Awful at what, technical or artistic?
Awful at what, technical or artistic?
ddrueding
Fixture
Technical. I haven't even bothered to start on the artistic.
I think you are underestimating your ability just a bit. And the "technical" aspects of photography are really only a tiny fraction of what makes a great photo. Sure Lunar has tons and tons of expensive PRO gear but I bet he'd take some great photos with a simple point and shoot if the location/subject were there for him to capture.
Do you have any experience with film DSLRs?
When my friend and I took our Zion/Bryce trip and it was our first photo trip in a long time (decades) I realized that we weren't taking as many pics as we should. We would look at something and decide "No, that won't work," or "bad light," or "not enough x," or "too close/far from subject," or "bad fore/background." etc, etc, etc.
But those issues were because the last time we used a camera in a meaningful way we were shooting a film camera and the limited number of exposures we could take. We had to self-censor because at the time the number of shots was limited. With only 6-10, 36-exp rolls of Plus-X and/or Tri-X we had to think about the shots before we'd shoot.
I had to keep reminding myself and my friend to "just shoot it." We have eight 64GB SD cards. Shoot, shoot it. Bracket the exposure. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Just shoot it. Maybe we can fix issues in post, but just shoot it. Shoot it.
As we were walking along the Virgin river in Zion or on the trails of Bryce Canyon we'd discuss a lot a shots before even looking through the viewfinder. Subject, Composition, Lighting, Framing, Exposure, DOF issues and the like. Having a sounding board really helps when you are starting out or RE-Starting out after a long absence.
Do you have any friends/relatives that are into photography? A simple photo day trip to the local mountains/forest/dessert can work wonders to get the creative juices going.
Last edited:
Interesting. The price isn't all that much more than the Sigma Art 50mm. Only several hundreds more. Not the typical several thousands more for a Zeiss lens.
I wonder how the modern Zeiss linked above would compare to something old like this 1977 Nikkor? At least in the center of the frame.
I thought you would say that the technical part is easy and that you are struggling with the artistic.
You need to decide what to photograph and why. Learn as much of the technical as you like, but concentrate on what you can do, not what you cannot.
Every time you get some wild idea for a super-complicated engineering solution, think what would a real photographer do with normally available equipment.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Semi-pro DSLRs have so many controls it's mind boggling. Even the flash is. Since my D700 use is infrequent, I keep forgetting anything beyond AV/RV mode and the basic settings. When I'm in a hurry, I just grab the point and shoot.
DD is really good with that stuff and is exposed to a lot of it during/for his day job so I can understand why he comes at it from that angle.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm familiar enough with the camera that I can get the settings where I want them pretty quickly and even manage to eyeball decent manual exposure settings before touching the camera. That leaves the creative side where I feel my pictures fall down. I try to compensate for that by taking pictures that others can't or wouldn't. This involves risk to hardware or more advanced techniques that require more technical understanding or more hardware. Of course, while I do enjoy the challenge of these trickier shots, it makes the shots even harder to pull off.
Since I'm awake when vampires are because of my night work schedule I've been playing around with taking night-time time lapse MOVs of stars. I'm using my 16-35 @ 16mm wide open @ f/4. Picture taken every 8sec and converted to a 1080p30 MOV in-camera. Exposure ISO-1600, 4sec @ f/4 including +2EV overexposure to bring out the dimmer stars. Anything above +2EV overexposure (even +2.3) and I get an orange glow from the sodium vapor street lights.
Issues:
1) Focusing. Obviously AF isn't going to work when a camera is pointed directly up at the 2am night sky. I turn off AF, and turn lens focus ring to "infinity" but it seems that you need to "back-up" a bit from "full infinity" to get good focus. I tried live-view and zooming in but I can't seem to find a star or the display is just noisy. So I've been taking a pic then turning focus ring a tiny bit and check photo to get best focus. ANY BETTER WAY?
2) Exposure. ISO-6400 @ 1sec or ISO-1600 @ 4sec? "Mathematically" those two exposures should be the same but do thing become "non-linear" at exposure/sensor extremes? Which would be better? Will the lower ISO result in lower noise/better quality or will noise/picture quality be determined by amount of light getting to sensor.
