clogz said:Generally you can sefely go one shutter speed slower. It's of course best to test your handshaking yourself.
Regards
Hans
Helen B[i said:That's a new one on me. How are you measuring or judging 'brightness'? There may be a tiny difference because of the slightly higher light transmission of a simple lens compared to a lens with more glass and more air-glass surfaces, but one is unlikely to be 'much brighter' than the other. [\i]
garryl said:So am I! If true, then the "same" lens used on an RF and then an SLR (at the same F/stop)would require differing exposures.
g0tr00t said:Thanks for the responses. I am taking a photo class now and the teacher said that since the lens elements are closer to the film plane in a rangefinder than they are in an SLR, you get "more light" using a RF at 2.8 than you would using an SLR.
Confused me too and am still confused...
bjorke said:For RF lenses, more of the light that strikes the lens ends up in the correct place on the film. There is less diffusion. The OVERALL amount of light at f/2.8 is theoretically the same. But correct placement contributes to better sharpness and higher contrast, hence the high regard for RF glass.
Yes, that is indeed what I mean, though SLR lenses are generally retrofocus lenses, which is just why they have problems versus RF lenses (or LF lenses).Ed Sukach said:Uh ... I don't want to start anything, but ... Do you mean to suggest that the light from an "ordinary" (non-retrofocus) lens DOESN'T "end up in the correct place on the film"?
When you speak of "diffusion", do you mean "dispersion"? - With more glass, there should be more, not less...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?