On 17/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >istD or any equivalent DSLR seems to reproduce decent >outputs at higher ISO(say 400+) speeds. > >In outdoor photography, for an amature photographer, >if the focal length of the lens is less than 135mm, I >think tripod may not be a real necessicity. > >This comes as big relief for me because I need not >have to carry my 3KG tripod for hiking. > >I agree tripod is needed for long teles like 300mm/2.8 >because their weight makes it difficult to do handheld >photography. > >I would like hear other opinion on this. > >Thanks >Ramesh
Au contraire mon frere. In fact because the effective focal length is increased on each lens due to the smaller sensor size (on less than 'full-frame' sensor cameras), a tripod may become more essential, depending on the type of photography done. So a 50mm lens acts like a 75 or 80mm lens, and the old yard stick of 1/ 50th of a second handheld on this lens would not apply. It would be 1/ 75th or so. I shoot landscapes on a DSLR and just as with film, a tripod is pretty much essential kit. The difference is, when I stop for a pint, I can switch to 800 ISO on the same camera / lens and shoot available light characters supping beer. To be honest, I find the same photographic principles apply to digital as they do to film in practice. Which makes the transition on the ground much easier... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
