Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You can observe the increase of movement with long lenses when compared with short lenses on a ground glass viewfinder (not sure how responsive the electronic view finders may be). You can also observe the greater movement when working at macro level. So rather than simply thinking about it; experience the movement; and how the shutter speed either stops or reduces the effect of that movement. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Mar 26, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Vince Passaro wrote: > 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