or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leica X1 - Page 5

post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post
Probably all of them.

Perhaps several others, but certainly not all. The newest Leica M lenses will fit the M3 without any kind of adapter. The only other camera I can think of off hand that comes close is the Nikon F.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
Perhaps several others, but certainly not all. The newest Leica M lenses will fit the M3 without any kind of adapter. The only other camera I can think of off hand that comes close is the Nikon F.

Oh, I see what you mean. But all of the old lenses still work.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
The M3 is the ultimate rangefinder camera. It has no superfluous additions.

Well, if you consider framelines for the focal lengths where an M excels "superfluous," I guess that makes sense.

Can't believe how damn cheap M3s have gotten. I'm-a get one for my M-Hexanon 50mm.
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
1/500 is nonsense - in an APS-C (ala the X1) SLR, you can handhold with good sharp images down to the reciprocal of the focal length. I am worse with camera shake than many, so I usually try to stay one stop above that if sharpness is key.

If you're working with a compact or rangefinder (no moving mirror mechanism), you can get away with even lower speeds, by a stop or so.

Image Stabilization will get you, at best, a stop or two. With Canon IS lenses and the built-in Pentax IS, I tended not even notice. A couple billion photographs were taken before anyone had ever heard of it.

you're describing how slow a shutter speed you can get away with when you're standing still. what i'm talking about is how fast the shutter speed needs to be when you're in constant motion. two completely different things.
post #65 of 85
Constant motion? If you're strapped into a gyroscope with a camera, yes, I suppose you'll need very fast shutter speeds.

Not sure what's candid about that, though.
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Constant motion? If you're strapped into a gyroscope with a camera, yes, I suppose you'll need very fast shutter speeds. Not sure what's candid about that, though.
it's all about the decisive moment. sound familiar? can't be a slug or you'll miss it. if you scale focus and track your subject's motion by walking at their pace, you really think 1/focal length is going to cut it? or if something happens suddenly and have to flick the camera up to your eye? hell, even for casual happy snaps, i prefer shooting at two shutter speeds faster than the minimum just so i don't have to think about it. i'm not using a medium format slr, for crying out loud. well, sometimes i do, but with a different technique. if you don't care about minimizing camera shake, or freezing subject motion, for that matter, to get sharp photos, or if you and your subjects aren't moving much, then just ignore what i've been saying about image stabilization and fast shutter speeds. anyone who says they can get sharp photos handheld at slow shutter speeds either isn't taking photos of people, or is downplaying just how soft their pictures really are.
post #67 of 85
Quote:
it's all about the decisive moment. sound familiar? can't be a slug or you'll miss it.
Yep, I don't know what Cartier-Bresson would have done without image stabilization, in-camera metering, high shutter speeds and fast film/high ISO digital.

Wait, you mean the absolute max on an early Leica was 1/500? Film speeds were under 100?

Clearly no pictures of value could be taken under such conditions.

Quote:
if you scale focus and track your subject's motion by walking at their pace, you really think 1/focal length is going to cut it?
Yes. The amount of movement generated by walking has very little to do with the movement of your hands or effect on the camera - this is why you can get 'camera shake' with a medium-format SLR (mirror slap) or a large format camera (wind catching in the bellows) even if they're on the world's sturdiest tripod.

Quote:
or if something happens suddenly and have to flick the camera up to your eye?
Um, then I "flick the camera up to [my] eye" and push the shutter release. I don't know what you're trying to argue here...

Quote:
if you don't care about minimizing camera shake, or freezing subject motion, for that matter, to get sharp photos, or if you and your subjects aren't moving much, then just ignore what i've been saying about image stabilization and fast shutter speeds. anyone who says they can get sharp photos handheld at slow shutter speeds either isn't taking photos of people, or is downplaying just how soft their pictures really are.
Image stabilization has fuck all to do with the freezing action - that's the greatest shortcoming (aside from being ineffectual) - if you're in a situation that requires handholding because of low-light, your subject will be moving. If whatever you're shooting isn't move, brace the damn camera.

Again, you don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. There's a reason that the reciprocal has been the standard for 35mm cameras since they were invented. It works.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Yep, I don't know what Cartier-Bresson would have done without image stabilization, in-camera metering, high shutter speeds and fast film/high ISO digital.

Wait, you mean the absolute max on an early Leica was 1/500? Film speeds were under 100?

Clearly no pictures of value could be taken under such conditions.

he made photos with the most advanced technology of his time. what's your point? that he should have taken photos with a wet plate view camera instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Yes. The amount of movement generated by walking has very little to do with the movement of your hands or effect on the camera - this is why you can get 'camera shake' with a medium-format SLR (mirror slap) or a large format camera (wind catching in the bellows) even if they're on the world's sturdiest tripod.

uh...a moving camera is a moving camera. ask anyone who has made a car commercial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Image stabilization has fuck all to do with the freezing action - that's the greatest shortcoming (aside from being ineffectual) - if you're in a situation that requires handholding because of low-light, your subject will be moving. If whatever you're shooting isn't move, brace the damn camera.

Again, you don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. There's a reason that the reciprocal has been the standard for 35mm cameras since they were invented. It works.

assuming your subject is stationary, the reciprocal rule works when you are standing still with a good stance, holding the camera steady with your arms held against your chest, and releasing the shutter button gently and smoothly when you've finished breathing out. you can go lower if you have a rangefinder or an exceptionally well dampened mirror.

outside of this envelope, it gets harder to make sharp photos. image stabilization reduces camera shake whether you use a slow or fast shutter speed. i'm more interested in its benefits at higher shutter speeds. i'm not so interested in it at lower shutter speeds, like under 1/30, due to subject motion, like you said. get it?
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
he made photos with the most advanced technology of his time. what's your point? that he should have taken photos with a wet plate view camera instead?
The issue is that your nonsense about being unable to take "candid photography" without high shutter speeds and IS is bullshit. Follow along, please.

