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

["Slobodan Dimitrov" <s.dimitrov@charter.net>]

Ted, Calm down and happy holidays! 
S. Dimitrov

- ----------
>From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R
>Date: Sat, Dec 27, 2003, 8:28 PM
>

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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