Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Magnification vs focal length, was: Moose Arrives In Maine - Locals

Subject: [OM] Magnification vs focal length, was: Moose Arrives In Maine - Locals Amazed
From: usher99@xxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
JW writes:
<<Could you plug in some numbers maybe?  An example would help me.  Are 
you
<<proving the old rule that a "safe" shutter speed is 1/f, refining it, 
or
<<disproving it?

Yes, relevant today chasing Flutterbys.  Might have 15min tomorrow for 
one more try.
The thread is related to refining the 1/f rule of thumb for macro.  
Looking at review of IS lenses with the IS off, it is remarkable that  
on most tests 40-60%
of shots are sharp or have mild blur at 1/f shutter speed.  Depends on 
the lens and operator of course.

With macro  many think magnification is the main relevant variable and 
that was my untested view until recently.  The geometry and math
would argue that focal length remains important.  It is a gross 
simplification but likely good enough to multiply the 1/f by (1+M)**2 
where M is the magnification.  So at 1:1 with a 100mm macro lens one 
would require about 4 times faster shutter speed or 1/400 to get a 50% 
chance of a sharp or mild blur shot. Lateral shake is almost irrelevant 
for low mag but imp't for
higher mag thus the advantage of the 5 axis IBIS in Oly bodies or the 
hybrid system in the Canyon 100 macro.  Tripods even better of course 
but not always feasible.

CN writes:

>>But your wording below gives me some pause to ask:  What is the 
nature
>>of the motion being measured?

I just chose a simple motion to model.  Angulating the cam up or down 
(yaw?) will do--which was the type of camera shake to which I was 
referring but many others apply
equally well.  It is easy to see how mag affects blur as at any angular 
velocity of shake the image moves over more pixels on the sensor/film 
proportional to the magnification.  More shake =higher angular 
velocity=more blur.  Assuming I interpret the math correctly focal 
length doesn't have a thing to do with how many pixels the blur affects 
or the angular velocity per se.  However the image linear velocity is 
higher on the sensor thus more blur proportional to the focal length.  
I would have to think a bit more about the easiest/best experimental 
design to demonstrate that but Chuck can probable come up with that 
anyway.

Standing on terra firma but quicksand can not be excluded yet, 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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz