Leica LTM Ken Rockwell's take on why Cartier-Bresson only shot with a 50

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I think that what p1sses a lot of people off about Ken Rockwell is that he actually gets off his arse and tests the bits of gear that most others only fantasise about, and he's not afraid to criticise it. The squeals of outrage here when he pointed out that the Zeiss ZF 50mm lens was no better than the Nikon version, but cost about four times as much, could have been heard outside the solar system!

Good luck to him; I don't agree with a good deal of what he writes but I do like the way he does it.
 
Svitantti said:
Human field of view is close to 180 degrees rather than 50mm FOV.
Click to expand...

No, sorry. FoV is not measured in degrees, AoV (Angle of View) is. Human vision is indeed stated as being nearly 180 degrees (with both eyes). The human FoV has generally been accepted to be similar to the FoV as seen through a 43mm lens (on a 35mm camera), although this is somewhat misleading as the 35mm frame would have to considerably taller than it currently is for it to be an ideal match.

However, a normal-vision, uncorrected, human eye viewing through a 35mm SLR with a 43mm lens should see an uninterrupted field of vision if they have both eyes open, depending on variables such as magnification of the viewscreen, focus distance, and so on.

This argument has been going on forever, but it can be easily demonstrated just by trying an SLR with a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens while keeping both eyes open.
 
Years ago I used to target shoot. Shooters are like most people who inhabit these forums - they love to buy guns / cameras simply for the love of the "stuff" involved in the hobby.

We had an adage - "Beware the man who has only one gun." Meaning of course that this person knew that gun inside out and knew how to use it. And was likely as not, more interested in using it than taking it out and oiling it and stroking it by the fireside like the rest of us were. Is it not too much to suggest that HCB may have been the same as the "one gun man." To me this is as compelling an argument fro HCBs approach as any. He was first and foremost an artist. He did not idealise his tools. He used them.

And while on the topic, why the flaming and harsh criticism of KR in these forums. I actually like the guy. I do not agree with everything he says. He has his quirks - as do we all!!!! But he is a pleasant read and seems like a decent person. And he buys stuff and tests it in the field.

You may not like his conclusions -- In which case may I suggest something radical?. DONT READ HIS COLUMNS AND SAVE YOURSELF THE ANGST. I do like him and will continue to do so till I change my mind.
 
peterm1 said:
You may not like his conclusions -- In which case may I suggest something radical?. DONT READ HIS COLUMNS AND SAVE YOURSELF THE ANGST.
Click to expand...

These people are the same as those who are horrified and angered by Rush Limbaugh. They cannot wait to be offended second-hand, they must listen assiduously to his show so they can be offended live on a daily basis.

I have often been accused of listening to Rush Limbaugh, which I assure all and sundry I do not. However, the people who accuse me of it seem to know Rush's show line and verse - meaning THEY listen to it - through gritted teeth.

I think some people just have a perpetual need to feel offended, oppressed, and get their noses out of joint. They are, as I have offered before, defined by what they hate. To those worthies, I offer my most sincere Bronx Cheer.
 
jody36 said:
Rush is amusing but as with most political commentators not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I agree - the point is that there are a huge number of people who take him quite seriously, and are made apoplectic thereby. Why would people line up willingly to listen to a man they detest say things they hate hearing, so that they can then complain about how awful he is?

Same-same Ken Rockwell.
 
Kevin, the truth is that I rarely use the 15mm finder as a finder when shooting with the 15mm lens. I mostly hold, aim, fire, and wind one handed, and I can do that with either hand. The camera is often in places I couldn't get my eye if I tried, like over my head or three feet outside a window.The finder is handy to hook a finger around for a more secure grip. Framing is a matter of experience and/or sheer luck, because l usually just fire off 2 or 3 frames.
 
Some of you guys here are so funny...

Don't you ever get the point?​

Cool down; then read again and try to figure out the point..
 
Last edited:
We've all been waiting for the Orient to introduce a small, real, quiet camera with a decent sized sensor. Duh! The joke's on us: Germany's Leica M8 has been here all along.
Click to expand...

Rockwell can be a bit much at times but he often makes some pretty interesting observations.
 
Heh, get set for another 4 pages of posts about Ken. 🙂

Seriously, he put up an article about how to work ebay, there is some good stuff in there. Dammit. Now everyone will know the secrets. 🙂

The best part? "pretards." 🙂
 
bmattock said:
No, sorry. FoV is not measured in degrees, AoV (Angle of View) is. Human vision is indeed stated as being nearly 180 degrees (with both eyes). The human FoV has generally been accepted to be similar to the FoV as seen through a 43mm lens (on a 35mm camera), although this is somewhat misleading as the 35mm frame would have to considerably taller than it currently is for it to be an ideal match.

However, a normal-vision, uncorrected, human eye viewing through a 35mm SLR with a 43mm lens should see an uninterrupted field of vision if they have both eyes open, depending on variables such as magnification of the viewscreen, focus distance, and so on.

This argument has been going on forever, but it can be easily demonstrated just by trying an SLR with a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens while keeping both eyes open.
Click to expand...

Aren't you too old to be a smartass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom