Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Steady hold for a P&S
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Alan Meyer
Apr 19, 2013, 3:19:10 PM4/19/13
to
I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
vibrations, or that it has a strap attachment point on only one side, or
that its only viewing mechanism is the LCD display on the back that must
be held a foot or more from your eyes to see the picture. And of course
being an old guy with shaky hands is probably worst of all.
I'm thinking about buying a walking stick monopod (any suggestions?) but
I also believe that good hand holding technique makes a big difference
in cutting down the vibrations.
The best thing I've come up with so far is to hold up my left hand
limply in front of my face with the palm facing me. Instead of grasping
the camera with my left hand, I rest it on the top. By not actually
holding the camera with my fingers and thumb the small muscles in
fingers and thumb are relaxed and not involved in supporting the camera.
Then I use as little pressure as I can with the right hand to press
the shutter release. The camera is secured from falling by the neck
strap, so there won't be any serious accidents this way and I've gotten
much better results than I did when I tried to hold it tight.
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
walking stick and fold for airline travel?
Thanks.
Alan
ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
vibrations, or that it has a strap attachment point on only one side, or
that its only viewing mechanism is the LCD display on the back that must
be held a foot or more from your eyes to see the picture. And of course
being an old guy with shaky hands is probably worst of all.
I'm thinking about buying a walking stick monopod (any suggestions?) but
I also believe that good hand holding technique makes a big difference
in cutting down the vibrations.
The best thing I've come up with so far is to hold up my left hand
limply in front of my face with the palm facing me. Instead of grasping
the camera with my left hand, I rest it on the top. By not actually
holding the camera with my fingers and thumb the small muscles in
fingers and thumb are relaxed and not involved in supporting the camera.
Then I use as little pressure as I can with the right hand to press
the shutter release. The camera is secured from falling by the neck
strap, so there won't be any serious accidents this way and I've gotten
much better results than I did when I tried to hold it tight.
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
walking stick and fold for airline travel?
Thanks.
Alan
Irwell
Apr 19, 2013, 4:11:32 PM4/19/13
to
press with right hand on the shutter, seem to have very little
camera shake this way.
> Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
> walking stick and fold for airline travel?
monopod is to use it as a third leg of a triangle, your two feet
being the other legs.
>
Alan Browne
Apr 19, 2013, 4:52:04 PM4/19/13
to
On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
> vibrations,
It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
> vibrations,
means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
steady. Lighter is better.
> or that it has a strap attachment point on only one side, or
> that its only viewing mechanism is the LCD display on the back that must
> be held a foot or more from your eyes to see the picture. And of course
> being an old guy with shaky hands is probably worst of all.
>
> I'm thinking about buying a walking stick monopod (any suggestions?) but
> I also believe that good hand holding technique makes a big difference
> in cutting down the vibrations.
In the meantime, try to:
-increase the ISO setting
-open op the aperture
to force a higher shutter speed - esp. when the zoom is way out there.
> The best thing I've come up with so far is to hold up my left hand
> limply in front of my face with the palm facing me. Instead of grasping
> the camera with my left hand, I rest it on the top. By not actually
> holding the camera with my fingers and thumb the small muscles in
> fingers and thumb are relaxed and not involved in supporting the camera.
> Then I use as little pressure as I can with the right hand to press
> the shutter release. The camera is secured from falling by the neck
> strap, so there won't be any serious accidents this way and I've gotten
> much better results than I did when I tried to hold it tight.
>
> Does anyone have any other suggestions?
>
> Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
> walking stick and fold for airline travel?
they'll allow a monopod in the cabin.
--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald
Mort
Apr 19, 2013, 6:00:23 PM4/19/13
to
If you are shooting a still object, then try setting the selftimer for
ca. 10 seconds. Then you can steady the camera with 2 hands without any
shake due to your releasing the shutter manually.
Mort Linder
Alan Meyer
Apr 19, 2013, 8:54:41 PM4/19/13
to
On 04/19/2013 04:11 PM, Irwell wrote:
> I use an upward pressing with the left hand and a downward
> press with right hand on the shutter, seem to have very little
> camera shake this way.
That's an interesting idea. I'll experiment with it.
> I use an upward pressing with the left hand and a downward
> press with right hand on the shutter, seem to have very little
> camera shake this way.
> ... the secret to using a
> monopod is to use it as a third leg of a triangle, your two feet
> being the other legs.
Makes sense. Getting a monopod isn't the end of the story. I guess
> being the other legs.
you've got to practice and experiment with it to get the best stability
you can.
Thanks.
Alan
Alan Meyer
Apr 19, 2013, 9:10:27 PM4/19/13
to
On 04/19/2013 04:52 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> ...
I see your point about making the muscles work more. If the camera is
too heavy the muscles are going to twitch.
Technically, of course, I should have used the term "mass" rather than
weight. Mass really does damp vibrations. The amount of energy
required to overcome the inertia of an object with very little mass is
very little, and proportionally more for an object with a lot of mass.
Similarly, the same amount of energy put into a massive object and a
lighter object results in more rapid movement in the light object. It's
a directly inverse relationship based on E = (mv^2)/2.
This is a factor in the solidity of heavy tripods over light ones -
though it's not the only one.
But, as you point out, there is a limit to what can be gained by
increasing the weight.
...
Yes. Trading off higher noise and lower depth for less camera shake can
often produce a superior image.
Thanks.
Alan
> ...
> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
> steady. Lighter is better.
> ...
> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
> steady. Lighter is better.
I see your point about making the muscles work more. If the camera is
too heavy the muscles are going to twitch.
Technically, of course, I should have used the term "mass" rather than
weight. Mass really does damp vibrations. The amount of energy
required to overcome the inertia of an object with very little mass is
very little, and proportionally more for an object with a lot of mass.
Similarly, the same amount of energy put into a massive object and a
lighter object results in more rapid movement in the light object. It's
a directly inverse relationship based on E = (mv^2)/2.
This is a factor in the solidity of heavy tripods over light ones -
though it's not the only one.
But, as you point out, there is a limit to what can be gained by
increasing the weight.
...
> In the meantime, try to:
>
> -increase the ISO setting
> -open op the aperture
>
> to force a higher shutter speed - esp. when the zoom is way out there.
...
>
> -increase the ISO setting
> -open op the aperture
>
> to force a higher shutter speed - esp. when the zoom is way out there.
Yes. Trading off higher noise and lower depth for less camera shake can
often produce a superior image.
Thanks.
Alan
Savageduck
Apr 19, 2013, 10:20:29 PM4/19/13
to
length of cord or strap to an appropriately sized bolt or tripod mount
to screw into the camera's tripod mount. I would suggest something such
as the BlackRapid "fastnr" fitting, and add to that their "connectr".
< http://www.blackrapid.com/products/fastenr-stealth >
< http://www.blackrapid.com/products/connectr >
Then take a length of strap or cord of sufficient length (either a long
loop or a single length) that you have a loop at the bottom which you
can put the toe of one of your feet into. Now if you bring the camera
up to your face, or if you keep your elbows into your side bringing the
strap/cord under tension you will have a make-shift brace to help
steady your shot. Not always fool proof, but some folks have found this
type of thing helpful.
Then Amazon has a fair selection of mono-pods, and walking sticks with
camera mounts.
<
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_sq_top?ie=UTF8&index=blended&keywords=walking%20stick%20with%20camera%20mount&pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0013KON18&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17MTT7M4N45PRYY73CFN
>
or
< http://tinyurl.com/d7zdlkj >
Here are a few things to check:
< http://www.sederquist.com/clabrace.html >
<
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/07/25/more-ways-to-hold-a-camera-steady-when-a-tripod-isnt-possible/
>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Apr 19, 2013, 10:56:31 PM4/19/13
to
In article <x-SdnZgs5YjpM-zM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
however, the tsa can always change their mind on a whim, 'out of an
abundance of caution.'
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
> > walking stick and fold for airline travel?
>
> They all fold (telescope) to a reasonable lengtgh, but I'm not sure
> they'll allow a monopod in the cabin.
monopods and tripods are not prohibited for carry on.
> > Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a
> > walking stick and fold for airline travel?
>
> They all fold (telescope) to a reasonable lengtgh, but I'm not sure
> they'll allow a monopod in the cabin.
however, the tsa can always change their mind on a whim, 'out of an
abundance of caution.'
gregz
Apr 19, 2013, 10:53:51 PM4/19/13
to
when necessary I try to lean up against something, or rest my arms on
something, mostly for low light. I sometimes use a mini pod.
Greg
Frank S
Apr 20, 2013, 12:38:23 AM4/20/13
to
"gregz" <ze...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1429397908388119285.1...@news.eternal-september.org...
there is something to be said for the "top-of-the-arc" technique. Swing
the camera into position and fire it before your hands have a chance to
shake.
--
Frank ess
Savageduck
Apr 20, 2013, 12:58:13 AM4/20/13
to
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peter Jason
Apr 20, 2013, 2:08:27 AM4/20/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:19:10 -0400, Alan Meyer
large inertia.
Mount the camera on a lead slab.
Eric Stevens
Apr 20, 2013, 4:53:29 AM4/20/13
to
stages, diameters etc. You may find one of them may suit you. I've
used one of the heavier ones for years with complete satisfaction.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Alan Browne
Apr 20, 2013, 8:38:58 AM4/20/13
to
On 2013.04.19 21:10 , Alan Meyer wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 04:52 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> ...
>> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>> steady. Lighter is better.
>> ...
>
> I see your point about making the muscles work more. If the camera is
> too heavy the muscles are going to twitch.
>
> Technically, of course, I should have used the term "mass" rather than
> weight. Mass really does damp vibrations. The amount of energy
> required to overcome the inertia of an object with very little mass is
> very little, and proportionally more for an object with a lot of mass.
> Similarly, the same amount of energy put into a massive object and a
> lighter object results in more rapid movement in the light object. It's
> a directly inverse relationship based on E = (mv^2)/2.
High School physics aside, as the mass grows you have to do work to keep
> On 04/19/2013 04:52 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> ...
>> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>> steady. Lighter is better.
>> ...
>
> I see your point about making the muscles work more. If the camera is
> too heavy the muscles are going to twitch.
>
> Technically, of course, I should have used the term "mass" rather than
> weight. Mass really does damp vibrations. The amount of energy
> required to overcome the inertia of an object with very little mass is
> very little, and proportionally more for an object with a lot of mass.
> Similarly, the same amount of energy put into a massive object and a
> lighter object results in more rapid movement in the light object. It's
> a directly inverse relationship based on E = (mv^2)/2.
it stable. More mass, more work.
> This is a factor in the solidity of heavy tripods over light ones -
> though it's not the only one.
A tripod is (normally) resting on the ground and the only advantage of
weight is tipping resistance. Ligther tripods (carbon fibre) still
dampen vibrations quite well - possibly better than metal or wood.
> But, as you point out, there is a limit to what can be gained by
> increasing the weight.
>
> ...
>> In the meantime, try to:
>>
>> -increase the ISO setting
>> -open op the aperture
>>
>> to force a higher shutter speed - esp. when the zoom is way out there.
> ...
>
> Yes. Trading off higher noise and lower depth for less camera shake can
> often produce a superior image.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alan
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 20, 2013, 11:50:50 AM4/20/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:52:04 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
>> vibrations,
>
>It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>steady. Lighter is better.
Hardly a myth. Every body has inertia proportional to its mass (Newton's
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
>> vibrations,
>
>It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>steady. Lighter is better.
first law). Inertia resists any change in motion. A one-pound camera has
more mass and, hence, more inertia than a one-ouuce camera. The more
mass, the more resistance to any change in motion, and therefore, the
more stable. High school physics.
That's one factor. Another factor is muscle strength (and endurance). If
I am holding an object (against gravity), the limits of my strength come
into play. If the weight of the camera is significant relative to my
strength, there could be some shaking due to muscle fatigue. I would
expect that to be minimal (or at least insignificantly different than my
normal stability with empty hands). That is, the difference in this
factor for most non-professional cameras (from ultra compact to DSLRs)
is negligible. A large professional camera with a huge lens would be a
different matter.
Putting these two factors together, I would expect the mass-stability
curve to start at some level (>0) for empty hands and increase slightly
up to some maximum value (1-2 pounds) and then decrease rather more
quickly to zero for weights that I cannot lift at all.
The full analysis is certainly somewshat more complicated and involves
more factors.
Alan Browne
Apr 20, 2013, 1:23:17 PM4/20/13
to
On 2013.04.20 11:50 , Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:52:04 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
>>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
>>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
>>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
>>> vibrations,
>>
>> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>> steady. Lighter is better.
>
> Hardly a myth. Every body has inertia proportional to its mass (Newton's
> first law). Inertia resists any change in motion. A one-pound camera has
> more mass and, hence, more inertia than a one-ouuce camera.
That's fine for pool balls and astronauts. (And it's resistance to
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:52:04 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
>>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
>>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
>>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
>>> vibrations,
>>
>> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
>> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
>> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
>> steady. Lighter is better.
>
> Hardly a myth. Every body has inertia proportional to its mass (Newton's
> first law). Inertia resists any change in motion. A one-pound camera has
> more mass and, hence, more inertia than a one-ouuce camera.
change in velocity, BTW).
But an object held out is continuously subject to the force of gravity
(here on the planet) and so you have to apply an equal and opposite
force to stop it from moving. That force is proportional to the mass
(F=ma).
More mass = more force.
So of course, once something is moving you need to apply a force to stop
it and continue that force to move back to the first position.
As the force is larger with mass, more force is required for a heavier
object.
Holding anything away from your body, unbraced, requires continuous work
to prevent the object from falling. Every little correction is work.
(Why the preferred hand holding technique for an SLR works well with a
viewfinder but not so well with the LCD display).
More force=more work = more energy = more tired = less control = blurry
images.
RichA
Apr 21, 2013, 3:02:56 AM4/21/13
to
Do like a gun-shooter. Slowly squeeze the shutter and allow it to
"surprise you" don't anticipate tripping it. It works very well.
"surprise you" don't anticipate tripping it. It works very well.
bugbear
Apr 22, 2013, 5:52:22 AM4/22/13
to
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-04-19 12:19:10 -0700, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp vibrations, or that it has a strap attachment point on only one side, or that its only viewing mechanism is the LCD display on the back that must be held a foot or more from your eyes to see the picture. And of course being
>> an old guy with shaky hands is probably worst of all.
>>
>> I'm thinking about buying a walking stick monopod (any suggestions?) but I also believe that good hand holding technique makes a big difference in cutting down the vibrations.
>>
>> The best thing I've come up with so far is to hold up my left hand limply in front of my face with the palm facing me. Instead of grasping the camera with my left hand, I rest it on the top. By not actually holding the camera with my fingers and thumb the small muscles in fingers and thumb are relaxed and not involved in supporting the camera. Then I use as little pressure as I can with the right hand to press the shutter release. The camera is secured from falling by the neck strap, so
>> there won't be any serious accidents this way and I've gotten much better results than I did when I tried to hold it tight.
>>
>> Does anyone have any other suggestions?
>>
>> Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a walking stick and fold for airline travel?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Alan
>
> A non-tripod solution which can help steady a camera, is to attach a length of cord or strap to an appropriately sized bolt or tripod mount to screw into the camera's tripod mount. I would suggest something such as the BlackRapid "fastnr" fitting, and add to that their "connectr".
I posted this a while back:
> On 2013-04-19 12:19:10 -0700, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp vibrations, or that it has a strap attachment point on only one side, or that its only viewing mechanism is the LCD display on the back that must be held a foot or more from your eyes to see the picture. And of course being
>> an old guy with shaky hands is probably worst of all.
>>
>> I'm thinking about buying a walking stick monopod (any suggestions?) but I also believe that good hand holding technique makes a big difference in cutting down the vibrations.
>>
>> The best thing I've come up with so far is to hold up my left hand limply in front of my face with the palm facing me. Instead of grasping the camera with my left hand, I rest it on the top. By not actually holding the camera with my fingers and thumb the small muscles in fingers and thumb are relaxed and not involved in supporting the camera. Then I use as little pressure as I can with the right hand to press the shutter release. The camera is secured from falling by the neck strap, so
>> there won't be any serious accidents this way and I've gotten much better results than I did when I tried to hold it tight.
>>
>> Does anyone have any other suggestions?
>>
>> Does anyone particularly recommend a monopod that can double as a walking stick and fold for airline travel?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Alan
>
> A non-tripod solution which can help steady a camera, is to attach a length of cord or strap to an appropriately sized bolt or tripod mount to screw into the camera's tripod mount. I would suggest something such as the BlackRapid "fastnr" fitting, and add to that their "connectr".
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/string_pod.jpg
BugBear
Alan Meyer
Apr 22, 2013, 6:34:06 PM4/22/13
to
On 04/19/2013 06:00 PM, Mort wrote:
> If you are shooting a still object, then try setting the selftimer for
> ca. 10 seconds. Then you can steady the camera with 2 hands without any
> shake due to your releasing the shutter manually.
That's not a bad idea, though I might prefer the shortest possible
> If you are shooting a still object, then try setting the selftimer for
> ca. 10 seconds. Then you can steady the camera with 2 hands without any
> shake due to your releasing the shutter manually.
selftimer, which I believe is two seconds on my camera. One second
would probably be ideal, reducing the vibration while still giving me
some hope that the scene that I capture is the same as the scene I saw
when I pressed the shutter release.
Thanks.
Alan
Alan Meyer
Apr 22, 2013, 6:51:37 PM4/22/13
to
On 04/19/2013 10:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
...
I'll probably buy a monopod just because I like having a walking stick
and it doesn't cost much more or detract from its usefulness as a
walking stick to have a camera mount on it.
However I particularly like some of the suggestions that don't involve
any extra gear. It's always an advantage if you can take a camera out
of your pocket with no extra gear and no setup, and get a steady shot.
Thanks again.
Alan
...
> A non-tripod solution which can help steady a camera, is to attach a
> length of cord or strap to an appropriately sized bolt or tripod mount
> to screw into the camera's tripod mount. I would suggest something such
> as the BlackRapid "fastnr" fitting, and add to that their "connectr".
> < http://www.blackrapid.com/products/fastenr-stealth >
> < http://www.blackrapid.com/products/connectr >
> Then take a length of strap or cord of sufficient length (either a long
> loop or a single length) that you have a loop at the bottom which you
> can put the toe of one of your feet into. Now if you bring the camera up
> to your face, or if you keep your elbows into your side bringing the
> strap/cord under tension you will have a make-shift brace to help steady
> your shot. Not always fool proof, but some folks have found this type of
> thing helpful.
>
> Then Amazon has a fair selection of mono-pods, and walking sticks with
> camera mounts.
> <
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_sq_top?ie=UTF8&index=blended&keywords=walking%20stick%20with%20camera%20mount&pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0013KON18&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17MTT7M4N45PRYY73CFN
>
>>
> or
> < http://tinyurl.com/d7zdlkj >
>
> Here are a few things to check:
> < http://www.sederquist.com/clabrace.html >
> <
> http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/07/25/more-ways-to-hold-a-camera-steady-when-a-tripod-isnt-possible/
A lot of good ideas there. Thanks.
> length of cord or strap to an appropriately sized bolt or tripod mount
> to screw into the camera's tripod mount. I would suggest something such
> as the BlackRapid "fastnr" fitting, and add to that their "connectr".
> < http://www.blackrapid.com/products/fastenr-stealth >
> < http://www.blackrapid.com/products/connectr >
> Then take a length of strap or cord of sufficient length (either a long
> loop or a single length) that you have a loop at the bottom which you
> can put the toe of one of your feet into. Now if you bring the camera up
> to your face, or if you keep your elbows into your side bringing the
> strap/cord under tension you will have a make-shift brace to help steady
> your shot. Not always fool proof, but some folks have found this type of
> thing helpful.
>
> Then Amazon has a fair selection of mono-pods, and walking sticks with
> camera mounts.
> <
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_sq_top?ie=UTF8&index=blended&keywords=walking%20stick%20with%20camera%20mount&pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0013KON18&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17MTT7M4N45PRYY73CFN
>
>>
> or
> < http://tinyurl.com/d7zdlkj >
>
> Here are a few things to check:
> < http://www.sederquist.com/clabrace.html >
> <
> http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/07/25/more-ways-to-hold-a-camera-steady-when-a-tripod-isnt-possible/
I'll probably buy a monopod just because I like having a walking stick
and it doesn't cost much more or detract from its usefulness as a
walking stick to have a camera mount on it.
However I particularly like some of the suggestions that don't involve
any extra gear. It's always an advantage if you can take a camera out
of your pocket with no extra gear and no setup, and get a steady shot.
Thanks again.
Alan
PeterN
Apr 23, 2013, 7:51:25 PM4/23/13
to
--
PeterN
Robert Coe
Apr 27, 2013, 9:32:53 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:23:17 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
call c, in the direction (in its inertial frame) of increasing time. To give
motion (in space) to a stationary object, you must deflect its velocity vector
(in spacetime) so as to give it a component in a spatial direction. It's
comparatively easy (assuming you know vector calculus) to show that the energy
required to do that is proportional to the mass of the object. (It's also
proportional to the tangent of the angle of deflection, which means that the
energy requirement goes up rapidly as the imparted spatial speed is increased.
But that's hardly relevant to this discussion, where the imparted speeds are
very low.)
Bottom line: Jennifer's argument is correct.
: But an object held out is continuously subject to the force of gravity
make to keep it in place outweighed the damping effect of its mass. Unless you
tell me that you've hand-held a view camera, I'll bet you haven't either.
Bob
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
: On 2013.04.20 11:50 , Jennifer Murphy wrote:
: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:52:04 -0400, Alan Browne
: > <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
: >
: >> On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
: >>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
: >>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
: >>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
: >>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
: >>> vibrations,
: >>
: >> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
: >> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
: >> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
: >> steady. Lighter is better.
: >
: > Hardly a myth. Every body has inertia proportional to its mass (Newton's
: > first law). Inertia resists any change in motion. A one-pound camera has
: > more mass and, hence, more inertia than a one-ouuce camera.
:
: That's fine for pool balls and astronauts. (And it's resistance to
: change in velocity, BTW).
Indeed it is. And every object at rest in space is moving, with a speed we
: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:52:04 -0400, Alan Browne
: > <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
: >
: >> On 2013.04.19 15:19 , Alan Meyer wrote:
: >>> I've got one of those very small P&S "travel zoom" cameras (Panasonic
: >>> ZS-9) with up to 16:1 optical zoom. The big challenge in getting sharp
: >>> photos with high zoom is holding the camera steady. It doesn't help
: >>> that the camera is small and light with little weight to damp
: >>> vibrations,
: >>
: >> It's a myth that weight dampens vibrations for hand holding. Weight
: >> means your muscles have to work more. And the more you have to hold the
: >> weight away from your body, the more work you have to do to keep it
: >> steady. Lighter is better.
: >
: > Hardly a myth. Every body has inertia proportional to its mass (Newton's
: > first law). Inertia resists any change in motion. A one-pound camera has
: > more mass and, hence, more inertia than a one-ouuce camera.
:
: That's fine for pool balls and astronauts. (And it's resistance to
: change in velocity, BTW).
call c, in the direction (in its inertial frame) of increasing time. To give
motion (in space) to a stationary object, you must deflect its velocity vector
(in spacetime) so as to give it a component in a spatial direction. It's
comparatively easy (assuming you know vector calculus) to show that the energy
required to do that is proportional to the mass of the object. (It's also
proportional to the tangent of the angle of deflection, which means that the
energy requirement goes up rapidly as the imparted spatial speed is increased.
But that's hardly relevant to this discussion, where the imparted speeds are
very low.)
Bottom line: Jennifer's argument is correct.
: But an object held out is continuously subject to the force of gravity
: (here on the planet) and so you have to apply an equal and opposite
: force to stop it from moving. That force is proportional to the mass
: (F=ma).
:
: More mass = more force.
:
: So of course, once something is moving you need to apply a force to stop
: it and continue that force to move back to the first position.
:
: As the force is larger with mass, more force is required for a heavier
: object.
:
: Holding anything away from your body, unbraced, requires continuous work
: to prevent the object from falling. Every little correction is work.
: (Why the preferred hand holding technique for an SLR works well with a
: viewfinder but not so well with the LCD display).
:
: More force=more work = more energy = more tired = less control = blurry
: images.
I've never lifted a camera so heavy that the corrections my muscles had to
: force to stop it from moving. That force is proportional to the mass
: (F=ma).
:
: More mass = more force.
:
: So of course, once something is moving you need to apply a force to stop
: it and continue that force to move back to the first position.
:
: As the force is larger with mass, more force is required for a heavier
: object.
:
: Holding anything away from your body, unbraced, requires continuous work
: to prevent the object from falling. Every little correction is work.
: (Why the preferred hand holding technique for an SLR works well with a
: viewfinder but not so well with the LCD display).
:
: More force=more work = more energy = more tired = less control = blurry
: images.
make to keep it in place outweighed the damping effect of its mass. Unless you
tell me that you've hand-held a view camera, I'll bet you haven't either.
Bob
MaxD
Apr 27, 2013, 10:52:35 PM4/27/13
to
On 4/21/2013 1:02 AM, RichA wrote:
> Do like a gun-shooter. Slowly squeeze the shutter and allow it to
> "surprise you" don't anticipate tripping it. It works very well.
