Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative
From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:18:56 -0700
References: <200005251354.JAA09475@unix3.netaxs.com>
 
But when you push your film AND use a Noctilux, you're in a whole different
world.


Bryan



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Cassidy" <cassidy@netaxs.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 6:54 AM
Subject: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative


> [bob was complaining about camera shake]
>
> the other alternative (to buying a noctilux) is to just push your film two
> stops. tri-x does very nicely at 800 or 1600. not to mention the wide
> variety of high speed (i.e. 3200 etc) films on the market today. this shot
> of chip is hp5 at 1600:
>
> http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/pix/pad/18/chip.jpg
>
> there ya go. cheap lux.
>
>
> the ever practical,
>
> kc
>
Replies: Reply from D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg> (RE: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Reply from "Simon Lamb" <s_lamb@compuserve.com> (Noctilux Focusing (was Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative))
Reply from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (RE: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Reply from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (Re: Noctilux Focusing (was Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative))
 In reply to: Message from Kyle Cassidy <cassidy@netaxs.com> ([Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)