magnification factor revisited

[fotog]

I think the 60% factor was explained quite well but one thing is still puzzling me. Lets say I'm shooting with a 200mm which would give me an affective 320mm. Now my question is: would you use the old rule of thumb, handheld shooting at a minimum of 200th of a second or bump it up to 320th of a second? I'm guessing 320. Forgive me if this has been answered but I must have missed it.
Thanks Bill

[CyberDyneSystems]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAARGHH!!!!!!!


:D :D :D :D

Just kidding!

Yes,. the answer to your question would be yes,.. because depite all the other tomfoolery surrounding this issue,. the fact that you will be getting a closer look at the details of your photo, be it by lens magnification or by "effective enlargement" :D , suggests that the same rule applies.

So try for at least 1/320 shutter when possible.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....You are forgiven :D

[Phil Hall]

I think this site explains it well

http://www.lonestardigital.com/multipler.htm

[Jesper]

Have a look at the following article:

Understanding the DSLR Magnification Factor
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

[Dave I]

I think Phil's link is clearer. I like Luminous Landscape, but that particular article doesn't seem that clear to me.

It keeps stressing that the focal length isn't actually technically multiplied, but fails to mention that the user can treat it as a focal length mulitplier (other than a high focal length multiplier giving a deeper DOF).

It is a crop factor, but the end result to the user is that a 6MP camera with a 100mm lens and a 1.6x multiplier acts identical to a 6MP full-frame camera 'wearing' a 160mm lens. Except with regards to DOF and a slight change in image quality which could go either way (depending on the lens/sensor).