Leica Optics

[richard_l]

Why do I (and lots of other people) usually handhold a superb high resolution lens like the 50mm Summicron, when a tripod is necessary in order to take full advantage of the lens? A more modest lens would probably perform just as well handheld.

I can usually tell a difference when I use a tripod with the Summicron. Even a monopod helps. Within the past few years I've begun using a monopod more, with a quick release head, and a handgrip on the camera in order to center the tripod socket.

Any thoughts?

 

[FrankS]

You are correct, Richard. The only flaw in your logic is that if you want ultimate sharpness and are willing to use a tripod, you'd be better off with almost any medium format camera.

A mono pod is a very good compromise. It can be used as a walking stick as well, and as we get older and shakier, it will be well worthwhile using.

 

[Nikon Bob]

You are right about tripods but that would ruin using a rangefinder for me. Kind of strange isn't it, great optics handheld.

Bob

 

[jdos2]

Those great optics show themselves, what, 3 times per roll? When the combination of high shutter speed, just the right wind, and me shooting between heartbeats give me images of such staggering clarity and sharpness that I just look at 'em again and again...


That's one of the reasons I didn't go for the Summicron, and went straight for the Noctilux. It ain't all about sharpness, often for me it's just about the light, and my Mamiya Universal already has an f/2.8 lens of some repute, if I want a lens so dark...

🙂

 

[richard_l]

Frank: My monopod is a walking stick! 🙂 http://store.yahoo.com/campmor/80371.html

Bob: Yes, it is strange. I'm trying to figure it out.

 

[doubs43]

Why do I (and lots of other people) usually handhold a superb high resolution lens like the 50mm Summicron, when a tripod is necessary in order to take full advantage of the lens? A more modest lens would probably perform just as well handheld.

I respectfully disagree. If the Leica optics are "degraded" in performance when handheld, a lesser optic would also be degraded an equal amount for an even poorer performance. The only way your theory would be valid is if the lesser optic wasn't also degraded. IMO, anyway.

Walker

 

[richard_l]

I respectfully disagree. If the Leica optics are "degraded" in performance when handheld, a lesser optic would also be degraded an equal amount for an even poorer performance.

That sounds logical, but I wonder if the degradation of the inferior lens would be as noticeable considering its already less than stellar optimal performance.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

It would seem to me, following Walker's logic, that one does not notice degraded sharpness so much as one has the opportunity to witness superb sharpness.

Even if the degraded quality of a leica/other high performance lens is no better than a cheaper alternative's degraded image quality (which is in doubt, as I agree with Walker) one would still have the possibility to witness said superb optics handholding with a Leica. Using an inferior lens, said possibility is negated completely. Whether the 'hit rate' is high enough to justify the increased cost is a personal choice...

 

[back alley]

you guys been drinkin'?

🙂joe

 

[cp_ste.croix]

i did just get home from rugby...

 

[back alley]

i did just get home from rugby...

just as i suspected...

 

[laptoprob]

The great thing nowadays is that one (read: myself) can get those great Leica optica without paying those crazy Leica prices. Now what is the problem then?

Rob.

 

[aizan]

"If we change to handheld photography, we may be pleased wen we see 30 to 40 lp/mm at the higher speeds (above 1/500 at least).

When we use grainier ISO400 material, slower shutter speeds and bad conditions, (fast focussing, moving targets etc), we should be surprised to get 20 to at most 30 lp/mm on the negative."

"The realistic value of 20 to 30 lp/mm is also on a level that most lenses (older and curent Leica lenses, but also many lenses of other manufacturers: like Voigtlander, Zeiss, Canon and Pentax and many others) can capture without much problems."

from http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/resolution/resolution.html

 

[Doug]

Another flaw in the argument I think is that not all the superiority of a superior lens is in the sharpness; there's something else too about how it handles contrasts and colors. I agree about medium format, and there even the shaky hold is a little less evident in the print, magnified that much less.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I mainly use my RF's for taking pictures of fast, moving targets. Like the one in my Avatar. Low latency is the prime feature for such shots, and lack of viewfinder blackout helps. Using a monopod or tripod would slow down my tracking. I would rather have a "less than optimal sharpness" shot than a missed shot. I use a monopod and tripod for other situations, such as bird photography, where the subject actually lands for a minute or so.

 

[richard_l]

There's some really sharp thinking going on here, lots of valid reasons for handholding even premium lenses. Here's another obvious consideration. It's often possible to brace the camera, or at least oneself, against something rigid, such as a lamppost, fence, tree, wall, etc. This can sometimes add a great deal of stability. Add to this a monopod, and one may be able to approach the rigidity of a tripod.

Here's an available darkness shot I took at 1/8s by bracing myself against a doorjamb. (A little luck helped too, of course.)

 

[Chuck A]

From what I have read using a tripod not only affects the sharpness of a lens, but the microcontrast as well. I haven't experimented and checked this out but supposedly if you want more of the great Leica look from you Leica lenses you should use a tripod whenever possible. Has anybody else read this? Was it Sean Reid that said it?

I am not sure that I understand this concept though. How does a tripod affect the microcontrast?

 

[pshinkaw]

Back in the days when most amateur photographers could only afford one camera with some extra lenses or perhaps two compatible bodies and lenses, it made sense to to have "do everything" cameras. Cameras that were good for close-ups, vacation landscapes, anniversary celebrations, wedding receptions, copying documents and little league baseball games. That's one of the reasons that SLR's did so well. It's really hard to shoot close-up macro flower photos with a rangefinder camera.

Now film users are becoming an anomaly and we have access to a lot of inexpensive (formerly very expensive) cameras and lenses. It makes perfect sense to me to have cameras which I only load with B&W film, others which I use for sports and still others I use only for people portraits. Some get handheld in order to use unique properties such as quick and easy focusing, while others are used on a tripod in order to fully utilize their best properties.

I think the solution is neither very hard nor expensive. Buy a lot cameras and lenses and specialize them.

-Paul

 

[aizan]

if and when konica minolta makes a digital hexar rf with anti-shake, you know who is going to get one.

 

[jdos2]

Anyone wanna talk construction quality with regards to Leica Lenses? I picked up my MP this morning and heard a rattling. Took off the lens (hood) cap and found my front trim ring on my 35mm Summilux ASPH fallen off...

Lookin' for threads on how to fix/glue/tighten this.