Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,013
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens

[ Edited ]

TTMartin wrote:

From one popular camera reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

 

 

'Image Stabilization works great. Presuming you know how to shoot a rifle and thus shoot a camera properly at slow speeds, I get perfectly sharp shots most of the time at 1/4 second, usually get pretty sharp shots at 1/2, and even at 1 second get a sharp shot every few frames.

 

I use a simple technique when I'm on the edge: just shoot several frames, and one is usually much sharper than the others. Use that, and delete the rest.'

 

From another well respected lens reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

 

'Under ideal conditions (indoors, standing on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 10mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 to .5 seconds for about 3 stops of assistance. I had enough sharp images at .8 seconds that it would be worth trying for a shot at even this long exposure time if conditions were right (wind, unstable footing and other influences decrease needed exposure times).

Somewhat unusual is that I was able to handhold this lens at its longest focal length at exposure times at least as long as I could handhold it at its widest focal lengths. At 18mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to .8 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second. The keeper rate dropped rapidly at longer exposure times, but .8 seconds is over 4 stops of assistance for me.'

 

Yep, one second exposures without a tripod. 


It depends on what the meaning of the word "sharp" is.

 

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens

"Again, normal handheld rule of thumb with a lens is 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal lenght x 1.6 (APS-C).

So an average person using proper technique should be able to handhold a 10mm lens on an APS-C camera at 1/16 of a second WITHOUT image stabilization. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion began with your claim that people can easily make a handheld shot using a one second exposure.  All of this noise about 1/FL, is nothing more than an off-topic distraction.  You have changed the subject.  Have a nice day.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,461
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens


RobertTheFat wrote:
It depends on what the meaning of the word "sharp" is.

Bob


Bob,

 

The one reviewer is The Digital Picture, he has a sequence of about 20 shots 100% crops taken at .8 of a second, so you can roll through the sequence and use your own definition of 'sharp'. 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens


TTMartin wrote:

From one popular camera reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

 

 

'Image Stabilization works great. Presuming you know how to shoot a rifle and thus shoot a camera properly at slow speeds, I get perfectly sharp shots most of the time at 1/4 second, usually get pretty sharp shots at 1/2, and even at 1 second get a sharp shot every few frames.

 

I use a simple technique when I'm on the edge: just shoot several frames, and one is usually much sharper than the others. Use that, and delete the rest.'

 

From another well respected lens reviewer regarding the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

 

'Under ideal conditions (indoors, standing on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 10mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 to .5 seconds for about 3 stops of assistance. I had enough sharp images at .8 seconds that it would be worth trying for a shot at even this long exposure time if conditions were right (wind, unstable footing and other influences decrease needed exposure times).

Somewhat unusual is that I was able to handhold this lens at its longest focal length at exposure times at least as long as I could handhold it at its widest focal lengths. At 18mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to .8 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second. The keeper rate dropped rapidly at longer exposure times, but .8 seconds is over 4 stops of assistance for me.'

 

Yep, one second exposures without a tripod. 


Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,461
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens

[ Edited ]

Waddizzle wrote:

 

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.


All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

 

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

 

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,163
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens


TTMartin wrote:

Waddizzle wrote:

 

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.


All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

 

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

 

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.


I am sorry to hear of your health issues.

 

What ever gave you the idea that I have never heard of 1/FL before?  I have cited it enough times in these forums that I would have figured that a well read guy like you should have known otherwise.

 

What ever gave you the idea that an average person can handhold a camera for a full second and get a sharp, clear picture?  An average person will need a tripod for a one second exposure.  End of story.  I think the rule of thumb begins to fall apart smaller and smaller focal lengths, most especially at wide angle focal lengths and close subjects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,461
Registered: ‎02-26-2015

Re: Affordable Wide Angle Low Light Lens


Waddizzle wrote:

TTMartin wrote:

Waddizzle wrote:

 

Yadda Yadda.  Did you forget that you have already admitted that you cannot do that yourself?  Yadda Yadda.


All I admitted was that I can no longer handhold a 50mm lens without IS at 1/15 of a second, and I use to be able to with good reliability. I am no longer an average person as chemotherapy left me with neurological damage (chemobrain). So, what I can do isn't really representative of what a normal/average person can do.

 

The 1/focal length (full frame) and 1/focal length x 1.6 (APS-S) is a long accepted rule of thumb for what an average/normal person can handhold with good technique. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it.

 

Sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.


I am sorry to hear of your health issues.

 

What ever gave you the idea that I have never heard of 1/FL before?  I have cited it enough times in these forums that I would have figured that a well read guy like you should have known otherwise.

 

What ever gave you the idea that an average person can handhold a camera for a full second and get a sharp, clear picture?  An average person will need a tripod for a one second exposure.  End of story.  I think the rule of thumb begins to fall apart smaller and smaller focal lengths, most especially at wide angle focal lengths and close subjects.


Again, sorry if my facts, conflict with your opinion.

powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement