Reading mode: Light Dark

Why not AS with a tripod?

Go to last post
N

nykanenp

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
It puzzles me why the manual of A1 instructs you not to use anti-shake with a tripod. The reason it gives is saving battery.

But as the battery of A1 is exellent, why not use AS to give additional stability. It could, to my reason, be especially useful if the tripod is not first class.

Any knowledge? Is AS useless, if camera shake is minimal due to tripod? Any other reason why I should not use it with tripod?

Pekka
 
I think the disadvantages are that 1. you probably waste battery power as you said, and 2. the heat the AS system generate might affect the noise of long-exposure shots. I would guess that the best thing to do would be to use a delay shutter release in any case and skip the AS on the tripod whenever you take a really long exposure (more than 2 seconds anyway).

Joel
nykanenp said:
It puzzles me why the manual of A1 instructs you not to use
anti-shake with a tripod. The reason it gives is saving battery.

But as the battery of A1 is exellent, why not use AS to give
additional stability. It could, to my reason, be especially useful
if the tripod is not first class.

Any knowledge? Is AS useless, if camera shake is minimal due to
tripod? Any other reason why I should not use it with tripod?

Pekka
Click to expand...
 
Remember that AS is reacting to camera shake. There are movement sensors in the camera that counteract it's own movement in the image plane, so subject movement is not taken into account at all such as it is in focus tracking.

I've taken tripod-mounted shots at 380mm with a C2100UZ, with its IS on and off, using fast shutter speeds (1/320sec). When enlarged, there is a significant improvement with IS on. This surprised me but it's true. I used a remote control on the shutter button and there was no wind blowing, but it was a lightweight tripod. This was a test just for this purpose - not extensive - but conclusive for me. I don't know how sensitive the A1 sensors are, but I will use AS when I'm not concerned about noise in the resulting image - tripod or not.

Remember, too, that a short transient vibration of the camera when shooting long exposures is not going to contribute much blur as long as the camera settles down quickly. It's the shots that are about the same length as the vibration that make blur - such as 1/10 to 1 sec. or so.
Argie said:
nykanenp said:
why not use AS to give additional stability.
Click to expand...
I can't image what additional stability AS could provide a
completely stationary object... plus AS could conceivably react to
subject movement...

George
Click to expand...
 
Thank you very much for your clarifying comment. As I thought, having the AS on, might, at least in some cases, make pictures taken with light-weight tripod better.

AS is great. In my opinion the default should be AS on and the light and the special sign off while AS is on as very long exposures are rare and battery power not a bottleneck (at least not for me).

But for marketing reasons and to give us self-confidence it is of course understandable that Minolta put it the other way!

Even though C2100UZ has a longer lense, I will keep my AS from this on always ON.

Pekka
Don Dement said:
I've taken tripod-mounted shots at 380mm with a C2100UZ, with its
IS on and off, using fast shutter speeds (1/320sec). When enlarged,
there is a significant improvement with IS on. This surprised me
but it's true. I used a remote control on the shutter button and
there was no wind blowing, but it was a lightweight tripod. This
was a test just for this purpose - not extensive - but conclusive
for me. I don't know how sensitive the A1 sensors are, but I will
use AS when I'm not concerned about noise in the resulting image -
tripod or not.

Remember, too, that a short transient vibration of the camera when
shooting long exposures is not going to contribute much blur as
long as the camera settles down quickly. It's the shots that are
about the same length as the vibration that make blur - such as
1/10 to 1 sec. or so.
Argie said:
nykanenp said:
why not use AS to give additional stability.
Click to expand...
I can't image what additional stability AS could provide a
completely stationary object... plus AS could conceivably react to
subject movement...

George
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Don,
I am seriously considering the A1 as a replacement for my UZI. Three questions.
Did you keep the UZI?
Does the A1 focus well in low light without a focus assist lamp?
If you don't have the UZI do you miss the 380mms?
Thanks.
Ira
Don Dement said:
Remember that AS is reacting to camera shake. There are movement
sensors in the camera that counteract it's own movement in the
image plane, so subject movement is not taken into account at all
such as it is in focus tracking.

