ofc my old camera and lens arent as sharp as eeks, but that isnt my point, my point was that shutter speed doesent have much effect on sharpness if you are using a flash(except when motion blur from background light is so small that it stays really close in details that flash light shows) and that when you are using a flash as a light source, it will take all it can get out of the lens and sensor. thats because flash light exposes only so little time and the time that flash exposes is the same if you are using 30sec shutter speed or 1/250th shutter speed.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm



defined texture lines = clarity of detail = sharpness

Lol? You're kidding me. You're pulling this out of your ass. The link ads absolutely nothing to your argument.
Shutter speed affects sharpness by a whole lot, sir, whether you're using flash or not. According to your own link: "Proper shutter speeds, use of a sturdy camera tripod and mirror lock-up can also significantly impact the sharpness of your prints."

PLEASE, try shooting at 1/30 on a subject that is moving slightly with flash compared to 1/250 also with flash, and compare on 1:3 ratio.

You also said: "pretty much the whole picture is filled with different colored blur, except for the parts that flash hit" - not only is the whole photo motion blurred like crazy, but the 'parts the flash hit' have nothing to do with sharpness. We'd be able to recognize just exactly what the photo is.
Defined texture lines = a line similar to what I can put in photoshop that does not have any ghosting around it. Your photo isn't even recognizable, but instead, a play with light. Go on, argue that you can 'focus' on light so you can get 'sharpness.'

This post was edited by onepagememory on May 4 2011 12:35am

you are taking one aspect of sharpness and claim that its the only one.
i could take two shots with a flash one with 30sec shutter speed hand held and one with 1/250th sec shutter speed and get them identical when it comes to sharpness. i could use my zeiss 135mm for that, its as sharp wide open as it is stopped down, pretty much as sharp as 50mm 1.4 is when stopped down. also my camera can handle noise pretty well even at 2000iso, especially with flash, since flash only exposes so little time and wont heat the sensor much and cause noise.

woot. wide open, high iso AND long exposure = sharp. you say its impossible, i just laugh at you. and no i cba to find my battery charger and charge batteries for my flash to prove something so obvious to you.

K, I will admit I'm wrong if you take two wide open, high iso, sharp photos with a subject that is moving slightly that have 30 sec and 1/250 shutter speeds respectively and come up with the same photo, just as I've been arguing. Both better be equally 'sharp,' just like Eek's picture, or you haven't been reading my arguments at all.

its common sense to understand that theres no difference if the environment light doesent show, so i cba to charge batteries for my flash to show it

CBA = ?

Be sure to include movement, kay?

cant be arsed



movement doesent make it any different as flash only hits like 1/17000th sec. but like i told you its so obvious that i cant be arsed to charge my batteries for something so stupid. you would start to complain about something after anyways.

Lol. Dodge. Do it or stay silent.