[LRflex] Re: returning to 35mm
- From: Philippe Amard <phamard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:43:19 +0100
One option is to "load" the camera with the drive - the weight of the
batteries is enough for any bodybuilder to make a difference ;-) but
I am of the skinny type, so the drive is convenient for handling, not
for preventing camera shake. I know my post is nearly pointless, :-[ exit
Phileicangemix.
Gary Pinkerton wrote:
>I agree;for me the smaller R bodies are much more prone to shake than the SL
>series or the R8/9.
>This goes for handheld, or on a tripod [which I use with the R8s a lot].
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Herr<mailto:telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:52 PM
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: returning to 35mm
>
> On Dec 14, 2006, at 6:07 PM, LEICAFLEX wrote:
>
> > Doug, David or anyone else, have you experienced more/less/no
> > difference in camera shake with Leicaflex SL/SL2 versus R3-R9 bodies?
>
> The SL certainly is easier to hold steady at slower speeds than the R4,
> R-E and R6 (and I assume the R7 too). I'm using the R8 exclusively
> with the DMR and it's much greater mass seems to help reduce camera
> shake.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com<http://www.wildlightphoto.com/>
>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
>
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm<http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm>
> Archives are at:
>
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/<//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/>
>
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