I've taken tripod-mounted shots at 380mm with a C2100UZ, with its
IS on and off, using fast shutter speeds (1/320sec). When enlarged,
there is a significant improvement with IS on. This surprised me
but it's true. I used a remote control on the shutter button and
there was no wind blowing, but it was a lightweight tripod. This
was a test just for this purpose - not extensive - but conclusive
for me. I don't know how sensitive the A1 sensors are, but I will
use AS when I'm not concerned about noise in the resulting image -
tripod or not.

Remember, too, that a short transient vibration of the camera when
shooting long exposures is not going to contribute much blur as
long as the camera settles down quickly. It's the shots that are
about the same length as the vibration that make blur - such as
1/10 to 1 sec. or so.
Click to expand...
 
Ira Cohen said:
Don,
I am seriously considering the A1 as a replacement for my UZI.
Three questions.
Did you keep the UZI?
Click to expand...
I can't give it up. The 380mm can be simulated almost by cropping the A1 images - if you do the math you'll see that almost is equivalent, and you get the opportunity to straighten and edit more pixels with the A1. However, there's still a good feeling of shooting reliability about the C2100 - perhaps it's confidence - that I"m still building with the more complex but capable A1. I have a DiMAGE 7i as well, which I don't use now but have as a backup. I will probably sell it although it has a few advantages - such as fast repetitive shooting. I need a backup for my wedding work, and I'm not sure the UZI would do it. It might.

Then there's the UZI infrared capability that the others don't have. I still have the hope of getting out and trying my hand at IR, something I've always wanted to do. I have the filter, the camera, and just one shot out my office window to show for it . A1 can't do that.
Member said:
Does the A1 focus well in low light without a focus assist lamp?
Click to expand...
I haven't made a direct comparison on this. Remember that the IR lamp has it's distance limits, same as flash distance. So if you have a powerful external flash for longer distance the IR lamp doesn't help. I don't like pointing a bright red light at subjects. If it were truly invisible IR, it could be perfect. The A1 is said to focus better than most in low light, but it's not all that I would like. I just finished a wedding reception with varying distances to dancers. The flash was almost OK (Min 3600, and thanks to Photoshop and NeatImage) but focusing was a big problem in an almost dark large room.

The viewfinder isn't adequate to tell fine focusing - when it goes to B&W because of low light, the magnification system that you need shuts down. If it stays in color, it works and can be great if you have the time and a tripod. With the lens wide open as it is (and you need every last photon) of course the DOF is shallow. These DiMAGES (and the UZI) need more useful distance indicators to enable zone focusing. I can eye-estimate my distances pretty well, but at 28mm (largest DOF) all you get is inf, 2m, 1m focus indications and DOF is not enough to span those very general numbers. At longer focal lengths, DOF is even worse and focusing then is super-critical. Autofocus simply can't track moving dancers, and I turn it off because it delays the shot way too long.

Every camera has its limits, and I'm sure I'm pushing them in what I do. I probably should go back to film where I can really use ISO 800. I have a film cohort who is succeeding at this, shooting the same weddings and receptions with me. It isn't a flash power issue at all - it's rapid and accurate focusing.
Member said:
If you don't have the UZI do you miss the 380mms?
Click to expand...
See above. Shoot with A1 at 5MP and crop to equivalent UZI 380 image size in pixels. This also is roughly the same effect as with the A1 in its 2x digital zoom.

I don't have the opportunity to exactly compare the IS on the UZI to the AS on the A1. There are just too many variables for a quick test that could come to conclusions. I think they both do about the same thing, in the long run. The 7i without the AS made me conclude it was time for the AS, and I bought the A1. I'm getting good AS results with it for what I'm doing in low light.
Member said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Thank you - this makes me think about all this and find out what I think I know.
Member said:
Ira
Don Dement said:
Remember that AS is reacting to camera shake. There are movement
sensors in the camera that counteract it's own movement in the
image plane, so subject movement is not taken into account at all
such as it is in focus tracking.

I've taken tripod-mounted shots at 380mm with a C2100UZ, with its
IS on and off, using fast shutter speeds (1/320sec). When enlarged,
there is a significant improvement with IS on. This surprised me
but it's true. I used a remote control on the shutter button and
there was no wind blowing, but it was a lightweight tripod. This
was a test just for this purpose - not extensive - but conclusive
for me. I don't know how sensitive the A1 sensors are, but I will
use AS when I'm not concerned about noise in the resulting image -
tripod or not.

