[Leica] Trimar

[Mike Johnston <70007.3477@compuserve.com>]

>>>A number of years ago Canon made an indepth study of aperture/speed
combinations and found that f/5.6 and f/8.0  and 1/60  to 1/250 were the most
used settings. Given the fact that a modern 400 or even 800ISO film can handle
many if not most subjects and illuminance environments (sorry no other words
available: I am not a native speaker) the use of an aperture of 2.0 is quite
selective. The idea behind the Trimar is of course quite useful<<<

 Erwin,
 FYI, at the magazine we call it SBR or "Subject Brightness Range." <s>

 I must emphatically agree with the sentiments of your post. In my work as a
magazine editor of a technical publication I speak to many photographers and
hear their concerns. In my opinion there are several technical aspects of image
quality that receive far too much attention from photographers, and some which
chronically receive too little attention. So we are always hearing about the
"graininess" of films but only seldom do we hear about their edge definition
and almost never their tonal range or gradation. IMO gradation is more
important than apparent grain--hence, Phil Davis's recent article on gradation
in our pages. 
 All photographers are overly concerned about the limits of any type of
range--e.g., what is the widest or longest focal length to which you can set
your zoom? What is the fastest speed to which you can push your film? What is
the biggest enlargement you can make from any given format? But really, high
quality comes from choosing judicious, attainable limits and then staying
inside those limits. 
 My own opinion is that photographers are too affected by their experience of
running up against their limitations, regardless of how infrequently those
frustrations occur. Thus, if you have a photographer who has a 180mm as his
longest lens, let him come up against a situation where he needs a 300mm only
once, and suddenly he thinks he "needs" a 300mm. So he saves his money, buys
one--and leaves it at home 98% of the time.
 Lens speed is another one of these overrated concerns. Photographers focus
their attention on their high-lens-speed capabilities, but seldom stop to
reflect how often they really shoot at the apertures fast lenses provide. That
this is partly a psychological phenomenon is manifested by the ease with which
many photographers gave up fast maximum apertures for desired convenience in
some other parameter--either variable focal-length range in the case of zooms,
or carrying convenience in the case of point-and-shoots, or a larger negative
in the case of 6x6cm cameras. Suddenly, f/2.8 is "fast" (in any one of these
three cases), and photographers are curiously content with that maximum
aperture. 
 The classic misfortune caused by the excessive concern with lens speed is the
traditional preference for f/1.4 planar-types over f/2 equivalents in normal
lenses. The f/2 may perform _better_ at f/2 and f/2.8, and the fast lens may
provide obviously weak performance wide open, limiting its usefulness--it
doesn't matter. The photographer must have it. Why? It's psychological--he is
protecting himself from experiencing frustration on those rare occasions when
the f/1.4 aperture would allow more freedom in shooting.
 I would recommend that photographers learn to be more sanguine about the
inevitable limitations of their chosen equipment kit, and outfit themselves for
speciality situations only if the _preponderance_ of their needs really justify
it. The Trimar may or may not turn out to have a fully usable open aperture.
But if its f/4 setting is fully usable--which we have reason to hope will be
the case--then the Trimar would be just fine for virtually all outdoor shooting
with regard to maximum aperture.
 A personal experience: I owned a Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 for a year and a
half, during which time I used it as my main lens. Outside of testing, not
_once did I ever knowingly shoot a frame at f/2. Even indoors in dim light with
TMZ, I preferred 1/30th and 1/15th at f/2.8.
 And finally, just think of the possibilities that the Trimar will afford for
changing peoples' thinking about lens outfits. Rather than a fast normal to be
used indoors and out, how about a Trimar for flexible, convenient, one-lens 
shooting outdoors in daylight, augmented by a Noctilux for indoor and night
shooting? _Voila_--a supremely flexible 2-lens outfit for general shooting,
much more efficient that the traditional 3-lens outfit with only one or two
"semi-fast" lenses in the arsenal.
 It is very promising! And, like you, I am much less concerned about the f/4
speed than most will be.

 --Mike

P.S. This message should have the subject heading "Trimar." If it doesn't, then
I have no way to change the subject headings of replies posted to the LUG, and,
again, I apologize for any inconvenience this causes.