to expand...
Are you really sure about this??

pointless without tripod, and how many times do you use a tripod in photography?

Oh probably about 80% of the time, LOL!!
Click to expand...
haven't used tripod in last 2 years. I do not even remember where it is now.

So it depends on person i guess.
jamesdak said:
Different strokes for different folks.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
Click to expand...
--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.
 
I just don't understand, one of the first things I learned in photography was that shaking is bad, and anything to minimize it (tripod, beanbag, MLU, cable release, proper handheld technique) is good.

I learned shooting landscaped with a Pentax 6x7, and with that big mirror, MLU, tripod and cable release are mandatory for sharp pictures.

With a much smaller mirror in my A700 it is somewhat less critical but I still use MLU whenever it is practical and/or necessary to do so, such with landscapes or really long lenses.

I find the A700 MLU to be quite handy with the 2 sec timer so I don't need a cable release. But I sometimes do wish I could just look the mirror and then use a cable release to fire the shutter. (ie. when using a long lens, near twilight and waiting for the moment a large stationary animal -elk grazing, or bear foraging- sticks it's head up, or looks at you, 2 sec timer won't work in those situations)

As for whether the new DSLRs should have MLU, well... ... you get what you pay for, so I understand the beginner models not having it.

I would never buy a camera without it though.
 
I don't think the absence of MLU will lead to horribly blurry landcapes.

But if anyone really is SO worried, then there are other choices, if one realises that DSLR is far from the only way:
  • larger format film cameras (which are the main tool of many of the greatest landscape photographers even today)
  • Leica M9 and other rangefinders cameras (all of which are film for the time being)
  • GF1 and E-P1/2 and all the similar cameras that are going to come ou in 2010 and 2011
  • quite a few higher-end compacts, which can provide very clean detail on 12mp photos at wide angle
So in the end, MLU is kind of a non-issue
 
antoineb said:
I don't think the absence of MLU will lead to horribly blurry landcapes.

But if anyone really is SO worried, then there are other choices, if one realises that DSLR is far from the only way:
  • larger format film cameras (which are the main tool of many of the greatest landscape photographers even today)
  • Leica M9 and other rangefinders cameras (all of which are film for the time being)
  • GF1 and E-P1/2 and all the similar cameras that are going to come ou in 2010 and 2011
  • quite a few higher-end compacts, which can provide very clean detail on 12mp photos at wide angle
So in the end, MLU is kind of a non-issue
Click to expand...
Great solution..buy another camera! Way to go.. you really nailed it down.
 
Except that I want FF, so I have only one option... Leica M9 is digital (as are the M8s). :D

Unfortunately, I have no budget for it and never will have, besides when shooting macro, I don´t think it compares to looking through the lens. Not to mention availability of very long birding lenses... ;)
 
Bleh, then you people are in the minority. Most people almost never use a tripod. I may use a tripod for 0.01% of my shots. Macro photography? Use a flash, way more convenient.

I just see the whole MLU issue as a loud minority yelling and crying for the feature that 99.9% people aren't even aware of, let alone use.
 
chych said:
Bleh, then you people are in the minority. Most people almost never use a tripod. I may use a tripod for 0.01% of my shots. Macro photography? Use a flash, way more convenient.
Click to expand...
And you draw this conclusion how?? I'd wager that a high percentage of serious photographers doing landscape, wildlife, sports, etc use a tripod on a fair percentage of their shots.
chych said:
I just see the whole MLU issue as a loud minority yelling and crying for the feature that 99.9% people aren't even aware of, let alone use.
Click to expand...
I think you pay for what you get. In my book MLU should be a feature in the higher end camera's for sure but possibly not in the lower end ones.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
 
antoineb said:
I don't think the absence of MLU will lead to horribly blurry landcapes.

But if anyone really is SO worried, then there are other choices, if one realises that DSLR is far from the only way:
  • larger format film cameras (which are the main tool of many of the greatest landscape photographers even today)
  • Leica M9 and other rangefinders cameras (all of which are film for the time being)
  • GF1 and E-P1/2 and all the similar cameras that are going to come ou in 2010 and 2011
  • quite a few higher-end compacts, which can provide very clean detail on 12mp photos at wide angle
So in the end, MLU is kind of a non-issue
Click to expand...
Not accurate at all is it?? What if I need the capabilities of a SLR type camera for my work? I mean I do have a few rangefinders still but they mos certainly cannot meet most of my needs.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top