Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net>wrote: > 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 >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >