Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>]

Guys, guys, wait a minute lets for a moment think about someone who's used a
Noctilux since, must be '71-72?

As I purchased the first or second one sold in Canada and have shot an
uncountable number of rolls in almost every kind of light, weather condition
and assignment subjects. And it's still in use these days, many of you have
seen my use of it in "Doctors' Work" or the earlier version, "This is Our
Work." And next year "Women in Medicine."

One point I made was... "why not set it at f8 and be there."

To which Slobodan replied:
>>If it were only that simple! While you may just point the camera...it
comes
>with a train load of baggage from past experience. I don't know of any
>instance where these don't get factored in, i.e. format, film, lens choice,
>shutter speed, and f-stop The combination of those produce the binding
elements so necessary for >the clarity of the message in the end
product.<<<<

Of course, but that isn't what I see as being a big deal as I put film in
the camera and away I go shooting what motivates me by the light I see on
the subjects action. The film & the format is always 35 in a Leica, what
lens used is determined by the subject, not the depth of field. I do not
consciously think about this stuff, I just do it with very little thought
about anything than the light and action of the subject.

>> Even during a deft, and possibly intuitive, usage of the equipment there
>still will be some mental consideration about what to do, and with what
>and how.<<<

Of course, but I do not stop and analyze any of this, it just automatically
happens with the least of thought, if any. Surely you and others use your
cameras in seeing, focus and shoot without any analytical forethought. And
if that is not the case then I would have to assume many of you miss the
peak moment while thinking about it. Which of course I would find hard to
believe.

Simon said:
>>Also I think it is rather silly to call operating this lens at anything
less
>then F1.0 stupid since you yourself and others like B.D. often have cited
>the importance of flare supression in Leica lenses something which the
>Noctilux seems to excell at at any aperture according to people who should
know.<<<

But Simon I don't think it's "stupid" in the true sense as obviously we who
own them have on more than one occasion had to stop down. But it is stupid
to spend the money it cost and not use it as often as possible wide open or
close to that and if one doesn't, isn't it stupid?  It's either that or the
owner has more money than brains!

The flare suppression is something else I never think about as I shoot every
which way at the subject
and if I do think about it, it's after the fact when I'm looking at the
finished product and my response is.... "Shit look at that!" And I move on
to the next frame.  :-)

Len Kapner said:
>>To use it voluntarily with aperture settings that produce little
or no margin for focus error doesn't make much sense to me -<<<

There isn't focus error if you are using the camera and lens properly. If
you are having a problem using a Noctilux wide open then you require a great
deal more practice and if that's not the case, why buy it?  Man I keep going
back to the cost factor and why anyone would spend the money if you can't
learn to use the lens for what it was purchased for...."to take pictures
where others fear to go!"

>I'd rather push whatever is in the camera or swap to a faster film and put
up with contrasty, grainy images, than produce a beautiful spectrum of greys
with a missed focus point!<<<

But that's self defeating, as a Noctilux allows you to shoot with finer
grained films under difficult light levels for better looking prints. And if
you are getting a fine spectrum of out of focus greys then it comes down
to..... "you need to practice a ton more at f1.0 and learn the finer points
of focusing a Noctilux." It's that simple.

Mitch Zeissler said:
>I'm really at a loss here. I like the signature of the Noctilux, but I just
>can't get past the fact that it doesn't focus closer than a meter. To me,
>that just about makes it a landscape lens.<<<

Well "to each his own at what they look at in a picture" and the "signature
of any Leica lens" is the last thing I ever look at because I simply look at
what I've always believed to be the most important part of any
photograph.... "the subject, it's in focus and the action / content looking
great. OK good!"

The close focus is a bit of gripe at times, but it's not worth commenting on
because use something else if you wish to go closer. Quite frankly it's a
non-issue when you have extra gear to work with.

Slobodan said:
>Therein lies the problem, every 50mm, and 35mm, I've ever used has had its
>own unique signature. I personally wouldn't mind owning every 50mm, and
>35mm, made by Leica just for that very reason. I do have a current 50mm
>Elmar-M which is just phenomenal, and it focuses to 0.7 meters.<<<

By the sound of Slobodan and Mitch with their signature points, I've been
looking at the wrong part of my photographs for 50 years! So maybe for the
next 50 I'll change my ways. ;-)

ted











- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html