Quote:
uh...a moving camera is a moving camera. ask anyone who has made a car commercial.
A moving camera is not a moving camera - ask anyone who's used a camera. The large movement of stepping has a smaller effect on an image than shaky hands.

Quote:
assuming your subject is stationary, the reciprocal rule works when you are standing still with a good stance, holding the camera steady with your arms held against your chest, and releasing the shutter button gently and smoothly when you've finished breathing out. you can go lower if you have a rangefinder or an exceptionally well dampened mirror.
Subject movement has nothing to do with camera shake, is unaffected by IS or shake and is not germane to what was being discussed. The shutter speed necessary to freeze action is, in fact, completely out of the hands of the photographer or camera.

Look, you made a patently stupid claim about the minimum shutter speed required for sharp images (in "candid photography"). Roll with it.

Quote:
outside of this envelope, it gets harder to make sharp photos. image stabilization reduces camera shake whether you use a slow or fast shutter speed.
That's fundamentally wrong. Above the threshold of camera shake, image stabilization is irrelevant. At 1/250 (with a 35mm lens, assuming normal human hands), your image cannot be made sharper by IS because there is no camera movement affecting the image.

Yeeeeesh.
post #70 of 85
I have not had a serious camera in my hands (brace of Leica IIIfs with TriX and separate single focal length lenses per body issued to me by Uncle Sugar) for near 40 years, and do enjoy the modern bells and whistles, but clearly remember setting the bodies at 1/125 and f11 and focusing each on infinity and being able to get away with 90+% of my shots technically adequate for publication.

Being aware of your intent and your surroundings was important those days. Not any longer.

A bit like choosing a correct golf club by looking rather than using a rangefinder or asking your caddie.

I have been looking for a compact digital with an excellent lens (single focal length even) for some time. It appears that Leica has done it.

Perry
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
The issue is that your nonsense about being unable to take "candid photography" without high shutter speeds and IS is bullshit. Follow along, please.
they help you get sharp photos under tough conditions. i don't understand how this is controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
A moving camera is not a moving camera - ask anyone who's used a camera. The large movement of stepping has a smaller effect on an image than shaky hands.
you're not making any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Subject movement has nothing to do with camera shake, is unaffected by IS or shake
never said it did. are you paying attention?
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
and is not germane to what was being discussed.
orly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
The shutter speed necessary to freeze action is, in fact, completely out of the hands of the photographer or camera.
wtf? shutter speed dial, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Look, you made a patently stupid claim about the minimum shutter speed required for sharp images (in "candid photography"). Roll with it.
i dunno. you don't seem to have understood anything i've said, and haven't made any good arguments to refute it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
That's fundamentally wrong. Above the threshold of camera shake, image stabilization is irrelevant. At 1/250 (with a 35mm lens, assuming normal human hands), your image cannot be made sharper by IS because there is no camera movement affecting the image.
here's a simple test. put your camera on a tripod and take a photo of something with lots of fine detail. take it off the tripod, and take 10 photos holding it with the best technique at a shutter speed of 1/focal length. then take 10 photos at the same shutter speed with sloppy technique, casual, but still trying to hold it relatively still. then drink some coffee (optional) and take 10 photos at the same shutter speed while you're moving quickly. end of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Yeeeeesh.
indeed!
post #72 of 85
This is getting pointless, so... final time.

Quote:
they help you get sharp photos under tough conditions. i don't understand how this is controversial.
Yes, tough conditions. When you are unable to shoot at the threshold of camera shake, IS may be helpful (may). Not at 1/500, not at 1/250 with wide, normal and even short telephotos. If your "candid photography" is taking place with a 500mm lens, then I suppose you may find it useful.

Even at those sub-reciprocal speeds, IS is not necessary to quality photography.

Quote:
wtf? shutter speed dial, anyone?
If your shutter speed dial alters the speed at which a subject can be captured, I'd like to find out which camera it is, 'cuz that reality-altering feature isn't on my D700.

Quote:
here's a simple test. put your camera on a tripod and take a photo of something with lots of fine detail. take it off the tripod, and take 10 photos holding it with the best technique at a shutter speed of 1/focal length. then take 10 photos at the same shutter speed with sloppy technique, casual, but still trying to hold it relatively still. then drink some coffee (optional) and take 10 photos at the same shutter speed while you're moving quickly. end of discussion.

Hop on one leg at the same time?

You made a stupid claim, that 1/500 was the point at which you no longer need be concerned about camera shake. This is patently untrue. Deal with it.
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
You made a stupid claim, that 1/500 was the point at which you no longer need be concerned about camera shake. This is patently untrue. Deal with it.
good news everyone! 1/30 is the fastest shutter speed you'll ever need for a 35mm lens. the reciprocal rule only goes so far and you need to practice good technique to pull it off. how many times do i have to say this before it sinks in? anything getting through there?
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
most of the time, the camera is not held steady, and it can be hard to get sharp pictures at even 1/500.
a true statement, and not misrepresented like the way you just put it. now, you're just grasping at straws.
post #75 of 85
Today I got another M3.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home