Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M Lenses on GF-1
From: photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:45:01 +0200
References: <88048C05-DB30-47E4-9AF7-A298A6651BEE@comcast.net> <DC4B73A4105FCE4FAE0CEF799BF84B36052E9B23@case-email.casefoods.com> <y2t19b6d42d1004131828u2466ca03m6bdab67b3b981585@mail.gmail.com>

If the subject is moving, no amount of IS will help. That is why I am 
generally an IS sceptic, since I tend to photograph people and not statues.

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 Apr 14, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Vince Passaro wrote:

> 
> I keep thinking that the 14-45 is slow, which nominally it is, but then
> again I always have to remind myself that unlike the MF lenses I enjoy 
> using
> with the G1, the Lumix 14-45 has IS so can be hand held at much longer
> shutter speeds -- my guess is it compensates a step-and-a-half at least,
> which means it's more like an f2 - f3.5 spread in terms of the light
> conditions it can handle than the nominal 3.5-5.6. Any opinions on that?
> 
> Vince



Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
Reply from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
Reply from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
In reply to: Message from r.s.taylor at comcast.net (Richard Taylor) ([Leica] Spring has arrived in London)
Message from drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] M Lenses on GF-1)