Re: [Leica] digital in low light

[frank.dernie@btinternet.com]

Hi Mark,
the Canon f1 lens has much less vignetting than the Noctilux and is much heavier and more expensive - and discontinued. f1.2 is more or less the 1/2 stop between f1 and f1.4 (without going into more decimal places). The noct-Nikkor is excellent wide open and, I believe, still available.
cheers
Frank

>  from:    Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com>
>  date:    Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:49:21
>  to:      leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>  subject: Re: [Leica] digital in low light
> 
> On 2/1/04 9:25 PM, "Eric Welch" <eric@jphotog.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry Mark, but the EOS D1s will blow away the Fuji Neopan at 1600
> > (with no pushing) with the Canon 50mm 1.0 for noise vs. the Fuji's
> > grain, but it won't have the "character" of the Noctilux.
> > 
> > Eric Welch
> > Carlsbad, CA
> > http://www.jphotog.com
> > 
> > There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by reading. The few
> > who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric
> > fence. - Will Rogers.
> > On Feb 1, 2004, at 6:08 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> > 
> >> Compare that against the noisy results you get at the high speeds on a
> >> DSLR!
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> 
> Might be interesting some time to see results from the Canon F1. A direct
> comparison against the Noctilux of the same shot.
> Might not have as much character as the Noctilux, certainly wont have the
> SAME charter as the Noctilux. Would be interesting working with a f1 50 on a
> groundglass. I do have a feeling the Noctilux would be a better lens for
> more reasons. But maybe not. I shelled out for a Noctilux. And I've got a
> gut feeling I didnšt make a mistake.
> I do Nikon and I donšt think it's 1.2 has much of a reputation on the
> positive end. Although it sells new for the price of a Noctilux lens cap so
> how good does it need to be? 1.2 is certainly close enough to F1. How close
> I donšt happen to know. A forth stop?
> 
> It may easily be that digital is better for low light at the highest speeds
> on my D100 which are 3200 and 6400 I think even with a variable zoom lens if
> I can see it I can get it. Had held of course. It lights up at the back of
> the camera and I see more there when when I'm standing there looking at the
> subject matter itself! And the fact that for some reason it seems like you
> can hand hold the camera an extra two stops certainly gives it an edge.
> When I shoot film which was not much this year as that was my plan I tend to
> have the Neopan 1600 in my camera. My all around street camera. Just make
> sure I have a filter with me that will absorb a stop when the sun comes out
> on what I'm shooting or I over expose.
> 
> Those extra two stops Neopan gives me over tri X really makes me feel like I
> can shoot just about anything and with the Noctilux that's another stop on
> top of that. Three stops total. So it's as if I'm shooting 3200 film and
> getting a high quality hardly grainy result up to 11x14.
> 
> But it does not suck the light out of the darkness like the chip in my D100.
> Although I wish I could relate more experience in what those shots look
> printed as an A3. My feeling is they'll appear quite grainy but in an
> amazingly even and pleasant way. Like adding a little noise and sharpening
> it. Each grain a different color.
> 
> If I shot a lot of low light I'd figure out a developer which would jack up
> my Neopan to 3200 and still give good tonality. Perhaps a Diafine like two
> bath would provide a natural push. Give shadow detail more than just
> increasing contrast.
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland, Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/Catagorypages/PersonalWork.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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