Bear in mind I don't use any stabilisation at all, beyond fences and such. ^_^ For a given length lens - in my case, 300mm - it's a very rough guide that if you stay above the reciprocal (in this case, 1/300th of a second), the shot's liable to be sharp. Most of the time, I'm able to stay comfortably above that - maybe 1/2000 on a bright day, down to 1/1000 or 1/800 as sunset approaches, maybe some cloud arriving too.
That said, there are lenses with stabilisation included, and it's spooky how well that can work. Indeed, the newest version of my lens, which also happens to be half the length and weight, due to using a Fresnel element, has such.
I've only rarely used a tripod - it's much too limiting, when you're wanting to be out and about, and spot some spontaneous moment. I did for one rented lens, the deservedly named Sigmonster (300-800mm f/5.6), as that's too heavy and much too front-heavy to be hand-holdable unless you're a bodybuilder, and it was indeed a pain in that regard - lovely lens, but first I'd have to accept I'd be scaring off any buns already there as I got the tripod set up, then attached the gimbal mount (great fun! Once set up correctly, the heaviest lens can be moved around with ease with the lightest touch, and will stay right where you want it), and finally, carefully attached the lens to the mount. Not much use for seeing a quick moment while wandering. ^_^;
The catch, of course, is the larger the sensor, the better it'll perform in weaker light, as you've got a larger area per pixel - but that also means larger lenses. (Hence phone add-on lenses being tiny, as the sensors are tiny)
Another really good aspect with DSLRs is the speed of acquiring focus - it's virtually instantaneous, versus the contrast detection method used by most P&S. (That's beginning to change with higher-end bridges and mirrorless, with some phase detection incorporated into the sensor itself) So even the fleetest of buns can be tracked.
Perhaps if you know anyone with such a setup, you could have a play with it yourself, and see if it works for you? Or possibly, even just buy an older DSLR (I began with a D90, and they're fairly cheap, used), and then rent a suitable long lens to see how it works out, so you're not committing all that much to begin with.
Actually, if you go way back in my Flickr archive, you'll notice I actually began rabbiteering with a coworker's Konica bridge, then a Panasonic TZ-5 I bought for myself. One lunchtime, though, I borrowed another coworker's new Sony DSLR, and.. yep, it was a huge difference. It was then I knew what had to be done. =:) I spent a few months researching the wild world of DSLRs (so confusing!), and eventually bought a used D90 and a new Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3. Whilst it's not really possible to get the same quality across all the focal length range of a wide-ranging zoom as with a prime (ie fixed focal length), I still found it very helpful in letting me know just what lengths I really tended to use. After a few months, I'd realised I was spending almost all my time out at 300mm, and wondered what better options there might be, winding up with a used Nikkor 300mm f/4D AF-S. I was very hesitant, spending that much on not gaining any reach, but all the reviews were glowing - and indeed, it's about as good as it gets. Long enough for wildlife, light enough to be carryable all day and hand-held for hours, very sharp, and negligible chromatic aberration (ie color fringing, especially at high contrast boundaries, like buntails).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-03-24 11:56 am (UTC)That said, there are lenses with stabilisation included, and it's spooky how well that can work. Indeed, the newest version of my lens, which also happens to be half the length and weight, due to using a Fresnel element, has such.
I've only rarely used a tripod - it's much too limiting, when you're wanting to be out and about, and spot some spontaneous moment. I did for one rented lens, the deservedly named Sigmonster (300-800mm f/5.6), as that's too heavy and much too front-heavy to be hand-holdable unless you're a bodybuilder, and it was indeed a pain in that regard - lovely lens, but first I'd have to accept I'd be scaring off any buns already there as I got the tripod set up, then attached the gimbal mount (great fun! Once set up correctly, the heaviest lens can be moved around with ease with the lightest touch, and will stay right where you want it), and finally, carefully attached the lens to the mount. Not much use for seeing a quick moment while wandering. ^_^;
The catch, of course, is the larger the sensor, the better it'll perform in weaker light, as you've got a larger area per pixel - but that also means larger lenses. (Hence phone add-on lenses being tiny, as the sensors are tiny)
Another really good aspect with DSLRs is the speed of acquiring focus - it's virtually instantaneous, versus the contrast detection method used by most P&S. (That's beginning to change with higher-end bridges and mirrorless, with some phase detection incorporated into the sensor itself) So even the fleetest of buns can be tracked.
Perhaps if you know anyone with such a setup, you could have a play with it yourself, and see if it works for you? Or possibly, even just buy an older DSLR (I began with a D90, and they're fairly cheap, used), and then rent a suitable long lens to see how it works out, so you're not committing all that much to begin with.
Actually, if you go way back in my Flickr archive, you'll notice I actually began rabbiteering with a coworker's Konica bridge, then a Panasonic TZ-5 I bought for myself. One lunchtime, though, I borrowed another coworker's new Sony DSLR, and.. yep, it was a huge difference. It was then I knew what had to be done. =:) I spent a few months researching the wild world of DSLRs (so confusing!), and eventually bought a used D90 and a new Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3. Whilst it's not really possible to get the same quality across all the focal length range of a wide-ranging zoom as with a prime (ie fixed focal length), I still found it very helpful in letting me know just what lengths I really tended to use. After a few months, I'd realised I was spending almost all my time out at 300mm, and wondered what better options there might be, winding up with a used Nikkor 300mm f/4D AF-S. I was very hesitant, spending that much on not gaining any reach, but all the reviews were glowing - and indeed, it's about as good as it gets. Long enough for wildlife, light enough to be carryable all day and hand-held for hours, very sharp, and negligible chromatic aberration (ie color fringing, especially at high contrast boundaries, like buntails).