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?
Steady as she goes, 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/
|