Steven,
I guessed that. :-) Igor PS. What is opposite to still-lifes? Moving-deaths? Mon Feb 14 13:20:08 CST 2011 Steven Desjardins wrote: > I generally take still-lifes, and SR does help for those. > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > > > > Sun Feb 13 07:44:17 CST 2011 > > drd1135 at gmail.com wrote: > > > > > OTOH, I always try to shoot my 1.4 at 5.6. Not really low light but > > > wonderfully sharp. For very low light I tend to reply on SR, physical > > > support, and the hope of one day getting a K5. > > > > I am always surprised when people make a statement that SR compensates > > for the lack of a faster lens (or for not using a flash). > > > > SR can be useful, but only when the subject itself doesn't move. > > When the subject moves, - you want to have exposure time to freeze > > the motion, and that's when fast lenses are helpful > > (or a flash, depending on the circumstances). > > And that's why Larry is pulling out his 50/1.4. > > > > I find myself using my fa50/1.4 under the same circumstances, and using > > 50-135 at other times (for 50mm focal distance), when I am not > > lazy to switch to it from 17-70/4. > > > > Extremely subjectively (no tests whatsoever), - my impression of the > > sharpness of my fa50/1.4 is similar to Larry's. > > I tend to blame it on how I use the lens: because I always tend to push > > it to f/1.4 where it's softer and the DOF is shallow. > > Additionally, usually the ISO at that point is also set to at least 800 > > if not 1600-3200. Hence, the combination of all these factors > > lowers the expectation. > > > > Igor > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
