Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2009-09-16-18:59:51 Mark Rabiner: > I did some really great night shooting when I got my Noctilux in 2001. > Then came digital. > And I could easily get much better results from the the same dark alley > shooting the black cat at midnight with a slow cheap $125 zoom. > So I'm curious the shots you've got you could not have got at f4. [...] > I just Googled Jeff Moore Leica.. I doubt much useful would come from that. For one thing, I don't see much point in splashing "Leica" over everything as a keyword, so I don't; it might be in the EXIF data, but that doesn't necessarily make it into the search engines as a main something to query on. > Maybe you could give me a pointer. I've posted a fair bit of stuff here to the list over the last few years, it's not hard to find; but let's take an example right from the set of pictures I pointed to a couple of messages earlier right in this very thread: http://photos.bazbarfoo.com/Events/2009-09-11-WarehouseOpening/9602510_fUnyT#646856265_8oj4R I'm not claiming the above photo is the pinnacle of the photographic art or anything, but I think the couple have nice energy, it's a cute picture; and if you just roll your mouse over the image and click on that "i" for Photo Info, what do you see? 1/11th of a second at ISO 1250 (and I remember that the lens actually was at f/1.4, as the EXIF data claims, even though the camera doesn't really know that for sure). There really wasn't much light there. Assuming I actually wanted to take a picture of these kids, how would I do it with an f/4 lens? I suppose I could run the ISO up to 2500; M8 images hold together okay as 1250 and get pretty blizzardy at 2500, but, sure, let's run it up to 2500 and live with the snowstorm. That gets the lens to f/2.0. To get those other two stops to f/4, well, we're up against the firewall here on ISO. I guess I have to handhold something between 1/4 and 1/2 second. You think that picture was a little wobbly at 1/11th, wait 'til you see 1/2 second! And even if I could've pulled it off, I don't think I'd have liked the look of the picture as much with the guy, and the guy behind him, more crisply rendered. > You into some hair sliver depth of field thing? Not necessarily. But sometimes, sure, I think it looks pretty darned cool... http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/1042117286/in/set-72157603617526847 http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/1042117286/sizes/o/in/set-72157603617526847/ > I have to say that I have my share of 1.4 lenses and I shoot all kinds a > pictures. > And I'm aware how they can be as necessary as they can be un. There! That didn't hurt so much, did it?