> I,ve often wondered why you need any more than 1/1000
Another reason I've encountered (and the only reason I've *ever* wished I
was holding an FM2 rather than OM1... <dons flame-proof suit>... ;-) ) was
when I was shooting indoors handheld on 800 film, a photo-op presented
itself outside in hazy sunshine - time to change lens to a 135? yes... time
to change film... no - exposure was 1/1000th at f11, which gave no
separation between the subject and the audience behind them due to the depth
of field at f11. I had some of that day's photos published... not those
ones, though. If I'd had the option of 1/4000th, I could have had f4 - much
better.
Of course, I've since learn my lesson, and since bought, not a Nikon, but 4
stop ND filters in 49 and 55 mm threads <g>, which pretty much solves the
problem, as long as I'm carrying them, and don't want to put them on my 62
and 77 mm thread lenses - I haven't bought those ones yet...
Cheers
Andy
wiese@xxxxxxxxxx
ICQ# 12366792
"Egyptian pharoahs fell from the sky...
Fell from the sky, and played the blues"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:30:14 EST
From: PCACala@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Has the time come for the unthinkable?
Hi Richard:
> I,ve often wondered why you need any more than 1/1000
One reason is that the shutters capable of higher shutter speeds often have
higher speeds at which they X sync. We all know that high X sync speeds
minimize ghoasting from ambient light, so that would be a big reason to
desire
them.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|