[Leica] Trade off between film and lens speed

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

Ted brought up an interesting issue regarding the Steve Unsworth's 
wonderful "Girl Talk" pictures:
http://www.steveunsworth.co.uk/PAW/week_27alt4.htm

Sometimes with available light pictures, we have a choice of using an
f/2-ish lens and fast film, or a very fast lens and slow film.

Ted--and anybody else--how do you deal with these trade-offs?  And if
anyone's got examples of similar scenes with a 'Noct or f/1.4 lens, vs.
faster film with a 'Cron, please post 'em.

To open the discussion:
Here's a couple of pictures I took on XP-2 at 400 and my 50/1.4 LTM Nikkor
from the 50s (I've posted them before as PWIFLIs).

   http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_xmas.htm
   http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/paula_harpo.htm

All were taken in the same room at 1/60 @ f/1.4

Now, suppose I'd taken the same pictures:

A.  With a Noctilux, 1/30 @ f/1.0 on 100 film like Delta 100
B.  With Neopan 1600, 1/60 @ f/2.8
C.  Same exposure, using a modern 50 Summilux or Voigtlander Nokton 
instead of the old Nikkor.

How much would I have gained or lost in image quality? We've got two
factors going here, the lens' performance wide open vs. the extra grain
and loss of detail of faster films.

For instance, I don't have much textural detail in Charlie's eyebrows or
Harpo's fur.  If I went to 1600 film, I would gain the resolution with the
lens, but might lose it with the film, and I'd have more grain.

(BTW, the window behind the first s double-pane.  So the bokeh of the
50/1.4 Nikkor is not as bad as it looks here)

- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html