Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/23

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

Subject: [Leica] iso 100.000+??
From: jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:09:23 +0530
References: <30828402.1256302651523.JavaMail.root@wamui-haziran.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Doug,
Actually I have made the comparision - between your prints, which I
have a few and John Shaw (Nikon and 200-400, 500) and Art Wolfe (Canon
and 400, 600), and for the life of me I cannot make out ANY difference
in prints upto 13"x19" or thereabouts. I made these observations after
looking at prints which I have purchased from all of you and own and
not off the top of my head. That is a tremendous feather in Leica's
cap - but it also means that the others have caught up.

Anyway I have said what I have to, as I am sure you have, so let us
drop the matter.

Cheers
Jayanand



On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> 
wrote:
> Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:
>
>>No complaint from me either - he is welcome to us what he wants - it
>>just amuses me to see how other points of view get rubbished, with
>>incorrect data!
>
> What is your data, Jayanand? ?You think that at the sizes I print nobody 
> would be able to distinguish between a photo made with the 200-400 and a 
> photo and with the 280 f/4 APO? ?Have you actually made this comparison?
>
> Regardless of the optical mechanical and ergonomic differences between the 
> lenses, my field data suggests that they would be different photos. ?The 
> much larger size and weight of the 200-400 would require different 
> technique and a different approach to the subjects. ?I cannot get nearly 
> as close to the animals with a big lens as I can with a smaller one; the 
> 200-400 would not allow many of the photos I've posted for this reason. 
> ?Many of my wildlife photos were made at distances under 3 meters 
> (Jackrabbit, for example) or 2 meters (some of the Mountain Bluebirds, 
> Ring-necked Pheasant, Sooty Grouse, Common Merganser) or one meter (turkey 
> poults, ground squirrel) and I'm often following there animals for hours 
> in rough terrain before I make even one exposure.
>
> My experience with heavier lenses is that I cannot frequently go from a 
> crouched position to standing without excessive fatigue (I'm also a 
> triathlete, it's not like I'm flabby). ?The dense vegetation I frequently 
> work in also prevents me from using a longer lens at a longer distance.
>
> For these reasons I compare the 280mm f/4 APO with comparable Nikon 
> lenses, and I find that the APO-Telyt is more suited to my needs. ?I've 
> tried about 2 or 3 dozen lenses from at least 5 makers in the focal 
> lengths between 200mm and 400mm. ?I find that the 280mm f/4 APO is best 
> suited to my needs.
>
> In the future please refrain from telling me that I should use some other 
> equipment unless you can demonstrate a measurable difference in 
> side-by-side comparisons in the conditions I work in with my subjects and 
> technique.
>
> Doug Herr
> Birdman of Sacramento
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)
In reply to: Message from wildlightphoto at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] iso 100.000+??)