Humbug: [Leica] Millimeters and milliseconds

[Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

The key problem with these analyses is that there is no system approach.

First there is your reaction time, which I can guarantee you is not
anywhere near as short as 100ms.  Take a digital stopwatch start it and
then try to stop it at .10 seconds - by watching the numbers change,
not by just hitting the button again as quickly as possible.  You will be
very surprised at how long the time is.  It's easily enough
to bury any other time in the system.

Second, there is the button travel time.  With, say, an M3, the shutter
has to travel several millimeters to hit the point where it releases.
There is no way to ascertain it except that the shutter releases.  With a
Hexar, there is a two-position release with much less travel.  You
already have it pressed down halfway when you shoot the picture.  It
doesn't take more than 1/2mm of travel to trip it.  Here the advantage is
with the Hexar.

Finally, you have the lag between the tripping of the shutter and the
shutter opening.  This favors the M.

I think that when you consider that the M's release travel distance is
longer, and that your reaction time is huge, that no system approach would
make you more likely to hit with one over the other.  You are always leading.

Regards
- ------------
Dante Stella

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Peter Klein wrote:

> (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