Will a monopod with proper technique reduce hand shake? I ask this this because you must still hold it with your hands. If so what is the proper method?
I asked for the reasons you stated. No matter what hand held technique I use there is still camera shake. I do a lot of heavy lifting during the day and when I grab a camera I can see the muscle twitch in the viewfinder. VR is nice but bulky and I still prefer primes for image quality.jb007 said:A monopod if used appropiately offers up to 2 stops of additional exposure - ie about the same as VR is claimed to do. The focal length of the lens in and of itself shouldn't make any substantial difference. I use a monopod with a D2x most of the time, where it wasn't as necessary with D2h or D70 bodies - the "x" with it's smaller pixel size and higher resolution shows camera motion (camera shake) more than any other dSLR I've used. In particular hyperfocal landscape shots need either a monopod or preferably a tripod with mirror lock-up and other "care" taken. Have you any particular reason for asking?
I found that for whatever reason, camera shake had become an issue for me. With lot's of concentration, and trying the best I could, some shots were fine, but that certainly meant that I was losing those where I didn't have the time to "hold steady enough". So, I went the VR route because the sacrifice in lens speed (except for the 70-200VR/f2.8) and the "theoretical" differences in lens quality (I can't see it with my naked eye on my shots) were a trade-off for having nearly all my shots be virtually free of camera shake. I found the difference to be significant for me, and I am able to get many shots that I could not before.cwilt said:I asked for the reasons you stated. No matter what hand held technique I use there is still camera shake. I do a lot of heavy lifting during the day and when I grab a camera I can see the muscle twitch in the viewfinder. VR is nice but bulky and I still prefer primes for image quality.
I will dust off the monopod and see what happens.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you on that soft at wide open statement.cwilt said:Ken and Gordon,
The VR is nice but they (24-120 and 70-200) are soft wide open. I would guess that 90% of my shots are nearly wide open for thin DOF. The 24-120 is to slow for this type of shooting and needs to be stopped down for sharpness. I will test the 70-200 and see where contrast comes up but I would guess f4 or f5.6. From the wide open shots I have taken so far, the 105/2 and 180/2.8 both easily outperform the 70-200vr on a D2x.
I better put on the flame retardant bullet proof vest after making that statement.![]()
My favorite kit is all primes, small and light. Problem is my hand shake. If I add a tripod I am back to the same weight as my fast zoom/vr kit. Trying to get shots of my kids while using a tripod is.
Charles :cwilt said:Will a monopod with proper technique reduce hand shake? I ask this this because you must still hold it with your hands. If so what is the proper method?
Maybe just a little suntan lotion to avoid some glare, I'd say... :Crunk: :Curved: :Crunk:cwilt said:From the wide open shots I have taken so far, the 105/2 and 180/2.8 both easily outperform the 70-200vr on a D2x.
I better put on the flame retardant bullet proof vest after making that statement.
Steve,Steve S said:Sorry, but I completely disagree with you on that soft at wide open statement.
To wit: (on tripod, VR off)
150 proof sun block applied :smile:PJohnP said:Maybe just a little suntan lotion to avoid some glare, I'd say... :Crunk: :Curved: :Crunk:
As for the performance of the primes you mention wide open against the 70-200mm AFS/VR, that's a pretty much open debate for various conditions. The debate about zooms and primes has raged for a very very long time, after all. Certainly, the 70-200mm isn't quite as sharp at the extremes as the best primes - an inherent advantage of primes - but IMHO based on shooting with all three lenses discussed, the differences were not large in the lenses I shot with (see below for more on this), and the inherent flexibility of the zoom function has to be considered. One could also complain that the 180mm f/2.8 can't shoot with as wide a FOV at closer ranges as can the 70-200mm (which is not a fair comparison either).
As well - and this is probably much more to the issue at hand - there is still a lot more variation in the quality of lenses, zoom or prime, than the manufacturers want to admit. I've handled lenses which type has been lauded or raved over without seeing quite the performance advertised, which could also be caused by my lack of experience with the lens or generally not shooting as well as some other people - my issues and not those of the lens. Bjørn Rørslett has commented several times quite insightfully about how so many people seem to substitute the idea of lens performance for good photographic technique, and although I likely have more lenses than I truly need in a strict review sense, I'd still concur with Bjørn's comments. I've certainly proven that to myself on a number of occasions with poor shooting through no fault of the equipment !!! :Angry:izzy: :Angry:
And the 105mm f/2 DC is quite frankly in a very exclusive class of clarity as a Nikon prime shot wide open, a class including the 85mm f/1.4, the 58mm f/1.2 and the 28mm f/1.4, but few others.