Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The ability of photographers to hand-hold at slow speeds is vastly over-rated. Or else those "rock-steady" guys only print up to 4x6 inch prints. Ninety percent of the reason I use Leica optics is because I can shoot them wide open. If I want *really* sharp, then I stop them down maybe half a stop. Having seen the effects of helicopter vibration even with the Hasselblad lens top speed of 1/500th, I'm not optimistic about sharpness at slower speeds (Why I use a gyro-stabilizer for aerial photos). Below 1/250, I'm always looking for posts, walls, tables, garbage cans, anything to brace me and the camera. If that fast lens allows me a faster shutter speed, all the better. When I see photographs that did not need depth of field shot at f8 and 1/60th, I shudder. Usually, so did the photographer - a $2000 lens capable of tack-sharp, and an image blurred by a slow shutter speed. Crazy! The main reason I am so passionate about the Olympus E-330 is the Live View flip screen that allows me in dim light to brace the camera in all kinds of places where I would never be able to get my head behind the optical finder. See example of in-flight cockpit interior at: http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2007_02_17.htm http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2008_01_09.htm also shows what a fine combination the E-330 and 50/1.4 Summilux-R make in dim light. Once in awhile, I need d-o-f and f22 - http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2006_12_31.htm see last photograph on page. But that's what tripods are for. Right, Ted? Gary Todoroff Tree LUGger At 03:00 PM 1/30/2008, you wrote: >Not sure who wrote this but here's my response. > > > JOOC, how often do people use 1/4000? I can't remember the last time I >went above 1/500. More often it's 1/4 sec or even 4 sec (with tripod of > > > course).<<< > >I find this interesting and wondered why the photographer who posted didn't >use higher shutter speeds? But when shooting with a Leica I've pretty well >always tried to use the "Highest possible shutter speed and widest aperture >for the best exposure possible." > >Why if a camera is equipped as Leica's are, Ok older models, a 1/1000 of a >second, why wouldn't one use the highest shutter speed to assist in cutting >down the possibilities of camera shake? > >Unless of course the subject you're shooting requires a "blur effect" for >the content. > >Similarly with widest aperture? Why not use the widest opening possible to >assist in getting rid of or softening unwanted debris in the background. >That is unless one requires a great depth of field,. IE: everything sharp >from here to the moon. > >Any answers out there folks? > >ted