On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:26 PM, <usher99@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> JW writes:
> >>In a practical sense, it doesn't really matter to me which macro is at
> >>hand, but I know that I will handhold a 50 better than a 90 or
> certainly
> >>than the 135. But if I have a tripod at hand, bring on the long ones.
> >> (Make certain to bring the QR plates, eh Ken? Beat you to it!)
>
> Seems we have a bit of a schism as to whether FL makes a difference
> (independent of mag) in shutter speed required to handholdfor macro
> with Moose and Chuck on one side and JW and me on another. I had
> previously thought that Magnification was the true only factor until
> investigated the geometry a tad.
>
> See derivation that FL does indeed matter---
>
> http://lists.tako.de/Olympus-OM/2013-09/msg00278.html
>
> I have seen a post by FMer self descirbed as a "recovering physicist"
> that the underyling assumptions
> that lower magnification is just a restricted subset of the macro
> estimation is basically correct though the exponent may be a tad off
> depending on the usual centers of rotation occuring in typical camera
> shake.
>
> Current working estimate then is SS required for about 50% sharp is
> 1/FL * (1+M)**2.
> Rebuttals?
>
I'm not sure I'm a reliable ally, Mike. The longer FL lenses are just
bigger and heavier, which translates into greater risk of camera shake for
me. So I may be with you, all things being equal, but they aren't for me.
I like that "recovering physicist" guy. Is it a 10-step or a 12-step
program? I would prescribe one Wordsworth poem a day, yoga breathing ...
Joel (it worked for J.S. Mill) W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|