Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M Lenses on GF-1
From: henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:14:45 -0700
References: <88048C05-DB30-47E4-9AF7-A298A6651BEE@comcast.net> <DC4B73A4105FCE4FAE0CEF799BF84B36052E9B23@case-email.casefoods.com> <y2t19b6d42d1004131828u2466ca03m6bdab67b3b981585@mail.gmail.com> <1C7C38A2-6871-43DC-9EEF-89899E8B8A6C@frozenlight.eu>

In general I would agree with you, but IS can also be quite good with 
moving subjects as most subjects have moments when action peaks or 
there is a momentary pause. I've found that very often those are also 
the moments that I like to capture, due to expressions or other 
compositional concerns. Sometimes a shot at 1/125 at f/1.4 might be 
better handled by an f/4 lens with IS at 1/15, even when the subject 
is generally moving. A higher shutter speed can cover some errors in 
handling; dof can cover others. Fast lenses and IS both have their 
advantages, and not always with moving/stationary subjects. Different 
technique is required, but both can often be effectively used with 
either type of subject, in my experience.

BTW, I find that the IS on most current lenses gives you an advantage 
of about 3 stops for a similar blur level, with the best system 
giving you about 4 stops. Again, technique is important and you have 
to practice a while.


At 5:45 AM +0200 4/14/10, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>If the subject is moving, no amount of IS will help. That is why I 
>am generally an IS sceptic, since I tend to photograph people and 
>not statues.
>
>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 Apr 14, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Vince Passaro wrote:
>
>>
>>  I keep thinking that the 14-45 is slow, which nominally it is, but then
>>  again I always have to remind myself that unlike the MF lenses I enjoy 
>> using
>>  with the G1, the Lumix 14-45 has IS so can be hand held at much longer
>>  shutter speeds -- my guess is it compensates a step-and-a-half at least,
>>  which means it's more like an f2 - f3.5 spread in terms of the light
>>  conditions it can handle than the nominal 3.5-5.6. Any opinions on that?
>>
>>  Vince
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com


Replies: Reply from s.dimitrov at charter.net (slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
In reply to: Message from r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard Taylor) ([Leica] Spring has arrived in London)
Message from drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)