Fast and heavy or poor and light

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?

- Siddhartha
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Yes. Some progress seems to be coming in liquid lens technology. This
could simplify all aspects of lens operation.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?


I think it's just a matter of geometry. Fast lens just means large
aperture opening which is... large... and therefore harder to make
acceptable quality. I guess the odds are good that full frame sensors
will never be affordable and the crop frame DSLR's will continue to be
relevant in which case more DX (smaller) lenses will be made. Corrrently
there aren't any fast crop frame lenses because people looking for fast
don't want to chance spending on a crop frame lens they think won't be
usable on future full frame cameras but it seems likely that won't be a
problem.

<http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_01/field_size_3-2.gif>
<http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_01/essay.html>
shows relationship of cost and sensor size due to quality control for
number of defects.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
shoot
> each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

I will give this a try and let you know. I have a Nikon 995, which is
pretty light and a Canon 20D, which it not so light, I will use a heavy
zoom lens on the Canon.

Scott
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> > Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture
> > are heavy and expensive. The lighter variable focal length
> > aren't great performers but are cheap. Why is this so?
> ...
>
> I think it's just a matter of geometry. Fast lens just means
> large aperture opening which is... large... and therefore
> harder to make acceptable quality.
> ...

Lens Speed vs. Quality
----------------------

I think this is exactly right. Here's why:

Fast lenses require a larger diameter. A larger diameter means
more glass has to be precisely milled to the correct shape.

More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
apparent in the transmitted image. Hence the shaping of the
lens must be more precise to achieve the same quality.

Remember also that a modern lens is composed of multiple lens
components, each of which corrects for possible errors in the
others or provides other focal lengths and features. With
faster lenses that are more sensitive to imperfections, the
design and shaping of all the components becomes more critical.
There may even be a need for more internal components. The
movement of the internal components in focusing becomes more
critical too.

So the design and manufacturing are both more expensive.

Camera Weight
-------------

Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
photographer's hands.

Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
explosion of the gas.

It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
than with a 6 ounce camera.

Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.

Alan
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In pure lens design the diameter of the front element equals the focal
length divided by the max aperture. So fast lenses equal big front
elements for gathering more light. Make that a zoom lens and you need
more and more glass. Just for a quality 20-200mm lens you have to
correct for aberations all through the focal range, a lot of
correcting. Mtal barrels are good but many zoom lenses have internal
groups held in plastic, why, metal expands too much in heat, this is
especially bad with telephoto zooms and is why Canons long lenses are
ugly white. Someone who knows more about lenses could go on forever,
but I hope this helps.

Tom
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:
> "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
> > smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
> > minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
> > apparent in the transmitted image.
>
> In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?

On the off chance that this was not a rhetorical question,
and for the benefit of those who didn't follow the original
argument, I'll go ahead and answer it with some elaboration.
[Which is a short way of introducing my long winded claptrap]

All parts of the image are equally affected by imperfections
in the lens, but it's the focused parts that show the problem.

An imperfection in the lens scatters the light or directs it
to some place other than where it belongs relative to the
original scene. If a point in the scene is out of focus on
the camera sensor, any imperfections in the transmission of
that point are also out of focus and the imperfections are
less visible. The imperfections give us a bit more blur
within the blur.

But imagine an imperfection that causes some photons to focus
one millimeter in front of or behind the spot where they
should focus. If the depth of field at the sensor is 3
millimeters, that imperfection is invisible. If the DOF is
1 millimeter it's visible. [The right way to explain this
is with a diagram showing the difference between lines
converging from a narrow lens opening vs. lines converging
from a wide one, but the reader will have to use his
imagination for that.]

This won't be true for every type of imperfection, but it's
obviously true for abberations affecting focus, e.g., places
where the lens does not have a perfect curve of the right
parabolic (or whatever) shape.

Also, getting the lens curves exactly right is more difficult
the further you get from the center of a lens. Cheap tiny
cameras sometimes use sections of spheres for the lens because
they're easy and cheap to make and, for small lenses, they're
a close approximation to the right parabolic shape. But wide
lenses made as sections of spheres would produce horrible
results.

Maybe modern computer controlled glass cutting machinery
has eliminated the extra cost of creating more perfect lens
shapes. I don't know. But I'm guessing that it's still more
expensive to shape the wide lenses than the small ones.

Alan
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
shoot
> each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>

Ok, I have done the test, on the light side I used a Nikon Coolpix 995
and on the heavy side I used a 20D with a 70-300mm zoom.

Weight of the Nikon is 475 gm, the weight of the 20D with lens is 1346
gm. I shoot both cameras at ISO 100, F/10 and 1/4 sec shutter speed, FL
of 75mm (equivalent). I used the mirror lockup to avoid the mirror
from shaking the 20D. I shot a number of shots with each camera and it
is a toss up as to which one has more motion blurring.

So for my rather unscientific test mass did not seem to aid or hurt
stability. What the case would be with a much heavier lens is unclear.

Scott
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1114503765.949044.73210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
> but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
> glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
> expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
> new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
I'm not shure if it's possible.
I do know that they wont do it because thats were they make there money.
It's a bit like in the games world. The hardware is cheap and you pay the
mainprice for the software.
Same with camera's. They make no profit on the body's. The profit comes from
the accesories like fllashes, lenses etc.
(you've heard the story before in think, about printers en ink)
Greetz
Div
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
>expensive. The lighter variable focal length aren't great performers
>but are cheap. Why is this so? I understand that good performance means
>glass, special elements and metallic body but in the future can we
>expect a fast and light variable focal length lens if not cheap? Any
>new material or technology on the horizon to make such lens?

It's a question of how much light you let in via the lens. If you
have an enormous lens, you can let in a lot of light (faster lens),
and get a higher quality picture (less noise). But it costs more to
make a good lens, and the extra glass makes it heavier.

By contrast, a small lens is less expensive to manufacture and ends up
weighing less, but it lets in less light (= slower, lower quality).

Ironically, a smaller sensor with denser pixels can often make better
use of a smaller lens, which is why many of the current mid-range P&S
models with their inexpensive, small, lenses give fbetter results than
higher-priced lenses on dSLR's. (But good lenses on dSLR's are still
much better!)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Most fast variable focal length lens with fixed aperture are heavy and
> expensive.

When I was in the army I had to carry both the M-60 and my personal M-16 AND
my tool box every time we trudged the normally half a mile hike from the
tent to the aircraft located on the site perimeter. Yes, I bitched about it
incessantly. But now I can't understand why photographers always worry
about a few ounces here and there. Yeah, my kit bag can get a little heavy
when fully loaded, but it's not like being loaded down with 90 pounds of
combat gear every time I have to fix a helicopter.

The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds stability.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:
[]
> The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
> stability.

Heavy for me means that the kit gets left at home, so I get fewer photos.

David
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
> > stability.
>
> Heavy for me means that the kit gets left at home, so I get fewer photos.

I need a work out buddy. Let's go to the gymn together. :)

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
stability.
>
> A somehwat false notion. Try accurate fire at 100 yards standing with
> your M-16. After 30 minutes you're not getting those center shots.

First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
center shots in the first place. 😉

> Try shooting standing without a monopod and an 80-200 f/2.8 at low
> shutter speeds (1/125). Same thing. Blurry images getting more blurry
> as time goes on.

Time to work out. <g>



--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Lauter wrote:

> First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
> Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
> center shots in the first place. 😉

Très drôle.

Of course the only marksmanship medal that matters (in the US Army) is
the CIB. You get that when the targets are shooting back.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:49:10 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<Wptbe.13573$716.7889@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> > The way I see it, heavy is better in photography because it adds
>stability.
>>
>> A somehwat false notion. Try accurate fire at 100 yards standing with
>> your M-16. After 30 minutes you're not getting those center shots.
>
>First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.

