You're absolutely right about the greater bulk and weight of a 6x7 with a 165/4. I've found that heavy cameras and lenses are better for hand held shooting and particularly for pans. The focal length is also important for pans. You want something in the range of 80 to 200 in 35mm numbers. And the 165 for a 6x7 is right at the bottom end of that scale. Paul
Keith Whaley wrote: > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > > Great shot "Iron Hands"! > > I guess so! f/22.0 at 1/30 sec.! Great control indeed. > What helps is the greater bulk and weight of the 165/4LS, but still... > well done! > > keith whaley > > > I have really started to love the drags, hoping to be at Pomona. > > Steve Larson > > Redondo Beach, California > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 7:01 AM > > Subject: Re: full moon; panning > > > > > I've never been very good at panning with a tripod, although I would > > > imagine a video head makes it quite possible. With a conventional > > > tripod, you just can't get the right arc. Here's a handheld pan I shot a > > > couple of weeks ago with my 6x7 and the 165/4. Exposure was at 1/30th. I > > > think the stop was f22. The film was Ektachrome 100S. > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1069827&size=lg > > > Paul > > = snipped =
