JW writes,
>>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.
No allies at all? snif. Looked at my geometric post and it was clear as
mud. Must admit I was firmly in the magnifaction as primary determinate
of hand hold Shutter speed for macro until lately. Totally agree that
larger longer FL lens may further induce shake by just being
unbalanced and heavy. That is a given.
But, but what about my brand new Zeiss Makro Planar 102,400 mm Apo
f4.5 lens which focuses at 1:2 at about 1/16 mile (newer close focusing
version excellent for very skittish critters) ? It is mounted on a
flatbed I rent for special ocassions. A truck rolls by and causes 1mm
displacement of the sensor while shooting at closest focusing point. I
would say that causes a massive problem with blur vs the 50 MP with
same displacement focused at 1:2. What am I missing? Help me here.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200910/report.html
That is rather interesting for effect of Mag but does not elucidate
effect of focal length.
BTW Chuck's analysis of working distance for the 60mm macro was quite
interesting and appreciated.
(1/FL) * (1+m)**2 until proven otherwise
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/
|