Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE9EF4.B3880FC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Erwin Puts said of the 70-180 zoom:
=20
>... this lens is difficult to hold handheld and to maximise its =
potential a tripod is a must.=20
>I shot hundreds of pictures at a range of shutterspeeds from 1/60 =
to 1/8000. Statistically it is not >possible to get fine imagery below =
1/250 (big chance factor is involved when shooting that slow). At >1/250 =
to 1/500 the chances of a good quality picture are higher but it is not =
secure. Above 1/1000 and >certainly at speeds of 1/2000 and 1/4000 the =
true image potential can be enjoyed. And then it is simply >stunning.
=20
This reminds me of a question I've always been meaning to ask.
=20
Most of my shots with my M6 are handheld. When I can, I apply the =
rule of 1/ the focal length of the lens to get a minimum shutter speed =
for handholding (so the minimum speed for a 50mm lens is 1/60s). If =
possible, I shoot one shutter speed faster (so for a 50mm lens 1/125 =
second).
=20
Of course, this is designed to eliminate as far as possible the =
subtle effects of camera shake. Presumably this only works up to a =
particular print size, though.
=20
Logic says there will be some camera shake even at 1/1000 second. =
Perhaps though, the camera shake is so slight that it is not recordable =
on the film. Or, if it is, it will only be visible with very large =
enlargements.
=20
Theoretically I suppose you should try and use the fastest possible =
shutter speed in every situation (subject to depth of field =
requirements, of course). But the law of diminishing returns must =
apply. Somewhere along the line the increased shutter speed simply =
mustn't matter much or at all.
=20
Can anyone comment on all this? Is there a value, for example, in =
shooting using a 50mm lens at 1/250 second minimum? At want point in =
using faster shutter speeds does the law of diminishing returns mean =
that any camera shake will be so subtle as to be imperceptible?
=20
Thanks
Gareth Jolly
=20
Sydney, Australia
http://www.users.bigpond.com/garethjolly/
- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE9EF4.B3880FC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><?fontfamily><?param Times>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Erwin Puts said of the 70-180=20
zoom:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>... this lens is difficult to hold handheld and to maximise =
its=20
potential a tripod is a must. <BR>>I shot hundreds of pictures at =
a range=20
of shutterspeeds from 1/60 to 1/8000. Statistically it is not =
>possible=20
to get fine imagery below 1/250 (big chance factor is involved when =
shooting=20
that slow). At >1/250 to 1/500 the chances of a good quality =
picture are=20
higher but it is not secure. Above 1/1000 and >certainly at =
speeds of=20
1/2000 and 1/4000 the true image potential can be enjoyed. And then =
it is=20
simply >stunning.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This reminds me of a question =
I've always=20
been meaning to ask.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Most of my shots with my M6 are=20
handheld. When I can, I apply the rule of 1/ the focal length =
of the=20
lens to get a minimum shutter speed for handholding (so the minimum =
speed=20
for a 50mm lens is 1/60s). If possible, I shoot one shutter =
speed=20
faster (so for a 50mm lens 1/125 second).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Of course, this is designed to eliminate as far =
as=20
possible the subtle effects of camera shake. Presumably this =
only=20
works up to a particular print size, though.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Logic says there will be some camera shake even =
at 1/1000=20
second. Perhaps though, the camera shake is so slight that it =
is not=20
recordable on the film. Or, if it is, it will only be visible =
with=20
very large enlargements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Theoretically I suppose you =
should try and=20
use the fastest possible shutter speed in every situation (subject =
to depth=20
of field requirements, of course). But the law of diminishing =
returns=20
must apply. Somewhere along the line the increased shutter =
speed=20
simply mustn't matter much or at all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Can anyone comment on all this? Is there a =
value,=20
for example, in shooting using a 50mm lens at 1/250 second =
minimum? At=20
want point in using faster shutter speeds does the law of =
diminishing=20
returns mean that any camera shake will be so subtle as to be=20
imperceptible?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Gareth Jolly</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Sydney,=20
Australia</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.users.bigpond.com/garethjolly/">http://www.users.bigpo=
nd.com/garethjolly/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE9EF4.B3880FC0--