Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Depends on how you define "couldn't have been made". D3200 is not really a 3200 film. Its true speed is in the 1000-1600 neighborhood. The same is true for Kodak's TMZ. I have pictures shot at f1 and 1/60 sec. at D3200 rated at 1600 (and no, I do not have them scanned at the moment, and because I am in the middle of packing for the move to Switzerland, I cannot scan them right now--you will just have to take my word for it). Now, could these pictures have been made with a Summilux? Technically yes, I could have shot at f1.4 and 1/30. BUT I would then run the risk of movement of both the camera and subject, thus reducing the chances of a successful photo. Or I could have shot at f1.4 and 1/60 and developed the film for EI=3200, but then I would have coarser grain and higher contrast, neither of which is desireable in an already grainy and contrasty situation. Is a Noctilux necessary for successful low-light photography? No. Is it nice to have for that purpose? Definitely. Nathan ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote: > Soory, you got that wrong. You seem to miss my point entirely, Henning. I'd > like to see the Delta 3200 shot with a noctilux that couldn't have been made > with a 1.4 lens. Can you show it to me? Arthur - -- Nathan Wajsman Overijse, Belgium and Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/ Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/ Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/