[Leica] Re: Macro comparison

[douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp)]

Good morning Mark,
at least it is here.
Thanks for taking time to send your very interesting (as usual), and 
comprehensive, comments.

Mark Rabiner wrote:

> 
> Great Doug but what doe "Spot on" mean your getting them in focus?
> ;-) (obnoxious smiley face)
If someone smiles at you, look at his eyes.
> Maybe your groundglass likes one lens more.
Could be, maybe Canon and Leica have a certain dislike of each other.
> Leica nut that I am I'm not really feeling all that threatened by some very
> old Leica macro optic not measuring up to a modern lens. Even if that 
> modern
> lens has the overwhelmingly uninspiring name of "Yashica".
Modern as in late 70's early 80's?, true, not exactly inspiring, but good 
enough 
to be advertised and sold as a viable entry level alternative to Zeiss.They 
always had a V-good reputation for their rangefinder optics.
> The main advantage for the Yashica system was that it had maybe ok 
> sometimes
> maybe better than ok optics but you could put Zeiss made in Japan stuff on
> it which really was pretty good. Certainly something to give Nikon/Canon a
> run for their money.  One or two Zeiss made in Germany as well I think.
As can be seen in the pricelists.
> 
> Macro photography when people get into it they realize that it's a little
> hard to do casually If they are hoping to match the results they've seen in
> magazines or books. Its a lot more difficult than it looks.
It is indeed!!!! though if I consider I only started on macro about 3 weeks 
ago
I hope to able to contend that the results aren't all that bad,(it makes a 
change from hundreds of tons of hot iron, steel and steam, which doesn't 
tend to 
wilt within the hour, and still brings big metering problems - they're so 
black)
> You need to stop way down and use an ultra fast shutter speed at the same
> time. It would help if the earth was a little closer the the sun. and the
> sun was not a hot light.
Astrophysical problem of G-type stars, we need a different solar system.
> 
> There's plenty ways to go wrong in a macro shot. And always another way
> lurking around the corner.

> You've shown us in that last test pitfalls of figuring out if you've really
> hit your focus or not. Comparing an out of focus area of one image against
> an in focus area of another image and making a qualification.
> So when you tell me some middle of the road optic made to a fraction of the
> higher tolerances of anything Leica ever made is better than a solid 
> (though
> older) Leica be I'm not inclined to automatically believe that without
> visual proof.
Puddings and eating, nicht wahr!
> But I've gotten to the point where I just don't believe TALK about lenses.
> As I'm getting to feel that TALKING about lenses its like dancing about
> architecture.
I've heard that before somewhere,like telling someone how to make GOOD 
photos is 
like teaching a fish how to ride a bicycle
> The pictures should be out on the table.
> And speaking for themselves.
They are,come on overand take a look.
> As you just did with your test.
> which we were able to qualify accordion-ly.
> 
> If there was some scratching in the brass in that shot we could be looking
> out it might make a better going on viable lens test. 
Nope, I'm not going to scratch my lovely lamp to prove anything, maybe if I 
rub 
it the genie will bring me a 60mm Elmar.
All it think we're
> testing here which such smooth surfaces and lack of detail is contrast and
> contrast and be arrived at in plenty of different ways. Especially when we
> get in the digital realm.
> Or testing if the focus of your optics is matching your focus on your
> groundglass.
> Lucky is was a round (like the Earth) not flat subject.
> If it was newspapers on the wall we could have easily been comparing an in
> focus image with an out of focus image, sold all our Leicas, and never 
> known
> the difference. I'm sure this happens all the time.
Could explain why the second hand market is full of Leicas
> 
> Contrast can be arrived at in plenty of different ways.
> Making you think a lens has more or less contrast than it really has.
> Maybe contrast is being compensated for and you don't even know it.
> Often tests end up being in effect a test of unsharp masking and not much
> else. Not on your last one perhaps.
> And contrast can later compensated for so you wonder if it's a little 
> beside
> the point. Like color saturation.
> By the way you were locking the mirror up?
Mirror lock-up, self-timer as shutter release and 20 pounds of our sons 
training 
weights hanging from the middle column of the tripod.
> 
> Shooting flowers is not a great way to find out if you have a cutting edge
> macro lens or not - for the making of fast generalizing of one lens over
> another.
> Flowers are soft and mushy unless someone's been out spray painting the
> roses red with a high rez bar code stencil.
I beg to differ, pollen heads, I forget which are stamens and which are 
pistels.
I don't get up so early or it would be pistels at dawn.

> And they move in the breeze. 
Not in my office they don't
Even when you don't see them do it. And are
> real hard to get all in focus in a real close-up.
> You get the pestle. But not much mortar.
> 
> Lots of Twinkie-light hating people when they get into macro end up taking
> the Twinkie defense. As they, with most serious macro photography are much
> more an intricate part of the ballgame than even the photojournalists who
> you see always with their flashes on camera even at high noon at the salt
> flats; especially then.
> 
> With the flash making you able to shoot at f22 or 16 with an effective
> shutter speed because of flash duration of 1/200,000 of a second you are
> going to obtain some sharpness in a macro shot somewhere.
> Often though not where you thought you'd like it.
> Its so easy to mis your focus Even at f22.
That's why so few of the hundreds are even worth looking at.
> Ironically it can make using a tripod not really crucial.
I drink too much espresso, it's crucial.
> Things are moving in the breeze anyway.
> They help you bracket your focus that way. Your you blast away with your
> motor drive. Mirror lock up would not be necessary if you were using flash.
> 
> The prevalent technique of macro photography with a flash on a 3 foot 
> coiled
> usually TTL cord makes for shots which you'd never think were flash shots 
> in
> a million years. And with no fancier technique than this. No bounce. No
> cards. No mini soft boxes. As in the bulk of the quality macro shots out
> there in our collective unconscious....  That's how they're shot.
Until someone (Metz?) comes out with an E-TTL hammerhead at a reasonable 
price
I'll have to pass on this one and keep on using a daylight flat screen for 
slide 
viewing as a constant light source.
> 
> It's not real obvious why macro flash does not look like macro flash but
> passes easily for natural light. I think it's somehow the out of context
> ness of it.
Wasn't it Yashica (who?)that made the macro with a built-in ring-flash?
if I had one , how would I get it to sync with the Canon ?
> 
> A rose by any other light source.
would shine but half so sweet.

> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
Thanks again
Douglas