The photography thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

In that case I think I was too far away and my flash too weak for it to have made much difference!

---

As long as you're no more than a few metres from the camera most flashes will usually do for a fill flash :)

I just put it to AUTO and let it decide whether it needs a flash or not. :p :

I'm really getting the hang of this panning malarkey now when taking motorsport photos. :) :D

I remember trying to take a picture of a car at Donington and I had to press the shutter when the car was still a way down the track as it took about 2 seconds for the camera to take the picture! This was a while ago now mind.

I've had my camera since Christmas and I'm still learning all the features it has, although one it doesn't have is image stabilisation, which I'm thinking would be useful as I'm always taking pictures from a car or more often while walking along.

Does anyone have a camera with digital image stabilsation, and does it work?

My lens has an image stabiliser but I don't use it very much because it messes up action photos. If you're following a moving object with your camera, the image stabiliser is trying to freeze the image that you're taking which often ends up blurring the picture.

Image stabilising can be useful though for a night time shot when you don't have a tripod with you, or for taking a still image on a windy day, so it's a good feature to have.

I don't really take pictures of moving images so much, in fact it's usually me that's moving, both through either walking along, or more often just my hands shaking (too much coffee :D :p ).

Night mode pictures are a big problem, you have to hold the camera still for quite a while, on some occasions I've found that a good result is only possible while resting the camera on a solid object. It typically results in shots like this

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/4...eefb67ab06.jpg

Yeah, to get a night time shot like that you're probably needing a half-second exposure, in which time your hand will move quite a bit and distort the image. Resting the camera on something is just as good as having a tripod, provided you can find a level surface.

Would a camera with a higher ISO be able to capture the image using a shorter exposure time? The EXIF data on that photo says 2 second exposure, ISO speed 64.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Would a camera with a higher ISO be able to capture the image using a shorter exposure time? The EXIF data on that photo says 2 second exposure, ISO speed 64.

---

Definitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuddleJumper

My lens has an image stabiliser but I don't use it very much because it messes up action photos. If you're following a moving object with your camera, the image stabiliser is trying to freeze the image that you're taking which often ends up blurring the picture.

Image stabilising can be useful though for a night time shot when you don't have a tripod with you, or for taking a still image on a windy day, so it's a good feature to have.

---

Does the lens not have a mode whereby it detects horizontal panning and only stabilises on the vertical plane? I know the Nikon VR lenses do this :)

It would seem that ISO 64 is woefully inadequate then, particularly as the camera was set into 'night' mode and is capable of ISO800 :s