3) Any special setting I should set-up camera for? Long-exposure noise reduction? HDR? Etc?
Issues:
1) Focusing. Obviously AF isn't going to work when a camera is pointed directly up at the 2am night sky. I turn off AF, and turn lens focus ring to "infinity" but it seems that you need to "back-up" a bit from "full infinity" to get good focus. I tried live-view and zooming in but I can't seem to find a star or the display is just noisy. So I've been taking a pic then turning focus ring a tiny bit and check photo to get best focus. ANY BETTER WAY?
2) Exposure. ISO-6400 @ 1sec or ISO-1600 @ 4sec? "Mathematically" those two exposures should be the same but do thing become "non-linear" at exposure/sensor extremes? Which would be better? Will the lower ISO result in lower noise/better quality or will noise/picture quality be determined by amount of light getting to sensor.
3) Any special setting I should set-up camera for? Long-exposure noise reduction? HDR? Etc?
ddrueding
Fixture
1. Nope. If you can't see anything in the live view you are SOL. You could point at the moon and AF there before turning AF off, but that might be more work for less optimal result.
2. A 4-sec exposure @ 16mm is fine and should give a less noisy result. For me, astrophotography exposure times are always limited by the movement of the earth and avoiding trails. I find the longest shutter speed I can get away with and build from there.
3. If your workflow allows you to do exposure stacking you can get much cleaner results. Never tried that with time-lapse stuff, but the same concept should apply. Take 2 pictures back-to-back every however long and combine to remove noise before building into the video. No idea how to program that exactly, but I'll have a think.
2. A 4-sec exposure @ 16mm is fine and should give a less noisy result. For me, astrophotography exposure times are always limited by the movement of the earth and avoiding trails. I find the longest shutter speed I can get away with and build from there.
3. If your workflow allows you to do exposure stacking you can get much cleaner results. Never tried that with time-lapse stuff, but the same concept should apply. Take 2 pictures back-to-back every however long and combine to remove noise before building into the video. No idea how to program that exactly, but I'll have a think.
ddrueding
Fixture
I don't use tracking, but I feature-match between the shots and crop to the portion that is included in all the images.
I tried a star trails shot but the sodium vapor street lights from downtown Phoenix and surrounding suburbs produce too much ambient light.
Edit: I aimed camera toward the western sky, Phoenix is east of my location.
16mm, f/8, 30mins, ISO-100.
I guess I could try f/22 but long exposure is probably a no-go. Plus I think my camera may be limited to 30 minutes anyways. I have and use a ML-L3 IR remote control trigger.
Edit: I aimed camera toward the western sky, Phoenix is east of my location.
16mm, f/8, 30mins, ISO-100.
I guess I could try f/22 but long exposure is probably a no-go. Plus I think my camera may be limited to 30 minutes anyways. I have and use a ML-L3 IR remote control trigger.
ddrueding
Fixture
Big advantage of being on that boat 20+ mile offshore was that there was very little light pollution.
How are you guys getting the image to show in the post?
How are you guys getting the image to show in the post?
The big disadvantage is that unless the boat sank in shallow water, it's not exactly stable. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Nice moon shot.
There may be a way to get your image to show directly when you upload your image to the Storageforum server but I don't know how. Plus to reduce server load, use an image hosting site.
Create a free acct with postimage.org you only need an email address. Then you can upload pics to them and they provide various links. Super simple interface. Then for each pic you can...(see pic below) click the option they provide and paste it into your post here. Postimage adds a second link to your pic to advertise postimage but you can just delete it.
I use the windows Snipping Tool to cut down on size or crop or whatever and upload that. Simple.
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for that. I have image hosting elsewhere, but have avoided it due to the additional effort (4x the work of uploading to the forum? 10x?). I was hoping for a simple modification to the tag.
I gave up trying to figure out how I can get it to work here.
Launch Postimage.org in a new tab, Login (or stay logged in), click the "browse" button, navigate to your pic, then upload. Super quick/fast. I think it's easier/faster than the BBS interface here. You get a list of links, thumbnail or hotlink, click "copy to clipboard" then paste link into your post here.
Plus many forums, because of their size, do not have the image upload feature enabled anyways. So you HAVE TO HAVE an image host to post pics in a message.
