Re: [Leica] M5?

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

> I've been lurking for quite a while now and I was thinking about getting an
> M5.  I shoot stills on motion pictures and run into low light conditions
> quite often.  I thought that I could get by with a Summilux, but after
> reading and seeing some of the images posted here, I was thinking of spending
> the extra money. Think the size matches my hands, but combined with the now
> required Nocti, does this defeat the whole purpose of having a small comfy
> camera?  How is this combination?  Or am I just nuts?
> I love lurking here and thanks,
> Mark Fellman
> Los Angeles
>

Hello Mark,

I am confused by your questions; If you are shooting 'publicity stills'
there is always PLENTY of light on the scenes the publicist would ask you to
shoot. So no need for any Noctilux type shooting because if you handed a
publicist a partially fuzzy, available darkness kind of photo (no matter how
wonderful the bokeh might be) you would soon be out of a job.

But if you are shooting production stills (the crew in action), where the
crew is in the dark, then I can understand the need for a low light lens.
But why a 50/1.0 which has almost no depth of field? I think a 35/1.4 would
be a better choice, for the low light and because film crews generally are
working in a small dimly lit space.

I have photographed 100's of productions stills on sets (and still do), I
would suggest you have both a 50mm and a 35/28mm and probably a second body.
I would also consider at times using a flash and of course you take these
shots during rehearsels.

But then if you are a professional who has been doing this for pay then you
already know all this and more.

sl