repleo wrote:
My ‘stream of consciousness’ thoughts for what they are worth:
I think you were asking too much of your travel tripod with a heavy camera and a long lens at long exposure.
There is usually a lot of air vibration around water falls.
I was pretty far away (probably several miles) on the far side of the Waimea Valley. There was very little wind (if any)
What did you focus on and did you lock focus?
I focused on the top of the waterfall (F9.0) shot some at F12-18 but similar results.
Was IS turned off?
No. Heard competing opinions about this. In both cases, they are fairley new lenses with the most recent IS tech and was told that it doesnt matter. (Although I should probably test that)
Exposure on the first one seems a bit funky. Too much PP maybe?
It was exposed in the middle but lots of haze (which could contribute to sharpness for sure). Dehaze was used in pp in LR so I should be happier with what I got here:-)
A good prime will usually be better than a zoom but a prime won’t compensate for a shaky tripod.
agree.
Extra pixels won’t help.
...certainly not any blur....may even make it appear worse....but if the focus is nailed and vibration/blur are eliminated, I hear it can be incredible.
It is hard to sit perfectly still for 10 seconds.
The 10sec was shutter timer. The exposure was between 0.5 and 1 sec.
I had seen a video from Thomas Heaton that showed for longer lenses especially, if you tocuh the camera or flip the mirror, it can take several seconds for the image in the viewfinder to stop "moving"
They are not that bad. I wouldn’t complain about them
My ‘stream of consciousness’ thoughts for what the... (
show quote)
Thanks for your response .
My thoughts...
I think you were asking too much of your travel tripod with a heavy camera and a long lens at long exposure.
There is usually a lot of air vibration around water falls.
I was pretty far away (probably several miles) on the far side of the Waimea Valley. There was very little wind (if any).
What did you focus on and did you lock focus?
I focused on the top of the waterfall (F9.0) shot some at F12-18 but similar results.
Was IS turned off?
No. Heard competing opinions about this. In both cases, they are fairly new lenses with the most recent IS tech and was told that it doesnt matter. (Although I should probably test that)
Exposure on the first one seems a bit funky. Too much PP maybe?
It was exposed in the middle but lots of haze (which could contribute to sharpness for sure). Dehaze was used in pp in LR so I should be happier with what I got here:-) Lighting was not perfect either as the sun was not fully up and the waterfall/valley was not in direct sunlight yet. I am sure that is the biggest contributor....
A good prime will usually be better than a zoom but a prime won’t compensate for a shaky tripod.
agree.
Extra pixels won’t help.
...certainly not any blur....may even make it appear worse....but if the focus is nailed and vibration/blur are eliminated, I hear it can be incredible.
It is hard to sit perfectly still for 10 seconds.
The 10sec was shutter timer. The exposure was between 0.5 and 1 sec.
I had seen a video from Thomas Heaton that showed for longer lenses especially, if you touch the camera or flip the mirror, it can take several seconds for the image in the viewfinder to stop "moving"
I am reasonably happy with the results as this is not my area of expertise but looking to learn all I can.
Thanks for your response. Will definitely have to invest in a better tripod :-)