Postimage has a simple, basic UI, but for posting images to a forum it works good enough. Use the fancy-pants web-hosts for more "complicated" needs.
Plus it saves a bit of bandwidth use on THIS server.
I'm seriously thinking of picking up this.
The 80-400 is almost twice the price. I don't think I'll use the the short end (80-200mm) very much. And it doesn't seem to be as good as the $2700 price tag dictates.
My only concern is that I think the long end (400-500mm) is really going to drop in quality compared to the short end (200-400mm) of the lens.
I want it now but I should wait for test results. Muuuuuuuuuuust Reeeeeeeeeeeesist buying NOW.
The 80-400 is almost twice the price. I don't think I'll use the the short end (80-200mm) very much. And it doesn't seem to be as good as the $2700 price tag dictates.
My only concern is that I think the long end (400-500mm) is really going to drop in quality compared to the short end (200-400mm) of the lens.
I want it now but I should wait for test results. Muuuuuuuuuuust Reeeeeeeeeeeesist buying NOW.
ddrueding
Fixture
Wow that is a big lens. Wouldn't work for me as I don't think I can handhold 500mm @ F5.6 at any reasonable ISO. 400@F4 is enough of a challenge.
:scratch:
When did you buy a 400mm f/4? I'm jealous.
Your 100-400mm is f/5.6 @ 400mm. The Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E shouldn't be that much more difficult to hand hold. On a sunny day, ISO-200 should give me about 1/1250sec to 1/1600sec @ f/5.6. ISO-400 would allow f/8.
I was considering the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR + a TC-14E iii which would equal 420mm @ f/5.6 but that combo is $1100 more expensive than the 200-500mm f/5.6E alone.
Now if the 200-500mm sucks ass, or the 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC yields better quality then I'm willing to spend the bucks. But I'm hoping the 200-500 is decent "enough" as it's only $1400.
ddrueding
Fixture
I stand entirely corrected. f/5.6 it is. And I do have issues hand-holding, but I shake quite a bit.
I didn't mean to discount your issues, I apologize.
I'm just trying to figure out why you are having said issues and thought exposure was the problem. Seems like a faster shutter speed is in order. Blurriness from camera shake would be worse than bumping the ISO up one EV. Underexpose one EV and fix in post to give you another stop of shutter. Mono-pod? Your 100-400mm has good IS so maybe technique?
ddrueding
Fixture
No need to apologize, I should know the spec of my own equipment. I suspect much of the problem is that I don't shoot in full-daylight conditions much; magic-hour if I'm lucky, dusk otherwise.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
What sort of shutter speeds are you using, Dave? The 100-400 is cinchy to hand-hold at any sensible speed. It's not a 15mm fisheye, so don't expect to get away with 1/15th hand-held, but you should be getting consistently excellent results anywhere over 1/500th and a high proportion of keepers at 1/200th.
Time to re-check your technique. A man of your age should be much more able to hand hold a little lens like a 100-400 than a skinny old bugger like me. A few tips:
Shoot in bursts of three. Often, camera movement is related to the motion of pressing the shutter. Unconsciously, you tense up. Sometimes, the harder you try to do it gently, the worse you shake. In trying to make your shutter finger "quiet", the rest of your body does all sorts of weird things. Watch a golfer on a bad day trying to deal with a slice. He concentrates so much on bringing the head through correctly that his elbows waggle around like jelly sticks, his south foot points nor-nor west, his shoulders are a mile out of true and the whole exercise resembles pushing a pea with a long rope. It's a bit like that. Just relax, concentrate without tensing, and roll your finger over the shutter. It doesn't matter if you move a bit 'cause you are shooting a burst of three and if the first one is blurry, #2 and #3 will be fine. Think still. Breathe slowly and moderately. Press the shutter on the exhale. Mind sharp, body lazy. That'll nail it every time.
At your age, you are able to hand-hold a much bigger lens than the 100-400. Easily.
Don't buggerise about with Snowhiker's under-exposure trick, it doesn't work. (Sorry Snowhiker.) The physics are quite clear on this. You'll get at least equal results using one extra stop of ISO, and in most cases better. Your camera is pretty smart: it is good at getting all possible detail out of any given exposure. Don't try to second-guess it, it is smarter than you are. Let it do its job.
A refinement: the intermediate ISO stops are not "real" insofar as they are simply pushed versions of the real ISO stops. ISO 500 on a 7D, for example, is actually ISO 400 pushed a bit by the camera's own logic. (I.e., the same as Snowhiker's method only it's the camera itself doing the pushing, which is usually better 'cause the Canon software is smarter than you are.) ISO 640 is actually ISO 800 pushed in the other direction. And so on. Only the major stops (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, & etc. in most Canon cameras, Nikons are a bit different) are real. The others are interpolated. You get better results using the one-third up interpolated stops than the one third down ones. Assume you are at ISO 400 and need more. Go to 500 ISO: you get almost the same noise you get at 400 (because you really are at 400, the camera is pushing it). Need more? Don't bother going to 640. 640 is actually 800 reverse pushed. You might as well go straight to 800 and be done with it. Press on up to 1000 if you need it, then go straight to 1600. And so on. Disclaimer: this is true for the cameras I own and have owned. It may or may not be true for the latest models. Send me a few grand and I'll buy a 5D IIISR and test it out for you! No trouble, anything to oblige. Better send enough for two, just in case.
The old 100-400 (you do have the old one, I assume) is indeed ancient, but as Snowhiker says the IS is remarkably good even so. Monopods work brilliantly (as he says). I've never got the habit of using one - full-on tripod or hand-held for me, don't even own a mono anymore - but do as I say not as I do. I have many friends who use them with great success.
Oh, and grip. Grip matters a lot. Get the left hand well forward on the lens. Within the bounds of comfort (comfort matters because if you stretch too far you shake more), the further apart your hands are the better. Think about the physics of it: the problem is angular movement of the lens. Even a tiny 1mm vertical movement (horizontal the same but let's keep it simple) at the pivot point of the lens is magnified by the distance to your subject. At shooting distance, 1mm lens movement turns into maybe 300mm on the subject. Massive blur! Assume that you are getting that 1mm movement holding the lens 100mm away from the camera body. (I.e., left hand 100mm in front of the body.) Now move your left hand outwards close to the end of the lens. On an extended 100-400, your hands are now ~ 300mm apart: you still have the same 1mm vertical movement, but now it is pivoting three times further away from the camera body, which cuts the on-subject blur distance from 300mm to 100mm. That's worth having! In other words, what you are doing by getting your hands further apart is reducing the "shake leverage" distance. It has the same practical effect as shooting with a 133mm lens instead of a 400. I normally hold a 100-400 (or the 500/4 for that matter) right at the end of the lens proper, just where it joins the hood.
Time to re-check your technique. A man of your age should be much more able to hand hold a little lens like a 100-400 than a skinny old bugger like me. A few tips:
Shoot in bursts of three. Often, camera movement is related to the motion of pressing the shutter. Unconsciously, you tense up. Sometimes, the harder you try to do it gently, the worse you shake. In trying to make your shutter finger "quiet", the rest of your body does all sorts of weird things. Watch a golfer on a bad day trying to deal with a slice. He concentrates so much on bringing the head through correctly that his elbows waggle around like jelly sticks, his south foot points nor-nor west, his shoulders are a mile out of true and the whole exercise resembles pushing a pea with a long rope. It's a bit like that. Just relax, concentrate without tensing, and roll your finger over the shutter. It doesn't matter if you move a bit 'cause you are shooting a burst of three and if the first one is blurry, #2 and #3 will be fine. Think still. Breathe slowly and moderately. Press the shutter on the exhale. Mind sharp, body lazy. That'll nail it every time.
At your age, you are able to hand-hold a much bigger lens than the 100-400. Easily.
Don't buggerise about with Snowhiker's under-exposure trick, it doesn't work. (Sorry Snowhiker.) The physics are quite clear on this. You'll get at least equal results using one extra stop of ISO, and in most cases better. Your camera is pretty smart: it is good at getting all possible detail out of any given exposure. Don't try to second-guess it, it is smarter than you are. Let it do its job.
A refinement: the intermediate ISO stops are not "real" insofar as they are simply pushed versions of the real ISO stops. ISO 500 on a 7D, for example, is actually ISO 400 pushed a bit by the camera's own logic. (I.e., the same as Snowhiker's method only it's the camera itself doing the pushing, which is usually better 'cause the Canon software is smarter than you are.) ISO 640 is actually ISO 800 pushed in the other direction. And so on. Only the major stops (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, & etc. in most Canon cameras, Nikons are a bit different) are real. The others are interpolated. You get better results using the one-third up interpolated stops than the one third down ones. Assume you are at ISO 400 and need more. Go to 500 ISO: you get almost the same noise you get at 400 (because you really are at 400, the camera is pushing it). Need more? Don't bother going to 640. 640 is actually 800 reverse pushed. You might as well go straight to 800 and be done with it. Press on up to 1000 if you need it, then go straight to 1600. And so on. Disclaimer: this is true for the cameras I own and have owned. It may or may not be true for the latest models. Send me a few grand and I'll buy a 5D IIISR and test it out for you! No trouble, anything to oblige. Better send enough for two, just in case.
The old 100-400 (you do have the old one, I assume) is indeed ancient, but as Snowhiker says the IS is remarkably good even so. Monopods work brilliantly (as he says). I've never got the habit of using one - full-on tripod or hand-held for me, don't even own a mono anymore - but do as I say not as I do. I have many friends who use them with great success.
Oh, and grip. Grip matters a lot. Get the left hand well forward on the lens. Within the bounds of comfort (comfort matters because if you stretch too far you shake more), the further apart your hands are the better. Think about the physics of it: the problem is angular movement of the lens. Even a tiny 1mm vertical movement (horizontal the same but let's keep it simple) at the pivot point of the lens is magnified by the distance to your subject. At shooting distance, 1mm lens movement turns into maybe 300mm on the subject. Massive blur! Assume that you are getting that 1mm movement holding the lens 100mm away from the camera body. (I.e., left hand 100mm in front of the body.) Now move your left hand outwards close to the end of the lens. On an extended 100-400, your hands are now ~ 300mm apart: you still have the same 1mm vertical movement, but now it is pivoting three times further away from the camera body, which cuts the on-subject blur distance from 300mm to 100mm. That's worth having! In other words, what you are doing by getting your hands further apart is reducing the "shake leverage" distance. It has the same practical effect as shooting with a 133mm lens instead of a 400. I normally hold a 100-400 (or the 500/4 for that matter) right at the end of the lens proper, just where it joins the hood.
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for all that Tannin. I'll give those tips a shot next time I'm out. And I do have the new version of the lens, with even better IS, making my situation even more silly.
I was thinking the same thing as well. The 100-400mm zoom is NOT the size of the "big" teles.
The particularities of the Canon firmware are very interesting and information that I did not know. I wonder if Lunar knows if the Nikon firmware acts the same way.
But ... :scratch: I suggested DD underexpose his shots (aka bump up the ISO) a bit to get a faster shutter so shots won't be effected by image shake and you say that trick won't work. Then you describe doing the same thing? Go from ISO 400 --> 500, but if you need more just go to 800, then 1000, etc.
Your intricate knowledge of how the Canon firmware actually works will lead to better results (aka less noise, etc) that's for sure. And if DD can get a bit faster shutter speed out of it. Perfect.
Good advice for sure. As far as grips go, do you have a battery grip DD? My Nikon D610 naked, just the bare-body + lens feels awkward in my hands (my hands aren't all that big BTW). But when I added the accessory battery grip I feel like I have a much better grasp of the new "bigger" camera body.
ddrueding
Fixture
I have the battery grip, but don't use it that often. Most of the time I walk around with a 24/1.4 (quite small) and the battery pack adds considerably to the weight.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Not quite the same thing, Snowhiker. The two processes are different. Let's follow them through:
(a) Underexpose and push it in post
- Fail to provide the optimum amount of light to the sensor. (You have to do this, otherwise you'd just use a faster lens or a longer exposure in the first place.)
- Gather signal data plus shot noise. (All images of any kind contain shot noise. It is a constant dictated by the quantum nature of light. But it only becomes noticeable when the signal is low.)
- Amplify this result (including the noise) and read it out. In doing this, you are adding read noise. Again, this is inevitable.
- Amplify the result in post (one again amplifying both the shot noise and the read noise).
(b) Boost the ISO
- Fail to provide the optimum amount of light to the sensor. (Same as (a).)
- Gather signal data plus shot noise. (Same as (a).)
- Amplify this result more than in (a) (once again including the shot noise) and read it out. In doing this, you are adding read noise.
- No further amplification required. Notice that we did not amplify the read noise, only the shot noise.
In general, shot noise is more significant than read noise. Nevertheless, it is a factor we are better off not amplifying.
The second factor to consider is the quality of the amplification. To what extent is it, and the associated noise reduction, able to be fine-tuned to the particular camera? The camera's own logic is best at this because the engineers can (and do) tweak it to work in an optimal way with their particular hardware.
The third factor works against factor 2. This is the machinery you use to do the processing. Although the camera itself is better tweaked, and camera DSPs are very powerful indeed these days, they are nevertheless nothing like as powerful as even a very small general-purpose desktop computer. At this point we are really talking about noise reduction software, we have left the basic image capturing discussion behind and are onto another topic.
And I'm late for work! Later.
ddrueding
Fixture
Careful with that, I hear your boss can be a bit demanding. Thanks for taking the time.
Gotcha. If you want/need light weight remove the battery grip. But when you are using your 100-400mm perhaps the extra weight of the grip, and the larger surface area in which you can hold onto the camera, can give you some added stability. Or perhaps it will make things worse. Just tossing ideas out there.
This LOL. My reply was made as I was in a rush to get ready for work myself and I had two different ideas ("Underexposing" and "altering ISO") in my head and was mixing up my remarks on both. My bad.
Very interesting. I'm on the cusp of understanding, but as of now it's a bit over my head. Shot noise Vs. Read noise? Shot noise is introduced because sensor isn't getting the light it needs, while Read noise is the amplification of the sensor data?
I'll have to think/read about this more. Interesting and complicated subject for sure.
Anyways .... as per the original question regarding DD getting poor images using his 100-400mm lens due to image shake and the best remedy for said problem ....
- Blurry pics caused by image shake (for whatever reason) are worse (generally) than sharp images with a bit of added noise correct?
- Increasing shutter speeds can reduce image shake and the percentage of blurry pics.
- Ways to increase shutter speed. 1) Spend big bucks for faster a lens, 2) Increase ISO, 3) Underexposing image at shutter release then fix in post.
How would you attack the problem? Obvious solutions such as shoot only in bright light and use a tripod will solve the problem. But if those fixes aren't available or viable what steps can be taken to capture better, sharp images.
Again much thanks for your time and effort to impart your knowledge of said subjects.
My 5DsR fell on the asphalt, bounced, rolled down the hill and then was stopped by a rock.
I'll reply to some threads later.
OUCH!!!
You just described my nightmare scenario. Insurance?
Bummer.
This has curbed my enthusiasm just a bit. Gonna wait till all day one issues are resolved and a few test results come back.
The 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G is expensive and I don't need half its range. Very good IQ.
The 300mm f/4E PF is semi expensive but doesn't have as much reach. Excellent IQ.
The 200-500 f/5.6E has AF issues from the get go. Unknown IQ.
Come on Nikon. Get your SH*T together.
This has curbed my enthusiasm just a bit. Gonna wait till all day one issues are resolved and a few test results come back.
The 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G is expensive and I don't need half its range. Very good IQ.
The 300mm f/4E PF is semi expensive but doesn't have as much reach. Excellent IQ.
The 200-500 f/5.6E has AF issues from the get go. Unknown IQ.
Come on Nikon. Get your SH*T together.
It's a rather cheap lens, so don't expect too much. The 80-400 and D7200 are not bad for reach and practicality. Use your D610 when the subjects are closer.
The 300/4 is a small/light specialty lens. I suggest buying a variety of other lenses first.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It's an interesting discussion Snowhiker; my pleasure to be a part of it.
To the latter yes, exactly. To the former, almost. Shot noise is the consequence of the quantum nature of light. Popularly it is said that light is both a wave and a particle, and that it swaps around between the two depending on the circumstances. In fact, of course, it is neither, it is simply light and it acts the way it acts all the time because that's what it does. Unless you have the brilliant mind of a quantum physicist or the peculiarly twisted mind of a certain small ape known to both of us, however, it's easier just to think in terms of waves and particles. In this instance we are interested in the particle-like way that a light quantum (photon) either arrives at a given spot or at some other spot. Either you have a whole photon or none, never in between.
