Lars Bundesen wrote:
> I am thinking about doing more low light phtography, both with tripod and
> handheld.
...or possibly a combination of the two? After I finished being a
student I did some part-time stage/theatrical photography. Being
strapped for cash, my only available lenses were the Zuiko 50/1.8 and
a Tamron 80-210/3.8-4. I was able to compensate to a degree for the
zoom's lack of speed by using a (fairly) lightweight tripod as a
somewhat uncomfortable shoulder-brace. In this way I was able to use
quite slow shutter speeds while retaining freedom of movement. I seem
to recall that pictures might sometimes be blurred by subject
motion, but seldom by camera shake.
TMAX P3200 helped as well, but I'd have killed for an 85/2 in those days.
In general, however, different criteria tend to apply to the two
styles that you mention. With a tripod there is little excuse for lack
of sharpness whereas handheld low-light photography may often be a
matter of 'getting the picture'.
> I guess we all know the rule of thumb about not using a longer
shutterspeed
> than 1/30th second for a 35 mm lens etc.
You've hit the nail on the head when you call this a rule of
thumb. Unfortunately, there are those who seem to believe that camera shake
simply vanishes above this magic shutter speed, while ruining any
picture taken below it. In practice it's a sliding scale of trade-offs.
I would often use 1/30th with a 50mm lens if I need it to get a
picture, and even 1/15th if I'm well braced and there isn't much
subject movement. The lens will be wide open before I'll resort to
this speed, however, and on negative film I might prefer to
underexpose by a stop and sacrifice some shadow detail.
> What I would like to know is if there is a difference between the various
> OM cameras about their usefulness for this purpose. There might be
> differences regarding how much the mirror causes the camera to shake, so
> that some cameras are better suited for longer handheld exposures than
> others.
I have also heard people say that 1/8th and even 1/4 sec are possible
with rangefinder cameras, due to the lack of mirror kick.
Amongst SLRs, in it's day the OM1 was highly regarded for its comparative
lack of vibration.
On the other hand all OMs have the disadvantage of light weight,
while sheer mass can help damp vibration and hand shake (I've seen
this given as a plus-point for the N*k*n F4). Attaching a tripod to an
OM, even if it stays folded, can give some of the same benefit.
> I know that the various OM cameras sound different, but whether some are
> better dampened than others, I don't know.
My OM1 certainly seems smoother than my OM4. This is to be expected -
all else being equal - due to the OM4 (and 3 & 2sp) having extra
moving parts in the form of the hinged sub-mirror.
(Before anyone contradicts me by referring to Gary Reese's tests, let
me point out that all Gary's tests are performed on a tripod with the
mirror locked up (either by lever on the OM1 or by timer on the OM4
and OM2000) so his conclusions, though doubtless correct, apply only
to this mode of operation and not necessarily to handheld.)
> If you have information about this, please let me know.
Well my comments above don't really count as hard info, but I thought I'd
offer them anyway.
-Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|