Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote: > > Like my nine-year-old says, "Duh." Henning, all that is SO obvious. The point > is that you'll have to show me a picture-- one that worth taking-- that > couldn't be made with a 1.4 lens instread of a Noctilux, , both using Delta > 3200. The second point is that the NoctiLUX is a LUXury now that film is > so much faster than it was in 1929. Arthur<<<<<<< Arthur, I feel a tad that you're beating a dead horse, for one thing, neither the Noctilux nor 3200 film were available in 1930. Maybe I missed your point. There is a distinctly different image from a Noctilux to the Summilux, it's what the Noctilux draws from a scene in it's light gathering manner because at f 1.0 it just sucks light in and onto the film due to the design factor. And that's what the Summilux can't do at 1.4 And no amount of playing with developers or film can create the same light gathering effect. I would suggest the only person who can show you the difference, is going to be yourself in a side by each shooting test of the two lenses. Because, at the rate this conversation has been going, I find it hard to believe any image on the screen is going to illustrate enough difference to satisfy your requirements. So it is with that in mind that I make the suggestion, do it yourself and see your own results. >>>>>>> The second point is that the NoctiLUX is a LUXury<<<<< snip..... Nope I've never considered it a luxury, merely an expensive tool that allows me to shoot using slower films under adverse light conditions for a quality of image that the higher speed films will not give! Regardless of developer! And I've tried and used a bunch of them in the quest for solid images with the least amount of grain. ted