>
and take a deep breath and hold it until the shutter releases.
> Do like a gun-shooter. Slowly squeeze the shutter and allow it to
> "surprise you" don't anticipate tripping it. It works very well.
>
Max (ex-infantry)
Chris Malcolm
Apr 28, 2013, 6:46:22 AM4/28/13
to
European airports to some destinations X-raying a travel tripod or
monopod in the carry-on bag and insisting that it's a "dangerous
weapon" which must be taken out and consigned to the hold in a
separate labelled transparent bag which they supply. Which then
sometimes doesn't appear at the other end of the flight...
Some travel photogs have taken to freighting their tripod to their
destination in advance, or taking only their head and making
arrangements to borrow legs from local photogs, etc..
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Apr 28, 2013, 7:13:28 AM4/28/13
to
your muscles have to do is to provide the residual balancing, aiming,
and steadying. The worst remaining source of shake with a heavy camera
on a monopod is twisting about the axis of the monopod, because that's
where there's least rotational inertia and least frictional resistance.
Some monopods offer tiny pull-out tripod feet at the end, or a small
flip-out foot plate to stand on, either of which does a good job of
reducing that horizontal rotational movement.
> Putting these two factors together, I would expect the mass-stability
> curve to start at some level (>0) for empty hands and increase slightly
> up to some maximum value (1-2 pounds) and then decrease rather more
> quickly to zero for weights that I cannot lift at all.
my heaviest monopod (with little legs). I usually use that monopod
with the camera directly attached with no head, so for taking shots in
portrait mode I have to hold the monopod plus camera horizontally in
the air, which is pretty heavy. Nevertheless for short duration holds
I find the extra mass of the monopod helps to keep the camera quite
definitely steadier than if I was just holding the camera alone. I
also have a two handed grip with hands much further apart than
possible just on a camera body.
For which reasons I often use the camera with the monopod attached but
folded up and not resting on anything. The extra mass and well spaced
double handed grip gives useful extra stability.
No, I'm not big & strong. I'm 70 years old and weigh about 120
pounds. But I do practice heavy camera carrying on a regular basis :-)
> The full analysis is certainly somewshat more complicated and involves
> more factors.
modelling, I think the best approach is to postpone the analysis and
go out & try stuff. Doing the analyis after the field experiments
instead of before is always a good idea :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Apr 28, 2013, 7:27:21 AM4/28/13
to
cameras and lenses have got, and the fussier I've got about the
increasibgly high levels of detail resolution they're capable of. So
far the heaviest camera & lens I've got gets more stable handheld when
I bolt 2lbs of unsupported monopod to it -- I've tested it.
If my gear ever gets so heavy that it would shake less handheld if it
was lighter I'll just use extra weight bearing props, such as a
shoulder pad, a chest prop, or a monopod foot on the ground.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Apr 28, 2013, 7:32:07 AM4/28/13
to
having to push a button on the camera to shoot. That way I can also
follow action and fire with fast reactions without fear of moving the
camera.
--
Chris Malcolm
Alan Meyer
Apr 28, 2013, 11:54:47 PM4/28/13
to
On 04/28/2013 06:46 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> I've read quite a few recent reports of airport security in some
> European airports to some destinations X-raying a travel tripod or
> monopod in the carry-on bag and insisting that it's a "dangerous
> weapon" which must be taken out and consigned to the hold in a
> separate labelled transparent bag which they supply. Which then
> sometimes doesn't appear at the other end of the flight...
>
> Some travel photogs have taken to freighting their tripod to their
> destination in advance, or taking only their head and making
> arrangements to borrow legs from local photogs, etc..
If we're checking baggage, it looks like it would be smart to put the
> I've read quite a few recent reports of airport security in some
> European airports to some destinations X-raying a travel tripod or
> monopod in the carry-on bag and insisting that it's a "dangerous
> weapon" which must be taken out and consigned to the hold in a
> separate labelled transparent bag which they supply. Which then
> sometimes doesn't appear at the other end of the flight...
>
> Some travel photogs have taken to freighting their tripod to their
> destination in advance, or taking only their head and making
> arrangements to borrow legs from local photogs, etc..
monopod in the checked luggage, not the carryon.
I'll remember that.
Alan
0 new messages