Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nathan -- Personality types differ. Mine is as follows: if I don't understand a thing, I don't enjoy it. Or no, that's not always true. If I don't understand a thing I do not believe I have mastered it. And the number of things I enjoy that I am not master of is low. So I will pursue like a relentless dog trying to get a gopher in its hole an understanding of why something is the way it is if I am interested in the thing and want to make use of it. Seems to me a 45mm lens can be held at 1/45 more or less depending (as you say) on one's facial bone structure and hand/wrist strength; regardless of its crop factor inside the camera. That it becomes 1/90 because of the sensor size makes absolutely no sense to me at all (especially in so far as, as discussed earlier, it doesn't look like a 90mm image anyway) but I'll take your word and go pursue an understanding of it elsewhere. You're number two on the LUG who has said I think too much. You're all like my Italian aunt. Vince PS On the just go out front: I have shot and shot and until you mentioned it I had no sense whatsoever of this shutter speed thing at 45mm. I noticed a distinct difference between the Elmarit 90/2.8 and the Elmar-C 90/4. The former was so much longer and so front heavy you couldn't miss it. Essentially it is useless indoors. Indeed on the G1 the camera itself is so light that any lens longer than that elegant little Elmar becomes a problem. It never occured to me that a camera equally light and small with a larger sensor would shake less. Not that I'm bringing that up again because I"M NOT. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu>wrote: > You over-analyze everything, Vince. I have a simple suggestion: remember > that rule of thumb in the 35mm world about using 1/focal length as the > slowest handholdable speed? (Allowing for individual variation in ability > to > handhold). Apply the same rule in the digital world, but now using the > effective focal length of the lens. So, for example, the 45mm on a MFT > camera is equivalent to a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera and therefore you > should shoot at speeds of 1/90 sec. or faster. > > Or just forget even the simple rules above, just go out and shoot and make > your own decisions based on what you see. > > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Vince Passaro wrote: > > > OK so -- clearly I don't get what's going on inside these wee camera > > thingies we like to play with. This is what I'm wondering about -- the > > camera 'enlarges' the image? Blows it up as we would on an enlarger in > the > > old days or in Photoshop or LR now? But it doesn't take the 20mm and > "blow > > it up" to 40mm? It only takes the larger 45mm and "blows it up" to 90mm? > > Somehow the smaller image blows itself up? Ergo watch out for camera > shake > > at 45mm? I have the 14-45 zoom so there's more effect of camera shake at > the > > 45mm end because of this blowing up? > > > > I can understand the following: the medium is 36 x 24 and you're using a > > 35mm lens so it looks like "X". You cut the medium in half, so the image > > becomes cropped and to some degree magnified by a factor of 1.5 and if > > halved again, cropped and magnified to 2 times "X". > > > > So where does this englarging and camera shake issue come in? Only at 45? > > Why not at 20? Isn't (then) a 20mm image on a mFT camera twice as 'shaky' > as > > a 20mm image on a 35mm film camera? And shaky exactly to the extent of a > > 40mm lens on a 35mm camera? Same going from 45 to 90? Only more so? > > > > Huh? > > > > My confusion on this point will look absurd to people who understand what > > they're talking about; my hope is that someday, looking back on it, it > will > > look absurd to me as well. > > > > Vince > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >