[Leica] stupid questions 4ever.... and some IMAGES of the fallen 40 foot pine.

[passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)]

Also on the just go out and shoot front I dumped my card onto my computer
tonight and discovered I'd taken 400 and some pictures in the last 30 hours.
I was working on a couple of projects and ideas; alas many of these images
are dull and redundant but -- I do shoot.

Did I ever post my said pictures of the fallen pine and the four days of
blackout? Followed by the arrival of spring, coming in after that mayhem
like a late and overweight hero? Here they be:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/toast+eatin_+bog+man/  -- and go to first
gallery featuring the guy sawing the tree. All photos taken with G1 and
14-45 kit zoom.

For fans of Scrabble, the pictured game ended at 295 to 286, my favor.
Closest game I've played. With the baby and other trials of a cold cold dark
house it took three nights to finish.



On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at 
frozenlight.eu>wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>