Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Excellent explanation of why speed matters...;-)
B. D.
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Peter Klein
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:31 PM
To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Millimeters and milliseconds
(Ted Grant asked why some of us, me included, were so concerned about
squigglies per millimeter, Aspherics, and shutter lag milliseconds.)
> Guys and gals, Really on this testing and which is better, best and
> what will give the best results have no relevance to the quality of the
> content! Ultimately the quality impact of the photograph is what it's
> all about!.
> So save your film and time, just go take pictures of moments that move
> you to expose film and save the frustrations of which is better, best or
> igly! Whatever, ugly! aspheric or straight up ordinary...., it still
> comes down to what you put on film.
> It's the light, eyes, the action and that's the bottom line! Screw the
> rest! :-) Go capture great moments with whatever lens you own.
> So please explain to me "in real time meaning " just what this ms thing
> has to do with real photojournalistic photography and just how it can be
> applied, don't forget to please do so in common sense logic for
> successful photographs.
OK, here goes. The shorter the shutter lag, the more likely it is that
I will capture the expression on the person's face that I saw as I
tripped the shutter. For decisive moment stuff, it does matter.
Do you know the piece of classical music "The Flight of the Bumblebee?"
Think about all those fast notes. As the piece is often performed, each
one is about 100 ms long. Now think about the animated face of a
subject you're trying to photograph. In the space of one or two of those
notes, the expression can change.
This is one of the reasons why a Leica M is a better people photographing
machine than an SLR. The Leica has a delay of about 12-18 ms, only 1/5
or 1/6 the length of those fast notes. The quickest current SLRs are
125 ms or more, with many of the popular ones in the 200 - 300 range.
You have to add your own reaction time to these figures.
Now, here's an example of why all the techie stuff matters, using a real
live picture. I'm very pleased with the content of this photo.
http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/grackle.htm
* Why milliseconds matter: I took this shot when the bird let out a quick
peep. I caught his "expression" just as I saw it. If my camera had a 100
or 120ms shutter lag (Hexar RF or Bessa), he probably would have already
started to close his beak, and it wouldn't have been the same picture.
Close, maybe usable, but not quite on the money. If I'd used a typical
digital camera or autofocus SLR, his beak would have been completely
closed by the time the shutter opened. Or he might have already flown away
because the camera noise spooked him!
* Why squigglies per millimeter matter: This picture was shot with a
1960s 90mm Elmarit, wide open at about 4 or 5 feet. I didn't want to stop
down to f/4, because then I'd have had to shoot at 1/30, and I likely
would have blurred the shot. All this was a split-second decision--I'd
already metered the area. "Oh, nice birdie, in shadow, close, OK, wide
open 1/60," focus shoot, wind, shoot.
If I had used the modern Elmarit-M, or a 90 APO, or my old 85/2 Nikkor
at f/2.8, the eye would be a little sharper, just enough for better
impact. (Note that the sharpening process has made the rear of the beak
seem a little sharper than the eye--on the neg, they look about the
same.) Also, this lens is not so good in the edges and corners wide
open--the feet and tail are more blurred than the depth of field alone
can account for.
Faster film or a twinkie light would have helped this picture, but they
weren't available at the time--I was in the desert in bright sun, and
all of a sudden there was this black bird in the shade, and I shot first
and asked questions later!
I think this is a good shot of a bird trying to say something. But I
can almost guarantee it would win no prizes, or get any respect at a
photo club meeting. "It's blurry!" they'd say.
* Why bokeh matters: Look at the out-of-focus brances behind the bird.
Imagine how distracting it would be if the borders between the light and
dark areas were stark lines or double lines.
- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA
- --
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