> Got me a thinkin. Always read that long FL requires higher SS handheld
> as it increases the magnification so moderate change in FL at same mag
> shouldn't make that much difference, no?
>>>>>Not sure what the question is.
The question is how much an effect FL has on SS required to hand hold
macro shots. This came up a number of years ago
when Graham mentioned that he liked the Z. 50mm f2 macro as he could
hand hold the macro shots more effectively.
Several listees pointed out that magnification was the sole determinant
of ability to handhold and that FL had little (?no) effect but
the kit was well balanced related to weight distribution length that
added to his ability to keep steady. It may have been after one of his
thistle shots. Your very long effective FL macro shots prompted me to
investigate further.
>>>Which would be 1/1200 sec? Empirically, that's higher than
necessary. I like to
>>get 1/500 or more, but have many shots
>>>that appear critically sharp below that.
Haven't you heard? You're an outlier. ;-) I have witnessed you
grabbing sharp images
with the Sigma 600 CAT leaning against a tree at SS's you had no
business using effectively.
Nonetheless I stand by the geometric derivation of this factor---
(1+M)**2---- I would bet the engineers at Oly/Canyon know the usual
relative contributions of the components to camera shake. I doubt
rotation around the exit pupil is a major contributor but that would
diminish the exponent a tad.
The 1/FL rule of thumb seems about right as the lens reviews with IS
usual show between 40-60% sharp or mild blur at these SS with IS
turned off. I submit this should be modified by the
(1+M)**2 for macro. Then one can factor in the effect of the IS and
perhaps push it a bit more if the cam is very stable. I was able to
handhold a shot not quite to 1:1 going after a
diminutive American Copper B'fly on a clover flower, but was lying on
the ground and able to stabilize the lens reasonably well.
>>>The five axis IS is rather good Because it knows from the lens the
focal
>>>>length, it can adapt it's action.
I wonder how it does at higher mag macro? I would bet fewer stops of
stabilization The motion would be magnified so I wonder if lying to it
about FL would help or even possible--likely with any OM Zuiko.
Canyon has a special hybrid IS for the 100mm macro.
>>>>I looked to see what of interest they
>>>might have, ended up reading lots of user reviews of the 60/2.8
macro, which
>>I'd not really looked at before. They are
>>>universally highly laudatory, and, well ...
Wow!!! Congrats. Curious as t what reviews you looked at. Oly
certainly knows how to make super nice macro gear. I think that one is
even better than the already superb DZ 50/2 and perhaps is sharp enough
to slice neutrinos.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|