Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux
From: "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 01:40:06 +1100
References: <382127958.984939306823.JavaMail.root@web586-ec>

Look Stanislaw, don't be such an expert on things you don't own.
I,  do own a Noctilux
and have to say, there is so much uninformed talk about the
shallow depth of field of this superb lens.
Firstly, like any other lens, it is not always used at its full
aperture. I would say, this is really
the exception. Most of the time, when I specially go out with
the Noctilux, I seldom go larger than f2.  Even so, the depth of
field at a close distance at f2 for example, (the largest
opening of a Summicron) is small too, nobody ever seems to
complain, that their Summicron is hard to focus.
I used f1 for example when photographing trains and trams in the
underground stations.
But then I am quite a distance away from the object. This way
the depth of field is quite easy to control.  My favorite are
the slightly sleazy pubs, located outside the railway stations
in Germany. I love sitting in there, having a beer and looking
to the smoke and then taking pictures. Who cares about the
shallow depth of field. I find it looks great if you manage to
get one or two faces reasonably sharp, diffused by the smoke in
a yellowish light. Most
times the small depth of field is an advantage. If I need to
increase the d.o.f., then I use my elbows on the bar to support
myself. you be amazed, the longer you stay in the pub, while
filling up the glass, how much more steady you get; until you
have to get up. But that's another story.


During my time on the LUG, I read a lot of comments from other
LUGers about this lens.
Mostly good comments from people who owned one, and "strangely"
a fair amount of negative comment from people who didn't. Before
I found the money to purchase one, I  wondered if it was a wise
investment, with so much negative comments.
I did buy one and never looked back. I would say, this has to be
one of Leicas masterpieces in lens design.  If I had to sell all
my Leica lenses I would try and keep this one and my coated 50mm
Summar (now you really can go to town) and the 50mm original
Voigtlander
Nocton.



Stanislaw Stawowy wrote:

> > > > > The M3 viewfinder is the best one available for
> Noctilux
> > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > My dear Hamlet! M3, having the same rangefinder base
> > > (about 69mm) has highest magnification (.91x), so
> > > focussing accuracy is very high...
> >
> > That doesn't make it 'better'.  Do you know that the
> mechanical tolerances
> > are higher on the 3 than the 6?
>
> It seems that you agree that M3 is better built? According
> to Erwin Puts' recent letter, it makes you a _desirable_
> LUGer.. :)
>
> > I, for one, really don't care which one IS better,
> > but I'd like to see some
> > facts (surprise! ;-).
>
> OK. Here are facts you asked for:
> 1. With higher magnification (0.91) of M3, focusing is
> simpler, because split of image is easier to see.
> With paper-thin Noctilux' DOF, you want to try to
> focus as accurately as you can... :)
> With all above, you can use Noctilux or any Leica.
> You probably will be able to use it on a IIIc,
> assuming Leica will make a screwmount Noctilux.
> But I had problems even with Jupiter 3 (f/1.5)
> with not enoughly careful focusing, so, with
> as much money as lawyers got, I would go for M3
> rather.... :)
>
> 2. 0.91 magnification means that framelines for 50mm
> are optimally sized (read: BIG) in viewfinder,
> so you will _undoubtely_ frame easier with M3.
> Well cleaned M3 should also provide brighter image,
> but I am very unsure about it and ask for opinion
> all M3 and M6 users here
>
> > The materials better, so there is less wear
> > over time...etc.?
> What has this to do with Noctilux focusing?
> I hope we are talking about _adjusted_ M3 here?
> If not, well, even CL will focus Noctilux better
> than M3 with rangefinder off.... :)
>
> > If it's personal opinion,
> > it's probably better stated
> > as such, instead of it coming across as fact...
>
> So why don't you take a M3 and M6 and actually
> try it for your own, mister? :)
> All opinions on LUG are personal ones. For more
> science facts, check following links:
>
> http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html
>
> Don't get lost in Internet caves, my tiny veawer! :)
>
> And finally:
>
> "Aww, let's go out and take some pictures." - Gary Winogrand
> -------------
> St. (alias Puck. So Shake your Spear... Nye would be happy!)
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com

Replies: Reply from "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
Reply from "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <watteau@krakow.neurosoft.net> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)
In reply to: Message from Stanislaw Stawowy <watteau@email.com> (Re: [Leica] M3 with 50 1.0 Noctilux)