On 29 Nov 2004 at 17:02, Christian wrote: > Not even a ballpark comparison, Mr. Studdert! Your subject(s) wasn't in > motion (in three dimensions, I might add!)! :-)
A similar part of each of their anatomies was in full motion however for the most part I'll have to agree, I do have some pretty damn sharp shots of race horses at full gallop though :-) > PS: I was wondering what the 100% crop would be. you disappoint me, Mr. > Studdert..... Oh you wanted to see the ear-rings? :-P On 29 Nov 2004 at 16:32, Don Sanderson wrote: > Show off! > I was wondering there what you'd choose as your crop. ;-/ > (Do all the women in Australia have that many freckles?) > > Don (Freckle Lover) Trying to keep my posts offensive to few :-) Those of us who are of anglo-irish decent sure do have em, the sun isn't kind to us, I don't think it's restricted to women :-) Cheers, On 30 Nov 2004 at 0:02, Jens Bladt wrote: > A good old rule of thumb says for 900mm you'll need at least 1/900 sec. (for > 35mm film). I guess this applies for APS format if you muliply by the crop > factor of 1.5? Hi Jens, Yes I think to make all things equal you have to consider the crop factor since the image will need to be magnified in order to achieve the same print size for the same lens on a 35mm body. > I can hand hold 300mm F4 lens, but actually - I'd rather use a monopod or a > tripod. When I use my M* 4/300mm + an F 1.7 AF Adapter I get 510mm - on the *ist > D this equals 765mm. I know I could NEVER hand hold this - I even have to use > the timer to get shots like that sharp at 1/100 sec. on a sturdy tripod! I would have a go but the problem is that I'd be wanting to stop the lens down to at least f5.6 to obtain reasonable optical sharpness so you could only use it in really good light, fortunately something we have an abundance of here. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
