Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Vince, The 45mm lens may require a faster shutter speed because, with the crop factor, most images will have to be enlarged more than they would if the lens were used with a larger sensor. With more enlargement, camera shake becomes more evident. Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vince Passaro" <passaro.vince at gmail.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Another maybe not so stupid GH1 question > Okay so here again I don't get it. Why would a 45mm lens need faster > shutter > speeds becuase of the crop factor of the sensor? I assume when you say a > 90mm needs faster shutter speeds you mean it's long and so it shakes more > so > you'd better get a fast shutter speed. But the 45 is a 45 in terms of how > large it is, yes? Or is there some other reason you need fast shutter > speeds > at that CROP size? > > AAAggggggghhhhh. > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Nathan Wajsman > <photo at frozenlight.eu>wrote: > >> I have both lenses. In fact, my GF-1 setup consists of the 1.7/20mm, the >> 45mm you are asking about, and a 90mm Elmarit with adapter. The 45mm is >> not >> bad at all--not as good as the 20mm but not bad. You do have to keep the >> shutter speeds up, as you are shooting with what is effectively a 90mm. >> >> Some example here: >> http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws/?page_id=341 >> >> 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 4:02 AM, James Laird wrote: >> >> > Yea but the combo of the 20/1.7 and the 45 would be like a digital >> > Leica CL with the 40 and 90, which I have and use on the GH1. I just >> > wonder if the 45 2.8 is very good optically? >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Jeff Moore <jbm at jbm.org> wrote: >> >> 2010-03-25-22:01:41 James Laird: >> >>> Anyone using the Panasonic 45 2.8 Macro? Kind of pricey by Panasonic >> >>> standards. Is it worth it? I'm using my trusty 40 Summicron now. It's >> >>> faster at f/2.0 but of course it won't do 1:1 and doesn't have MEGA >> >>> OIS;). >> >> >> >> I'm too lazy to look up the exact details, and have no personal >> >> experience with these lenses, but check dpreview -- I think they >> >> thought the 40/1.7 was far better as a general-purpose lens, and some >> >> (non-micro-)4/3s macro lens (totally pulling this out of my behind, >> >> but is there an Olympus 50/2.0?) with an adapter was an >> >> optically-far-better macro lens. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Leica Users Group. >> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >