Need the speed?

[Mackinaw]

This past weekend I pulled out my Canon 50/0.95, screwed on a Hoya 3X ND filter, and shot a whole roll on Efke 25 wide-open at 0.95. Talk about unique results. A sharp central area surrounded by strong softness in the corners and with extremely shallow depth of field. Makes the subject, if in the center of the picture, almost pop out of the photo. So, in this case, I used a high-speed lens because of its unique signature (which, admittedly, may not be everybody's cup of tea).

Jim B.

 

[Trius]

Higher ISO with a slower lens is NOT equivalent to faster lens with slower film/lower ISO sensor.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Now that you can get a D700 for $2400 and shoot at 25600 ISO -- and it kind of looks like P3200 only with detail -- it effectively kills the argument that Leicas and fast lenses are the best low light cameras. They aren't anymore.

Same for color. Digital color is hands down better than color film, unless you jump to the huge formats and drum scanners....

The practical reasons you choose to use a Leica, especially with film, is for the clear finder, the precise focusing, and the quality of black and white film. And the only practical reason to get a fast wide lens that costs the same as a small Korean car is because you want to do short depth-of-field wide shots, which have been impossible up until now (ignoring the Canon 24/1.4).

But who is 100% practical in these matters?

 

[sanmich]

Secret me: "This 1.2 21mm Summi Leissanon is all I need to impress at my next photoclub show off. Gotta send douchebag to get it from rational me. Oi douchebag!"
poor me: "yeah what it this time?"
Secret me: "I need a 1.2 21mm. you go talk to the scroogy guy!2
poor me (to rational me):"I am in desperate need of a 1.2 21mm Summi Leissanon!"
rational me: "Oh yeah what does it do your VC 21 does not?"
poor me:"Well...well you can take photos in dark bars......"
rational me:"...you rarely visit.."
poor me:"I can use it for homework, for research..."
rational me:"C'mon I heard that when you wanted a second netbook!"
poor me (whispers to himself): Crikey what will the secret guy do to me this time!
"....Yeeees and just like the netbook, whose usefulness you doubted it will enhance our potential as a photographer...."
rational me:"...Ok but the costs.."
poor me:"..I'll make cuts and save money!"
rational me": Still the money...."
poor me:"I won't buy myself a treat for xmas!"
rational me:"that's still a gazillion we talk..."
poor me:"no treat for my birthday....and for easter! an and I won't rent DVD's for 7 month!"
rational me: "OK go on then...(mumbles to himself) I'm sure to regret that later on..."
Me Me (wakes up with a terrible headache):"OMG, I have this terrible longig for that Leissanon...I'll post "What do you think about this lens" tbc

Then you buy the Leissanon and start calling it "my precious..."
Gollum,
Gollum...🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

Learning the properr techniques of calming yourself, controlling your breathing, etc., etc., apply just as much to shooting a camera at slow shutter speeds as they do to shooting a rifle or pistol.

I have a Pepsi can here that I've kept for about 35 years. My friend Spencer Tiger had just purchased a Winchester 94 Carbine. We went out behind their house on the Miccosukee Indian Reservation and he propped the can on a bush about 50 yards away, a twig going in the hole on the end. He took a shot, the can bounced a bit, and there was a hole visible in it. He handed me the gun and I took a shot. I could swear that I saw the can dance but there was only one hole visible. Sure enough, there was one entrance hole on the near side of the can but two exit holes on the back side. Not bad for iron sights and hand holding the rifle from a standing position. It must have been all those years of practice, shooting Leicas at 1/4 and 1/8 second.

 

[sanmich]

I guess I am not steadier than anyone.
A softie really improves the camera handling, but I found that it works better for non metered cameras.

I also discovered something:
In poor lighting, shoot movement, shoot blurry!
Less control over the final result, but sometimes, much more powerful, meaningful result.
Go figure...

 

[pagpow]

Learning the properr techniques of calming yourself, controlling your breathing, etc., etc., apply just as much to shooting a camera at slow shutter speeds as they do to shooting a rifle or pistol.

I have a Pepsi can here that I've kept for about 35 years. My friend Spencer Tiger had just purchased a Winchester 94 Carbine. We went out behind their house on the Miccosukee Indian Reservation and he propped the can on a bush about 50 yards away, a twig going in the hole on the end. He took a shot, the can bounced a bit, and there was a hole visible in it. He handed me the gun and I took a shot. I could swear that I saw the can dance but there was only one hole visible. Sure enough, there was one entrance hole on the near side of the can but two exit holes on the back side. Not bad for iron sights and hand holding the rifle from a standing position. It must have been all those years of practice, shooting Leicas at 1/4 and 1/8 second.

A modern Davy Crockett, Al? Or are you too young to have seen that episode?

 

[maddoc]

I think a lot depends on the - personal - definition of "available light". 90% of my photos (or even more) are taken at EV of ~ 2 to 5. That corresponds to f/1.0 + 1/60s or f/1.4 + 1/30 when using ISO400 rated film. I have tried 50/2.8 (new Elmar-M) and 50/2.0 (couple of Summicrons and the Summitar) at night but then either I have to use 1600ISO film or are very limited.

The advice to use 1/15s or 1/8s (and slower glass) by specific techniques of respiration sounds good in theory but only for static or slowly objects and with lots of time, concentration and practice . I have my cameras preset to 3m, full aperture and the corresponding time. Seeing something interesting I just raise the camera, frame roughly and take the photo. This takes at most 2 or 3 seconds.

 

[Sparrow]

Bih edit

which have reduced my already wavering certainty about how much I need a fast 24.

Tashi delek,

Roger

I’m unsure how I feel about OOF areas as a feature of a wide-angle image, it has always been the extreme DOF that I found interesting.

I’d like to see the results of a 24 at f1.4, if I visualise the effect I "see" too much of the scene OOF, but the reality may differ clearly

 

[Sparrow]

Now that's what fast film and available light are all about. Very nice!

Thank you kindly, it also involves a lot of outtakes 🙂

 

[sevo]

Stanley Kubrick often used a 50mm f/0.7 Zeiss lens when shooting low light scenes in his films. A 21mm f/1.2 is kind of slow.

He had it made specially for Barry Lyndon, where all indoor lighing was by candlelight to be more in-period. Its softness (which is very obvious in Barry Lyndon) is not visibly present on any other Kubrick film - with exception of the above film, he rather preferred wide angles, large DOF and rich contrast. If he ever reused the 0.7, he stopped it down until it behaved like any 2.8...

In any case, movie is half frame, with the exposure limited to 1/40s or less by the fixed frame speed - photographers are not forced to work under similar constraints.

Sevo

 

[projectbluebird]

It also depends on your definition of "speed". (lens or film) I have a leica guide from the 60's that refers to anything above 200ASA as "fast" film, and above 400 is "ultra fast".

I find 1.4 lenses (50mm) to be just right in terms of speed, I could go faster if I wanted to pay more, slower lenses are also available. The extra stop also comes in handy when using my favorite films that are generally between 50-100 ISO.

 

[noimmunity]

Sometimes a little softness is all I can get but that is just right:

1/8 at ISO 640 on M8

In poor lighting, shoot movement, shoot blurry!
Less control over the final result, but sometimes, much more powerful, meaningful result.
Go figure...

Was looking for an example that I couldn't find, but yes, I agree with this.

 

[Trius]

Frank: But the fast wide will have better resale value than the Kia. 😀

 

[Sparrow]

A bit of motion blur is OK, it adds drama.

But I’m not sure I’d be happy with camera shake, they usually get edited out

 

[DriesI]

In poor lighting, shoot movement, shoot blurry!
Less control over the final result, but sometimes, much more powerful, meaningful result.
Go figure...

oh yes! absolutely!

 

[dee]

I love my old Rokkor 85 / f 1.7 wide open , the 50 / f 1.4 , I seldom used , the 50 / f 2 usually adequate , but the 35 / f 1.8 was favourite for record interior shots .
Now , they all adapt to my Leica Dig 3 ... [ x2 ] but getting accurate focusing is not easy.
My M 8 has assisted me in redee'scovering the modest joys of an extended 50 / f 3.5
with no dim focusing to spoil it !
But I don't do this for a living - it's very different for a pprofessional .

 

[Svitantti]

Now that you can get a D700 for $2400 and shoot at 25600 ISO -- and it kind of looks like P3200 only with detail -- it effectively kills the argument that Leicas and fast lenses are the best low light cameras. They aren't anymore.

Same for color. Digital color is hands down better than color film, unless you jump to the huge formats and drum scanners....

First, why should the final result be (only) digital (scanned)?

Second, I don't think it is that easy to compare film and digital photos, especially in terms of "goodness". What is this "better" actually and is it the same for every photographer?

A slide film can be projected, a color film can be printed either via scanning or traditionally, as the slide film can also be printed either after scanning or on Ilfochrome or even some cross process RA4.

The results are very different and probably mostly about personal taste and the individual case and use, which is the best.

New digital cameras probably give a couple stops more sensitivity, but a pushed Provia 400X at 1600 is still nice and looks like film and can be projected easily.

...and for last, P3200 has plenty of detail. It could be grainy, but that doesnt mean it couldn't resolve stuff well.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Originally posted by Pagpow: "A modern Davy Crockett, Al? Or are you too young to have seen that episode?"

I'm old enough to have seen the episodes. I was a big fan of that show! Still, open iron sites, the first time I'd ever shot a Winchester 94, and it's a gun not noted for its great accuracy. I knew that I "had my shot". I didn't try for a third shot. As Kenny Rogers sang: "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run". That was 35 years ago and I never shot a Winchester 94 since that day. A few years ago Spencer Tiger died, way too young. Last year Flo, his widow, showed up at my house. She said that she'd been going through Spencer's things and found the gun. "Spencer would have wanted you to have this" she said, handing me the gun. It didn't look like a gun that had spent years hunting deer in the Everglades. It looked as brand new as the day I put two bullets through the same hole in that Pepsi can, the day Spencer had bought it. He probably never shot it again either.

What does this have to do with photography? I think that too often we're shooting a subject, cranking off a series of pictures, and don't recognize when we've "got the shot" and it's time to move on to the next one.

 

[dfoo]

Second, I don't think it is that easy to compare film and digital photos, especially in terms of "goodness". What is this "better" actually and is it the same for every photographer?
...

Surely any discussion that involves the words "better" without any definition of goodness is rather ridiculous isn't it? Therefore, its not really worth your time to respond to the original rather inflammatory post.