Remember, too, that a short transient vibration of the camera when
shooting long exposures is not going to contribute much blur as
long as the camera settles down quickly. It's the shots that are
about the same length as the vibration that make blur - such as
1/10 to 1 sec. or so.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thank you,

I have been considering the F828 and the A1... both have nice zooms, I am just an average joe snapshooter. Mostly everday candid family stuff with some travel shots thrown in.

I would like a bit more more pixels but can't give up the zoom though, getting the grandkids across the park or backyard....

So I am trying to analyze the tradeoff the A1 AS vs the F828 Focus assist. Then there is the bru-ha-ha over the F828's CA/PF issue....

What i would like to see from both cameras is handheld zoomed candid indoor flash shots.
Didn't think spending $1,000.00 would be so hard.
Any prospect of Oly coming out with a Prosumer 5+MP IS with Focus Assist
version of the UZI?
Thanks again,
Ira
Don Dement said:
Ira Cohen said:
Don,
I am seriously considering the A1 as a replacement for my UZI.
Three questions.
Did you keep the UZI?
Click to expand...
I can't give it up. The 380mm can be simulated almost by cropping
the A1 images - if you do the math you'll see that almost is
equivalent, and you get the opportunity to straighten and edit more
pixels with the A1. However, there's still a good feeling of
shooting reliability about the C2100 - perhaps it's confidence -
that I"m still building with the more complex but capable A1. I
have a DiMAGE 7i as well, which I don't use now but have as a
backup. I will probably sell it although it has a few advantages -
such as fast repetitive shooting. I need a backup for my wedding
work, and I'm not sure the UZI would do it. It might.

Then there's the UZI infrared capability that the others don't
have. I still have the hope of getting out and trying my hand at
IR, something I've always wanted to do. I have the filter, the
camera, and just one shot out my office window to show for it . A1
can't do that.
Don Dement said:
Does the A1 focus well in low light without a focus assist lamp?
Click to expand...
I haven't made a direct comparison on this. Remember that the IR
lamp has it's distance limits, same as flash distance. So if you
have a powerful external flash for longer distance the IR lamp
doesn't help. I don't like pointing a bright red light at subjects.
If it were truly invisible IR, it could be perfect. The A1 is said
to focus better than most in low light, but it's not all that I
would like. I just finished a wedding reception with varying
distances to dancers. The flash was almost OK (Min 3600, and thanks
to Photoshop and NeatImage) but focusing was a big problem in an
almost dark large room.

The viewfinder isn't adequate to tell fine focusing - when it goes
to B&W because of low light, the magnification system that you need
shuts down. If it stays in color, it works and can be great if you
have the time and a tripod. With the lens wide open as it is (and
you need every last photon) of course the DOF is shallow. These
DiMAGES (and the UZI) need more useful distance indicators to
enable zone focusing. I can eye-estimate my distances pretty well,
but at 28mm (largest DOF) all you get is inf, 2m, 1m focus
indications and DOF is not enough to span those very general
numbers. At longer focal lengths, DOF is even worse and focusing
then is super-critical. Autofocus simply can't track moving
dancers, and I turn it off because it delays the shot way too long.

Every camera has its limits, and I'm sure I'm pushing them in what
I do. I probably should go back to film where I can really use ISO
800. I have a film cohort who is succeeding at this, shooting the
same weddings and receptions with me. It isn't a flash power issue
at all - it's rapid and accurate focusing.
Don Dement said:
If you don't have the UZI do you miss the 380mms?
Click to expand...
See above. Shoot with A1 at 5MP and crop to equivalent UZI 380
image size in pixels. This also is roughly the same effect as with
the A1 in its 2x digital zoom.

I don't have the opportunity to exactly compare the IS on the UZI
to the AS on the A1. There are just too many variables for a quick
test that could come to conclusions. I think they both do about the
same thing, in the long run. The 7i without the AS made me conclude
it was time for the AS, and I bought the A1. I'm getting good AS
results with it for what I'm doing in low light.
Don Dement said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Thank you - this makes me think about all this and find out what I
think I know.
Don Dement said:
Ira
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ira, the A1 wins by far on some of these characteristics.

