Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: JeroenM on October 21, 2003, 06:38:26 am
-
Aaron is right.
if you use MLU you press once to flip the mirror and once more to take the picture.
if you use the self-timer you need to push only once and there is a 2 econd delay.
-
The Nikon D100 has a mirror pre-fire option (described as "mirror anti-shock" in the custom functions) that causes the mirror to lift about one-half second before the shutter opens, allowing time for the mirror vibrations to dampen before the picture is taken. For photos on a tripod with shutter speeds longer than about 1/15th, this makes a definite improvement--with a good tripod, cable release and mirror prefire, I see no evidence of vibration. Usually my camera stays set in mirror pre-fire mode for all landscape work and I only change that setting when I am taking wildlife or people photos.
The advantage of mirror pre-fire is that only one action (pushing the shutter release) is required to take a photo; i.e., you can continue to look through the viewfinder until you are ready to shoot and you do not have to do not have to take any separate action to raise the mirror. The disadvantage is that you can not take a photo at precisely the instant you want unless you accept the penalty of some mirror vibration.
The question for all camera manufacturers is why, in this day and age of software controlled custom functions, wouldn't it be possible to provide several user selectable options for mirror lockup for all SLR cameras? For many situations, like much landscape photography, the one-step simplicity of the Nikon mirror pre-fire is easiest. For other situations (such prefocusing on a bird's nest), a two-step lock up with instant shutter response is better.
-
I think it was the English nature photographer Eric Hosking that lost an eye getting a little too lose to a bird of prey. Even Capa probably got a little too close to the action in Indochina and it cost him his life.
-
What! You didn't fall for that! :) I had hoped at least someone would provide an insight into Einstein's Theory of Relativity for me.
-
yea, that is the point, not what it appears to be. And the MLU issue is?
-
Michael(everybody), I must be missing something.
Scenario: Here comes the mommy-osprey with dinner. the camera/tripod/long-lens is focused/framed exactly where she always lands.
The mirror is locked-up. I am watching(binocs perhaps) and will press the (remote/electronic/whatever)release, with luck, at the exact moment of wing-spread touchdown, babies straining forward, mouths agape....NOW!!
Is or is-not this possible with Canon's top digicams today?
Or am I limited to a 2-second long "guess" as to when to press the release, so the mirror will THEN lock-up and fire the shutter 2 seconds later, ...with a snowball-in-####'s chance of the timing being right?
Say it isn't so.
Thanks,
Larry
:(
-
If your photographing the inanimate and are worried about the amount of vibration from that mirror, you should buy a tripod with a fluid head that is at least 50lbs. Use a ground screw to fix it to the floor, install a wind break and stand on a suspended platform. Then at the moment you press the shutter the earth will move!
There are situations when reducing vibration is critical but in the majority of cases locking the mirror is overkill. If you think it is important then use a view camera. For my part I think the photographic style of Henri Cartier-Bresson “To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event” cannot be achieved on a tripod waiting for the timer to decide the decisive moment.
-
http://www.poelking.com/index_e.htm (http://www.poelking.com/index_e.htm)
Read this entertaining letter by Nature Photography Master, Fritz Polking as to why he changed from being a Nikon champion to a Canon Advocate. Other interesting stuff on his site in the workshop sections. Michael and Fritz are singing a Duet here!
-
There are situations when reducing vibration is critical but in the majority of cases locking the mirror is overkill. If you think it is important then use a view camera.
My own experience(manual/film) and Polking's experiments(Thanks, Erin, I was familiar with that excellent site;-), among others, have settled the MLU-or-not issue to my satisfaction. I'm definitely with the use-it-when-possible crowd.
My question was prompted only by the desire to know in-what-fashion the feature was usable in the top Canons.
Thanks to all for the answers!
View camera? OK, ...maybe I should look for that affordable tele-lens for it first, huh? :-) Ospreys are studio-shy.
I guess I missed Henri's wild-bird shots.
The shot I described was part motion(the birds), part static (everything else). I'll let the shutter speed stop the action, while MLU stops vibration on my end.
Viewfinder-monitoring not needed in the situation I described, the shot is pre-framed, as the point of action is known, ...the only issue is timing. Binocs make a great "viewfinder" in such a case.
Larry
-
For my part I think the photographic style of Henri Cartier-Bresson “To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event” cannot be achieved on a tripod waiting for the timer to decide the decisive moment.
I thought Cartier-Bresson used cameras that didn't have mirrors to lock up (Leica etc). His style and subject matter have nothing to do with shooting landscapes and wildlife either. Certainly with landscapes the "decisive moment" is often hours away waiting for the light after you have your composition the way you want it. With landscapes I think a tripod a MLU will help you capture the decisive moment.
From my personal experience I beleive that mirror lockup is a tool that improves image quality for landscapes. And many systems (like canon) allow YOU to choose the decisive moment even with miror lockup.
Maybe I drink too much coffee (or not enough) but I almost always see a difference when using mirror lockup at shutter speeds longer than 1/125th. Tripod, MLU and remote release are the most valuable accessories I have and one is far less useful without the other two.
Just an opinion
Gordon
-
Photography is as much the art of time as it is composition, the moment is important.
Show the impact from not using MLU – I expect this is so dependent on the setup, Lens, tripod, mount, subject, angle of camera, ground, cable release, weather, focusing technique etc. I do think there is a place for MLU. So prove me stupid lets see some examples of this problem that make the photo trash...
There is another interesting article Sharp Photographs (http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm) on poelking.com...
I heard a quote today - “Study the technique, but let the spirit prevail”...
-
View camera? OK, ...maybe I should look for that affordable tele-lens for it first, huh? :-) Ospreys are studio-shy.
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough" Robert Capa.
-
If your photographing the inanimate and are worried about the amount of vibration from that mirror, you should buy a tripod with a fluid head that is at least 50lbs. Use a ground screw to fix it to the floor, install a wind break and stand on a suspended platform. Then at the moment you press the shutter the earth will move!
Victor,
I know you're being facetious with regard to the above, but just for a bit of fun, could we take that last sentence to its logical conclusion.
Let's assume we have a perfect lens and have successfully banished all vibration and atmospheric distortion, and all that remains is the movement of the earth (and everything on it) in relation to the light beams between subject and camera.
Let's suppose we're photographing a tall building exactly one kilometre away. The light takes 1/300,000th of a second to reach the camera, during which time the earth has moved in its orbit around the sun about 277mm (30,000 KM/hour = 83km/sec divided by 300,000 = 277mm).
Assuming, the line between building and camera is at right angles to the movement of the earth in its orbit, the building will appear to be fatter than it actually is, to both the eyes and the camera.
Is this true? And if it is true, does the building appear fatter by approximately 227mm? For the purpose of this calculation, I'm ignoring the fact that the earth is also rotating and that the entire solar system is whizzing around the centre of our galaxy.
-
Ray, maybe Dr Ruth can help
-
About that 277mm, take a look at this picture of Tower Bridge in London, the far tower looks bigger than the near tower. Tower Bridge (http://www.michaeljamesbrown.com/cityscapes/towerbridge.htm)
Michael James Brown (http://www.michaeljamesbrown.com) is one of the better landscape photographers, think he has an XPAN, no mirror vibration
-
The more-distant tower(our left) appears "wider" because it's face is more square to the viewer. I.E., if you stood beside one tower, you'd see nothing at all of IT'S face, and have nearly a fully-square view of the other.
Wolfy,
Yep! I think you're spot on.
-
Actually, I just came back to edit my above post. The point that Wolfy made is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if that effect has been slightly exaggerated by lens distortion. Wide angle lenses are notorious for distortion towards the edges.
Victor, not sure about your cryptic reference to MLU. What's that got to do with perspective?
-
Larry,
With a Canon SLR body, once you have locked the mirror in the "up" position you have a set period of time (sorry can't remember exactly how long but it is in the order of one minute) to release the shutter (usually with a remote cable release) before the mirror returns to its normal "viewing" position. The two second delay that Michael refers to in his excellent article is the time difference between pressing the shutter release to lock up the mirror and the actual opening of the shutter when in self-timer mode (useful when a remote cable release is not available or desired). For the shooting situation you described one would be better off using an Image-Stabilsed lens on a solid tripod/mount and just forgo the mirror lock-up in favour of viewing your subject/composition through the viewfinder. Most modern SLR bodies will allow you to fire a rapid sequence of frames with minimal shutter lag thereby capturing the elusive moment. Hope that this clarifies things for you.
-
Sorry the link doesn't go direct to the article, click
'Workshop" on the left column, scroll down to "Nikon or Canon"
Oh yes, don't get sidetracked on the way!
-
There is another interesting article Sharp Photographs (http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm) on poelking.com...
This is the site referred-to by Erin and myself, above.
The name (Polking) is spelled without the "e" on the homepage, ...don't know why it is different in the link address.
Yes, interesting info w/ and w/o MLU and IS. ???
-
Let's assume we have a perfect lens and have successfully banished all vibration and atmospheric distortion, and all that remains is the movement of the earth (and everything on it) in relation to the light beams between subject and camera.
Let's suppose we're photographing a tall building exactly one kilometre away. The light takes 1/300,000th of a second to reach the camera, during which time the earth has moved in its orbit around the sun about 277mm (30,000 KM/hour = 83km/sec divided by 300,000 = 277mm).
Assuming, the line between building and camera is at right angles to the movement of the earth in its orbit, the building will appear to be fatter than it actually is, to both the eyes and the camera.
Is this true? And if it is true, does the building appear fatter by approximately 227mm? For the purpose of this calculation, I'm ignoring the fact that the earth is also rotating and that the entire solar system is whizzing around the centre of our galaxy.
I just shook my head at this, ...and the entire image shifted out of my field-of-view!
-
My first reaction was - the image has been stitched. I don't think an XPAN would do that. On the other hand, I don't actually know that those two towers actually are the same size. Have you checked them out. :D
-
About that 277mm, take a look at this picture of Tower Bridge in London, the far tower looks bigger than the near tower. Tower Bridge (http://www.michaeljamesbrown.com/cityscapes/towerbridge.htm)
??? Towers look right to me.
The tower to our right is taller (bigger) and is nearer(...the foreground area diminishes toward the right side of the frame....the photo having obviously been take on-or-near the right bank of the river.
The more-distant tower(our left) appears "wider" because it's face is more square to the viewer. I.E., if you stood beside one tower, you'd see nothing at all of IT'S face, and have nearly a fully-square view of the other.(for an extreme example of the effect, look at the "Gate" arches at the ends of the bridge.
-
Ray, just that MLU is not as important as it seems...