<blink>

You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
it overhand, or clubbing him?

>Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
>center shots in the first place. 😉

Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
in sight.

>> Try shooting standing without a monopod and an 80-200 f/2.8 at low
>> shutter speeds (1/125). Same thing. Blurry images getting more blurry
>> as time goes on.
>
>Time to work out. <g>

Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
(we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
is much heavier than just about any camera lens.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:

> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
> heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore

Ahem. A small movement by the hand requires a countering movement to
stop the first movement. As F=ma and E=1/2 mv^2 the force to counter is
proportional to the mass, and the energy (fatigue) is as well.

For example if you relax your left arm (under the lens) slightly, both a
heavy camera and a light camera will go down. Bringing the lighter
camera back to aim requires less energy.

As an exercise. Hold a baseball bat at the end of your arms and keep it
level with the horizon. Do the same with a golf club.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Of course the only marksmanship medal that matters (in the US Army) is
> the CIB. You get that when the targets are shooting back.

Roger that.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> >First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
>
> <blink>
> You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
> it overhand, or clubbing him?

I'm going to run up to him with a rock and hit him in the head with it.
Sounds silly, but he won't believe it's really happening until it's too
late. <g>

> >Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
> >center shots in the first place. 😉
>
> Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
> M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
> in sight.

All those days were wasted in BRM then.. 🙁

> >Time to work out. <g>
>
> Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
> (we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
> probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
> is much heavier than just about any camera lens.

VAS could be the heaviest material known to man. :)

I've never gotten tired holding a still camera - you shoot, then it hangs
around the neck for a bit, shoot some more, etc.. But I tried filming with
a small video camera for 20 minutes once.. OMG! My arm wanted to fall off.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> With a camera having some weight probably helps,
> but the affect would decrease very quickly as the camera got heavier.

I guess I just don't think of even a heavy camera as heavy. It's not like
10 pounds or something.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Get a light camera and heavy camera with the same FL and aperture
>
> shoot
>
>>each in marginal conditions of shutter speed.
>>
>
>
> Ok, I have done the test, on the light side I used a Nikon Coolpix 995
> and on the heavy side I used a 20D with a 70-300mm zoom.
>
> Weight of the Nikon is 475 gm, the weight of the 20D with lens is 1346
> gm. I shoot both cameras at ISO 100, F/10 and 1/4 sec shutter speed, FL
> of 75mm (equivalent). I used the mirror lockup to avoid the mirror
> from shaking the 20D. I shot a number of shots with each camera and it
> is a toss up as to which one has more motion blurring.
>
> So for my rather unscientific test mass did not seem to aid or hurt
> stability. What the case would be with a much heavier lens is unclear.

1) Don't shoot for a blurred shot (1/4 sec @ 75mm), shoot for something
sharp. Say 1/125 @ 100mm.

2) Shoot 2 SLR's. One heavy system; one light. For example an 80-200
f/2.8 on a 20D v. a 75-300 var-ap on a DRebel.

3) Shoot something with some vert and horizontal line detail.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote

> More importantly, with a larger diameter there is also a
> smaller depth of field. As the depth of field becomes smaller,
> minor errors in the shape or surface of the glass become more
> apparent in the transmitted image.

In which part of the image - the focused or unfocused bits?

> Remember also that a modern lens is composed of multiple lens
> components, each of which corrects for possible errors in the
> others or provides other focal lengths and features. With
> faster lenses that are more sensitive to imperfections, the
> design and shaping of all the components becomes more critical.

Easy to see why the cost curve is so steep.

> Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
> matter of physics.
<snip>
> Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
> know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.