When you are counting photons (which is essentially what a sensor does, be that in your camera or your eye) across a range of spots (pixel locations), there is never an exactly even distribution. From a as-even-as-possible source, site #1 might collect 100,000 photons in 1/100th of a second, where site #2 might collect 999,342 photons and site #3 100,104. For all practical purposes, these three numbers are identical. You can't tell their results apart. Now reduce the lighting. Spot #1 might be getting 100 photons, site #2 99, and #3 102. Most likely you still can't tell them apart and the image still looks smooth and noise free. Now reduce the lighting again for 10 photons, and 8 and 11. There is a noticeable difference this time and the image is visibly noisy even though (for the sake of our example) we are assuming 100% perfect detection, amplification and recording. In the extreme case, where the average photon count per sensor site is (say) 0.5, you will observe patterns like 0, 1, 1, and 1, 0, 0, and even 0, 2, 0. These are grossly noisy, of course.
This is shot noise. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it (except collect more light in the first place). Light comes in whole quanta and if the only way you can smooth it out is to collect a large enough number of photons to make the random variations small in relation to the average count. (For simplicity here I'm assuming three pixel sites each recording an identical light level. Practical cases are more complex, of course, but the principles hold good.)
Matter of taste and opinion, but I strongly agree. I'd always rather a bit of noise than any camera shake at all. I imagine that most other people would too.
The ways you mention are pretty much it. Each is evil in its own particular way. We can add more options though:
1: just reduce the shutter speed and take more shots in the hope that at least one of them will be sharp enough. This is worth doing if you are stuck. Especially with an IS/VR lens, it works quite often. You can't rely on it, it's a bit like putting 50c on 15 different slow horses at 100 and 200 to 1 odds, but it can be worth a try. Electrons are cheap!
2: think of some creative way to steady the camera: lean against a tree, place it on a conveniently-situated rock, anything!
3: use a shorter lens and get closer! This isn't always an option, but if you are able to get close to the subject you can cut the shake way, way down with a short lens. Even without IS/VR, most people can reliably hand-hold sharp pictures at 1/10th of a second using a 10mm lens (16mm in FX format) where you need something like a 30th at 50mm and perhaps a 100th or a 200th with a tele. Obviously, you can't swap in a 10-22 instead of a 100-400, but you very often can swap a 10-22 in for an 18-70 and carry on shooting. (Your actual shake is pretty much fixed, where the effect of that shake in terms of angular motion through the subject (= blur) is relative to focal length.)
4: use a bigger sensor. All else being equal, an FX sensor delivers two or three stops less shot noise than a DX sensor, simply because it is bigger and captures more light. Of course, it costs more, weighs more, and takes a more expensive lens. No free lunch!
4b: there are also good arguments to suggest that lower-resolution sensors with fewer, larger sites produce lower-noise results. Be very, very careful accepting these uncritically! Nearly always, the proponent does the brain-dead thing and compares 100% crops, which is like saying bananas are much more expensive in Mexico because a pound of them costs 40 pesos in Tijuana where you can buy a pound of bananas in Boston for only $15 US. After you cull out the stupidities, this whole theme becomes much less clear-cut. Let's just say that there are some good arguments both for and against and move on to more productive ground.
5: use flash. You don't have to white-out a scene with loads of complicated flash gear! Sometimes, just a little bit of fill flash is all it takes to make a huge difference. The trick is to use the natural light and just help it out a little. Your total exposure time doesn't change very much, but the flash-lit part of your subject is nice and sharp because the duration of the flash is very short. You've still got naturalish colours and no-one notices that the background isn't quite sharp.
To the latter yes, exactly. To the former, almost. Shot noise is the consequence of the quantum nature of light. Popularly it is said that light is both a wave and a particle, and that it swaps around between the two depending on the circumstances. In fact, of course, it is neither, it is simply light and it acts the way it acts all the time because that's what it does. Unless you have the brilliant mind of a quantum physicist or the peculiarly twisted mind of a certain small ape known to both of us, however, it's easier just to think in terms of waves and particles. In this instance we are interested in the particle-like way that a light quantum (photon) either arrives at a given spot or at some other spot. Either you have a whole photon or none, never in between.
When you are counting photons (which is essentially what a sensor does, be that in your camera or your eye) across a range of spots (pixel locations), there is never an exactly even distribution. From a as-even-as-possible source, site #1 might collect 100,000 photons in 1/100th of a second, where site #2 might collect 999,342 photons and site #3 100,104. For all practical purposes, these three numbers are identical. You can't tell their results apart. Now reduce the lighting. Spot #1 might be getting 100 photons, site #2 99, and #3 102. Most likely you still can't tell them apart and the image still looks smooth and noise free. Now reduce the lighting again for 10 photons, and 8 and 11. There is a noticeable difference this time and the image is visibly noisy even though (for the sake of our example) we are assuming 100% perfect detection, amplification and recording. In the extreme case, where the average photon count per sensor site is (say) 0.5, you will observe patterns like 0, 1, 1, and 1, 0, 0, and even 0, 2, 0. These are grossly noisy, of course.
This is shot noise. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it (except collect more light in the first place). Light comes in whole quanta and if the only way you can smooth it out is to collect a large enough number of photons to make the random variations small in relation to the average count. (For simplicity here I'm assuming three pixel sites each recording an identical light level. Practical cases are more complex, of course, but the principles hold good.)
Matter of taste and opinion, but I strongly agree. I'd always rather a bit of noise than any camera shake at all. I imagine that most other people would too.
The ways you mention are pretty much it. Each is evil in its own particular way. We can add more options though:
1: just reduce the shutter speed and take more shots in the hope that at least one of them will be sharp enough. This is worth doing if you are stuck. Especially with an IS/VR lens, it works quite often. You can't rely on it, it's a bit like putting 50c on 15 different slow horses at 100 and 200 to 1 odds, but it can be worth a try. Electrons are cheap!
2: think of some creative way to steady the camera: lean against a tree, place it on a conveniently-situated rock, anything!
3: use a shorter lens and get closer! This isn't always an option, but if you are able to get close to the subject you can cut the shake way, way down with a short lens. Even without IS/VR, most people can reliably hand-hold sharp pictures at 1/10th of a second using a 10mm lens (16mm in FX format) where you need something like a 30th at 50mm and perhaps a 100th or a 200th with a tele. Obviously, you can't swap in a 10-22 instead of a 100-400, but you very often can swap a 10-22 in for an 18-70 and carry on shooting. (Your actual shake is pretty much fixed, where the effect of that shake in terms of angular motion through the subject (= blur) is relative to focal length.)
4: use a bigger sensor. All else being equal, an FX sensor delivers two or three stops less shot noise than a DX sensor, simply because it is bigger and captures more light. Of course, it costs more, weighs more, and takes a more expensive lens. No free lunch!
4b: there are also good arguments to suggest that lower-resolution sensors with fewer, larger sites produce lower-noise results. Be very, very careful accepting these uncritically! Nearly always, the proponent does the brain-dead thing and compares 100% crops, which is like saying bananas are much more expensive in Mexico because a pound of them costs 40 pesos in Tijuana where you can buy a pound of bananas in Boston for only $15 US. After you cull out the stupidities, this whole theme becomes much less clear-cut. Let's just say that there are some good arguments both for and against and move on to more productive ground.
5: use flash. You don't have to white-out a scene with loads of complicated flash gear! Sometimes, just a little bit of fill flash is all it takes to make a huge difference. The trick is to use the natural light and just help it out a little. Your total exposure time doesn't change very much, but the flash-lit part of your subject is nice and sharp because the duration of the flash is very short. You've still got naturalish colours and no-one notices that the background isn't quite sharp.
He already has a good Sony sensor with low noise, so the only significant improvements would be maybe a D4s or the super-sensitive 12MP A7 bodioes.
Yes. Noise is not a concern for me at this time. Like DD I'm just trying to take a decent shot FIRST and worry about the esoteric aspects later on down the road some time............maybe.........if I ever get there.
Edit: Discuss, Learn, and enjoy information regarding the esoteric aspects of photography now, but worry about them waaaaaaaaaaay later.