Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >