Innerimager
Established
well mcsol, I fear we have a fight on our hands, I don't care what you say, my posted image was lousy! ;>)
Here's an example that's closer to what you mean. I wanted to use base Iso- this was the M8 so 160, giving me F1 @ 1/22 hand held. It's not the classic low light as in night use where the Iso also has to be high, but another I think very important use of this lens. When you want to utilize the shallow DOF and the look it gives, yet keep a noise free image, especially clean shadows. best....Peter
Here's an example that's closer to what you mean. I wanted to use base Iso- this was the M8 so 160, giving me F1 @ 1/22 hand held. It's not the classic low light as in night use where the Iso also has to be high, but another I think very important use of this lens. When you want to utilize the shallow DOF and the look it gives, yet keep a noise free image, especially clean shadows. best....Peter
Last edited:
Innerimager
Established
here's one more, with the RD-1 at f2 or 2.8, iso 400, 1/100 that shows the lens can do more than render dreamy images. Color saturation untouched, just leveled and resized.....Peter
mcsol
Member
Thanks for the additional shots! Nice examples to show off this lens.
mcsol
mcsol
Tuolumne
Veteran
How about some pictures of people with the Noctilux+R-D1 combo and not just still lifes. I just added the Noctilux to my R-D1 kit and tried it for the first time last night in a theater rehearsal setting. I found it impossible to use at F1. People move around, I sway (even ever so little) when standing and shooting. The depth of field is so shallow that the small movements of even the photographer hand holding the lens make it difficult to accurately focus on a particular plane.
The interesting thing is that even stopped down the lens gives photos a completely different oof look than any other lens, and I like that. I think that's been implied in a number of posts but never really emphasised. I'll continue to practive and hopefully I'll get better with it.
T.
The interesting thing is that even stopped down the lens gives photos a completely different oof look than any other lens, and I like that. I think that's been implied in a number of posts but never really emphasised. I'll continue to practive and hopefully I'll get better with it.
T.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Whew, I'm glad we're getting back on track with this thread -- seemed as if things were getting a bit acrid for a while (although as a result of a legitimate misunderstanding over whether the original image was being posted for critique or to illustrate the optical properties of the lens.)
Just as a general observation, it's worth noting that people usually use an ultra-speed lens such as the Noctilux for one of two completely different reasons: either for photographing in very low light (I fall into that category) or for creating limited depth-of-field effects. We've had several good example pictures and discussions in the thread of the limited DOF characteristics; like Tuolumne, I'd be interested in seeing more examples of its use in low-light work.
This is also a good opportunity to share observations and advice as well as images. For example, although I don't own a Noctilux, I use a number of other lenses with very limited DOF for theater shots (Canon 50/0.95, C-V 35/1.2, Canon 85/1.5, Canon 100/2) so I'd like to assure Tuolumne that you can get better at managing this with practice.
One advantage you have in most theatrical shooting is that the action has been planned by a director rather than being spontaneous, so significant moments are likely to happen at specific locations rather than randomly. By studying the way the show is blocked, you can anticipate where the important locations will be, and make sure you shoot only when the performers are within the zone of best focus, based on your knowledge of the characteristics of your lens.
To pick a simple example, I often have to photograph lecturers at a museum, and the only way to do it is with my 100mm f/2 Canon lens on my R-D 1. This beast actually has less total DOF than a 50mm f/1 lens, so plane of focus could be a problem. However, I've learned that if I focus on the microphone stand on the speaker's podium, then wait until the speaker leans forward to speak into the microphone, I get both the best lighting (bouncing up off his/her lecture notes) and can be sure that the speaker's face will be within the plane of best focus.
Just as a general observation, it's worth noting that people usually use an ultra-speed lens such as the Noctilux for one of two completely different reasons: either for photographing in very low light (I fall into that category) or for creating limited depth-of-field effects. We've had several good example pictures and discussions in the thread of the limited DOF characteristics; like Tuolumne, I'd be interested in seeing more examples of its use in low-light work.
This is also a good opportunity to share observations and advice as well as images. For example, although I don't own a Noctilux, I use a number of other lenses with very limited DOF for theater shots (Canon 50/0.95, C-V 35/1.2, Canon 85/1.5, Canon 100/2) so I'd like to assure Tuolumne that you can get better at managing this with practice.
One advantage you have in most theatrical shooting is that the action has been planned by a director rather than being spontaneous, so significant moments are likely to happen at specific locations rather than randomly. By studying the way the show is blocked, you can anticipate where the important locations will be, and make sure you shoot only when the performers are within the zone of best focus, based on your knowledge of the characteristics of your lens.
To pick a simple example, I often have to photograph lecturers at a museum, and the only way to do it is with my 100mm f/2 Canon lens on my R-D 1. This beast actually has less total DOF than a 50mm f/1 lens, so plane of focus could be a problem. However, I've learned that if I focus on the microphone stand on the speaker's podium, then wait until the speaker leans forward to speak into the microphone, I get both the best lighting (bouncing up off his/her lecture notes) and can be sure that the speaker's face will be within the plane of best focus.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Another note about the R-D 1: Yes, there are times I wish I could dial in a specific Kelvin temperature, the way I can on my Nikon D80... but on the other hand, I admit that I almost never use that feature on the D80!
The fact is that when it comes to white balance, it's the color temperature of the light source that counts. The range of light sources encountered in normal life isn't really all that wide, and when you DO encounter an unusual light source you probably want to retain some of its "unusualness" anyway.
(For example, tungsten room lights are normally somewhat "warmer" than the 3200 degrees K of tungsten theater or photo lamps... but we also expect room light to look warmer, so using the 3200K preset gives natural-looking results.)
So, you can get good results under the vast majority of conditions simply by picking whichever of the R-D 1's presets is the best match for the illuminant: daylight, overcast, open shade, fluorescent, or tungsten. (I sometimes wish there were a separate flash preset, but electronic flash units vary so much that I concede it might not be of much use.) This will get you close; then you just eyeball your final white-balance setting to get "visually pleasing" color.
If you're shooting in a situation where color balance is especially critical, that's your cue to include a test shot of a gray card and use it in post-processing as a reference.
The fact is that when it comes to white balance, it's the color temperature of the light source that counts. The range of light sources encountered in normal life isn't really all that wide, and when you DO encounter an unusual light source you probably want to retain some of its "unusualness" anyway.
(For example, tungsten room lights are normally somewhat "warmer" than the 3200 degrees K of tungsten theater or photo lamps... but we also expect room light to look warmer, so using the 3200K preset gives natural-looking results.)
So, you can get good results under the vast majority of conditions simply by picking whichever of the R-D 1's presets is the best match for the illuminant: daylight, overcast, open shade, fluorescent, or tungsten. (I sometimes wish there were a separate flash preset, but electronic flash units vary so much that I concede it might not be of much use.) This will get you close; then you just eyeball your final white-balance setting to get "visually pleasing" color.
If you're shooting in a situation where color balance is especially critical, that's your cue to include a test shot of a gray card and use it in post-processing as a reference.
Tuolumne
Veteran
The other thing I find difficult about using the Noctilux is the very long throw of the focusing ring. This is done to make it easier to do precise focusing, so that small movements of the ring do not rapidly move the split image. But the downside is that it seems to take forever to get the images to converge and they don't just "snap" in as in longer focal length lenses with short throws. This then tends to result in a lot of back-and-forth hunting for the correct focus, which just further degrades the focus. Clearly this lens takes alot of practice to use right.
T.
T.
Olsen
Well-known
Can't you change the color temperature in the raw files after shooting with software?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Olsen said:
Yes, you can. Or, more technically, the original raw file doesn't have any specific color temperature associated with it, since it's just a bunch of sensor data; you can define whatever color temperature you want during postprocessing.
However, not everyone wants to shoot raw files all the time, and I guess it's those people who are raising the issue. Also, the raw file's preview image is based on whatever white-balance settings were active at the time, so if you rely on the preview image in an image-management system you might want to have it look as nice as possible.
Innerimager
Established
Hi- just picked up on the thread again. It is difficult to nail moving people in very dark light at F1, you want an Iso 16,000 instead if 1600. But when it happens, it's very satisfying! Anyway, here's one that worked out OK. best....Peter
Innerimager
Established
and another. F1, 1/15, iso 1600....Peter
pfogle
Well-known
Peter - those are pretty damn impressive at f1 - it's an amazing bit of glass you've got there (not to mention the eyeInnerimager said:
)Innerimager
Established
thank you Phil. yes, even when compared to wonders like the noctilux, our eyes are really something to marvel at ;>) best.....Peter
rfrangefinder
Member
What I am getting out of this thread is that if your eyes are up to it, you can focus the Noctilux with the Rd-1's 1:1 rangefinder/viewfinder. I have a 50/1.5 and 90/2 and am getting good focusing results even close up with the 50 at 1.5 and ok focus consistency with the 90 at 2 (at the more difficult close range). I have just ordered the megaperls image magnifier, which i expect will even make my focusing of the 90/2 pretty consistent. FWIW, this was WAY beyond my expectation when i bought the RD-1.
pixotica
Newbie
Here are some recent shots taken mainly with the Noctilux at f1.0 and the Summicron 90 at f2 … I think my rangefinder may need adjustment, because I had to twitch my hand after focusing with the camera to improve the sharpness …
I'm quite pleased with the results, because of very low light (two 60 watt bulbs I think! - the band decided that the overhead lights I'd been expecting to be on, were to harsh ;-))
http://www.trevorsmeaton.com/foresters1.html?ssm=7
I'm quite pleased with the results, because of very low light (two 60 watt bulbs I think! - the band decided that the overhead lights I'd been expecting to be on, were to harsh ;-))
http://www.trevorsmeaton.com/foresters1.html?ssm=7