The lens is really superior in CA absence, the manual zoom is instantly fast, the lens is the widest around and sharp right to the edges and AS takes you down several clicks in light. I don' t need more pixels for anything in my semi-pro work, and for your candids I can't imagine your having to trade off these great A1 features (and many more) for just sixty percent more pixels in the 828. Over about 3-4MP, you'll get great candid shots easily up to sharp 8x10s.

The A1 low-light focus, I think, is very good. I ask for more in that area than you probably will unless you're shooting the kids in the near-dark. It works fine in a fairly low-lighted interior. I'm not saying that photographing constantly-moving children is easy - it's not, under even good lighting, but consumer digital cameras at least have a deeper depth of field than film for the same aperture settings. At f/2.8, DOF is about the same as f/11 on a 35mm.

And you can get the A1 for far less than your $1000. It's in enough demand that if you don't like it you can sell it without great loss.

Look at the Oly 750 as a C2100 update, but there's no IS there. A1 has it.

=========
Ira Cohen said:
Don Dement said:
Ira Cohen said:
Don,
I am seriously considering the A1 as a replacement for my UZI.
Three questions.
Did you keep the UZI?
Click to expand...
I can't give it up. The 380mm can be simulated almost by cropping
the A1 images - if you do the math you'll see that almost is
equivalent, and you get the opportunity to straighten and edit more
pixels with the A1. However, there's still a good feeling of
shooting reliability about the C2100 - perhaps it's confidence -
that I"m still building with the more complex but capable A1. I
have a DiMAGE 7i as well, which I don't use now but have as a
backup. I will probably sell it although it has a few advantages -
such as fast repetitive shooting. I need a backup for my wedding
work, and I'm not sure the UZI would do it. It might.

Then there's the UZI infrared capability that the others don't
have. I still have the hope of getting out and trying my hand at
IR, something I've always wanted to do. I have the filter, the
camera, and just one shot out my office window to show for it . A1
can't do that.
Member said:
Does the A1 focus well in low light without a focus assist lamp?
Click to expand...
I haven't made a direct comparison on this. Remember that the IR
lamp has it's distance limits, same as flash distance. So if you
have a powerful external flash for longer distance the IR lamp
doesn't help. I don't like pointing a bright red light at subjects.
If it were truly invisible IR, it could be perfect. The A1 is said
to focus better than most in low light, but it's not all that I
would like. I just finished a wedding reception with varying
distances to dancers. The flash was almost OK (Min 3600, and thanks
to Photoshop and NeatImage) but focusing was a big problem in an
almost dark large room.

The viewfinder isn't adequate to tell fine focusing - when it goes
to B&W because of low light, the magnification system that you need
shuts down. If it stays in color, it works and can be great if you
have the time and a tripod. With the lens wide open as it is (and
you need every last photon) of course the DOF is shallow. These
DiMAGES (and the UZI) need more useful distance indicators to
enable zone focusing. I can eye-estimate my distances pretty well,
but at 28mm (largest DOF) all you get is inf, 2m, 1m focus
indications and DOF is not enough to span those very general
numbers. At longer focal lengths, DOF is even worse and focusing
then is super-critical. Autofocus simply can't track moving
dancers, and I turn it off because it delays the shot way too long.

Every camera has its limits, and I'm sure I'm pushing them in what
I do. I probably should go back to film where I can really use ISO
800. I have a film cohort who is succeeding at this, shooting the
same weddings and receptions with me. It isn't a flash power issue
at all - it's rapid and accurate focusing.
Member said:
If you don't have the UZI do you miss the 380mms?
Click to expand...
See above. Shoot with A1 at 5MP and crop to equivalent UZI 380
image size in pixels. This also is roughly the same effect as with
the A1 in its 2x digital zoom.

I don't have the opportunity to exactly compare the IS on the UZI
to the AS on the A1. There are just too many variables for a quick
test that could come to conclusions. I think they both do about the
same thing, in the long run. The 7i without the AS made me conclude
it was time for the AS, and I bought the A1. I'm getting good AS
results with it for what I'm doing in low light.
Member said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Thank you - this makes me think about all this and find out what I
think I know.
Member said:
Ira
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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