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: "Steve Unsworth" <steve.unsworth@bigfoot.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:05:32 +0100

Just out of interest, is the metering on an M6 accurate at such low light
levels?

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Bryan
Caldwell
Sent: 25 May 2000 20:19
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative


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 "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)
Reply from "Stephen A. Talesnick" <stephen@talesnick.com> (Re: [Leica] noctilux vs. the cheap alternative)