Heh heh.. I'm sure not going to go buy lead weights to add to the camera,
but I don't see why such a big deal is made about trimming a few ounces off
last years model... then again I complained about the weight of my kit bag
on my last trip that involved public airports. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. :)

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com


> Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
> target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
> sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
> doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
> trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
> explosion of the gas.
>
> It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
> hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
> camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
> shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
> photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
> than with a 6 ounce camera.
>
>
> Alan
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:29:12 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<ITube.13586$716.4245@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>> >First, if a guy is only 100 meters away I could kill him with a rock.
>>
>> <blink>
>> You, sir, are good with a rock. Do you plan on using a sling, tossing
>> it overhand, or clubbing him?
>
>I'm going to run up to him with a rock and hit him in the head with it.
>Sounds silly, but he won't believe it's really happening until it's too
>late. <g>

>> >Second, if the firefight lasts over 30 minutes I'd say I wasn't getting
>> >center shots in the first place. 😉
>>
>> Post Korea, perhaps. But it assumes you have a target. Neither the
>> M-16 nor the M-60 we designed with the notion you had a target easily
>> in sight.
>
>All those days were wasted in BRM then.. 🙁

The goal is to get those bullets out there. If some hit your target,
better yet. The most important distinction is between "here" and
"there".

>> >Time to work out. <g>
>>
>> Or put things down and take a break. If I have been taking a picture
>> (we were talking about photography, right, not armed combat) I
>> probably have a Very Annoyed Spouse (tm). A Very Annoyed Spouse (tm)
>> is much heavier than just about any camera lens.
>
>VAS could be the heaviest material known to man. :)
>
>I've never gotten tired holding a still camera - you shoot, then it hangs
>around the neck for a bit, shoot some more, etc.. But I tried filming with
>a small video camera for 20 minutes once.. OMG! My arm wanted to fall off.

My problem actually is with the weight around the neck, not in the
hands. Especially now that I have a nice set of binoculars. On our
last trip I had four cords (camera, binocs, glasses, hat) around my
neck. The untangling was hell as well. Getting back to my vest thread,
I am considering a harness system if I can then clip the camera (and
the binocs?) to the harness.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:32:08 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark Lauter"
<available_upon_request@just_ask_in_a_post.com> in
<sWube.25656$5f.14345@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> With a camera having some weight probably helps,
>> but the affect would decrease very quickly as the camera got heavier.
>
>I guess I just don't think of even a heavy camera as heavy. It's not like
>10 pounds or something.

Weight is relative. I have the Sony F707. For me this is great, but I
use two hands. I like holding the lens to shoot. With one hand the
lens pulls, I am sure this is much worse with "real" lenses. I am sure
some one with some good physiology knowledge could explain about
various muscles and such, but holding an object still requires
different use of different muscles than lifting a heavy weight.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 10:39:06 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Alan Meyer"
<ameyer2@yahoo.com> in
<1114537146.682094.171700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Camera Weight
>-------------
>
>Heavy cameras are more stable than light ones. It's a simple
>matter of physics. It takes more energy to move or vibrate a
>heavy object than a light one. The heavy camera therefore
>doesn't move as much given the same inputs from the
>photographer's hands.

This is simple but misleading physics. A heavy camera also tires the
muscles faster leading to a lose of control. I strongly suspect that
there is a curve and that "medium" weight cameras are best.

>Since guns have been used by analogy here, we should note that
>target rifles and pistols use heavier barrels than military or
>sporting weapons. It's for the same reason. The barrel
>doesn't move as much given the input from the shooter's hands,
>trigger finger, etc. or from the recoil of the cartridge or the
>explosion of the gas.

Rifles are much heaver than cameras, bringing larger muscles into
play. Also the weight helps stabilize during the recoil, a very
different issue.

>It may be true that if your hands and arms are tired you don't
>hold the camera as steadily. But most photographers use a
>camera strap to hold the camera when they're not actually
>shooting. Even at the end of a day's shooting, I bet most
>photographers would get steadier photos with a 2-3 pound camera
>than with a 6 ounce camera.

I think that the small muscles tire (and recover) easily. It is not
just at the end of the day, but after holding the camera in place for
a minute or so waiting for a shot that matters.

>Personally, I much prefer carrying a 6 ounce camera. But I
>know I need faster shutter speeds to get sharp results.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom