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

["animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R


> 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
>
>
Of course your point of practise making perfect is allways true .
Did it a lot the last few days with kids(again )in candlelit rooms.
Sometimes even with the brightfinder of the M3 I found it impossible to see
the rangefinder patch.I guess if you know where it,s focused at all times
that will help a lot.When the lab reopens tomorrow and i buy a new mouse I
can see some resuls and i,ll bore you with them as usual.
Still I firmly believe that the technical aproach that some use can pay of
in some cases and for some.Even in literature from the 30,s one can find
many nice theoretical articles by Leica on the special properties of their
lenses.
Why not look into those?
Especially amateurs like me who have a technical interest love those details
and for them it is one of the reasons to get a Leica to complement their
stuff.
Has nothing to do with rich mens toys.
Ansd some amateurs like the earlier mentioned Merklinger or Scheimplug or
countless others have contributed the field without making stunning art like
yourself .
simon            >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

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