pete hogan
Well-known
Third it. There's only one other's opinion that I need to consider.
The curse of expensive equipment?
- Thread starter YYV_146
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 265
- Views 30K
Third it. There's only one other's opinion that I need to consider.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
A camera or a lens, when you use it, becomes a tool.
Expensive or not, it's relative *and* it's irrelevant.
The true measure of the "worthiness" of a tool depends heavily on the resulting product. In this case your pictures.
Check back a year or two, if you produce a few photos that *you* (not other people) really, really like with the Noctilux, then it becomes clear to you (or anyone who cares) that the tool has become an effective one in your hands. That is one of the more satisfying reason to keep a camera or lens.
If not, sell it, travel, or try other lenses. That's part of the fun too 😀
For example, in my case, one of my *effective* tools is my 225 USD, beat-up Ricoh GR1s. Fixed focal length, its LED screen has since stopped working, but I feel productive when using it, and it produces photos that *I* really like time and time again.
Expensive or not, it's relative *and* it's irrelevant.
The true measure of the "worthiness" of a tool depends heavily on the resulting product. In this case your pictures.
Check back a year or two, if you produce a few photos that *you* (not other people) really, really like with the Noctilux, then it becomes clear to you (or anyone who cares) that the tool has become an effective one in your hands. That is one of the more satisfying reason to keep a camera or lens.
If not, sell it, travel, or try other lenses. That's part of the fun too 😀
For example, in my case, one of my *effective* tools is my 225 USD, beat-up Ricoh GR1s. Fixed focal length, its LED screen has since stopped working, but I feel productive when using it, and it produces photos that *I* really like time and time again.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long. Only someone with self esteem issues worries about what other people think of their gear. And if the opinions of people on the internet bother you, you may have deep seated issues.
Screw 'em. Buy what you want and shoot what you want. If some d-bag tells you you spent too much money on your stuff, slap upside the head with a C-note and kick his ass down the street.
Screw 'em. Buy what you want and shoot what you want. If some d-bag tells you you spent too much money on your stuff, slap upside the head with a C-note and kick his ass down the street.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. They're matters of opinion, based on different estimates of enlargement sizes and viewing distances. Stop and think about it for a moment.
Chees,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, that and theatre performances and outdoor concerts in the dark and bars and... Don't blame others for lack of imagination when it comes to subject matter.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Monochrom said:
Wait... hang on, Roger... whazzisname, the author who writes critical pieces about photography having never owned a camera... geez... uhhh... the book is called "the continuing moment" or something like that... I've got the book around here somewhere; I started it and put it down... but HE said that park benches and photos of the blind run as themes through ALL the great photographers' work and that those themes directly tie those photographers together!!!
I'm having an epiphany... so stream of consciousness thought here... so, if Noctiluxes are good for shooting park benches at night, and if all of the greats have park bench shots in their body of work, then it surely follows that if I buy a Noctilux AND make pictures of benches with it, that they will surely be the BEST park bench photos EVER, and I will most likely be regarded as one of the great photographers some day! Yeah! That's IT. That's the ticket! Wow! 🙄
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Don't be so modest. Around here, you already are! 😀
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Here is a bench..taken with my el cheapo Nocti F1..bought used back in the day for 1.3K..probably the last Leica lens I would ever give up..
Mark Schretlen
mostly harmless
Nice one Emile. Title it "hepcat's epiphany".
Since you've used an el cheapo Nocti F1, it also clearly demonstrates retroactive conspicuous consumption as defined by the Occupy Wall Street Board of Governors (also known as "the internet").
Since you've used an el cheapo Nocti F1, it also clearly demonstrates retroactive conspicuous consumption as defined by the Occupy Wall Street Board of Governors (also known as "the internet").
Coopersounds
Well-known
you over payed - look - most of the shot isn't even in focus!!😉
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Deep bow... thank you SO much. I think that I've become a legend in my own mind. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost it for the moment, but as soon as I find it again, I'll let you know for sure. 😉
What a fine idea, Mark! I'm VERY honored. Emile, I'll likely not ever own my own Noctilux, so I'm pleased that at least you will be able to be counted among the greats now that your bench photo has been published. 😀
Bill Clark
Veteran
Sometimes the least expensive equipment can be the most expensive.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
being at liberty to decide what to spend 9 grand on like that is hard to conceive as a curse in any way. 😉
as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter what other people would have done with the money, and you are free to sell the lens whenever you decide that travelling to a destination that doesn't require the extra stop brings you more pleasure than owning and using that lens.
i wouldn't have made the decision you made, but i'm not the one with a spare 9k, so it's not my decision to make and not my business to worry about. everything and everybody has their haters on the internet. jeez, there's even people out there who dislike beer. just take a sip and carry on...
as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter what other people would have done with the money, and you are free to sell the lens whenever you decide that travelling to a destination that doesn't require the extra stop brings you more pleasure than owning and using that lens.
i wouldn't have made the decision you made, but i'm not the one with a spare 9k, so it's not my decision to make and not my business to worry about. everything and everybody has their haters on the internet. jeez, there's even people out there who dislike beer. just take a sip and carry on...
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
The DoF figures aren't a matter of opinion: they're a matter of physics. There is a valid discussion about what is an acceptable level of sharpness for a given DoF and that is dependent on the factors you mention but the laws used to work out the DoF are immutable.
And given that the circumstances in the depth of field table just calculate a figure without knowing if it's a Noctilux or a Rokkor they're dealing with then the figures between the two lenses would still be comparable even if your argument were correct and different parameters were used in the calculation.
So whatever circles of confusion, enlargement sizes or viewing distances you want to use they're irrelevant for a DoF comparison between two lenses of the same focal length. And that comparison shows that there are cheaper ways of achieving the same wafer thin DoF - to within a centimetre or two at a distance of three meters - if that is what you are after. And that it is possible to get even narrower DoF than the Noctilux for a very small fraction of the price by using a 58mm f1.2 Rokkor.
None of this is a comment on the choice of the OP who is obviously happy with his Noctiilux and more power to him.
YYV_146
Well-known
The thing with OVFs is that you don't know when you blow the highlights beyond post processing repair. With EVFs you intuitively know by watching the brighter parts of a frame, and I simply dial in exposure until I get recoverable highlights (unless I want to blow it on purpose, that is). Modern cameras have so much shadow space that it hardly matters if one slightly underexposes, especially at lower ISO levels.
But then again, I can see that this can be done intuitively, and with RFs the great thing is that you can see outside of the picture frame. Pre-composing with EVFs is necessary, because once you stick your eye to it there's no knowing what else is going on outside the frame.
I guess because for every person who wants to keep things simple, someone else will be looking for more functionality. While some of the stuff on modern cameras is simply marketing gimmicks (software stabilization, panoramas), some new features are genuinely useful. For example, I like the time lapse App on my A7, which allows easy tethered automatic shooting and is more versatile than a lapse remote.
YYV_146
Well-known
Here is a bench..taken with my el cheapo Nocti F1..bought used back in the day for 1.3K..probably the last Leica lens I would ever give up..
I like this shot. What film is this? Might try to imitate the look in processing...😀
YYV_146
Well-known
Narrower DOF for the same focus distance, but not narrower DOF for the same field of view. Same FOV separation is determined by the focal length/aperture ratio, which is greater for the Noct, am I right?
And with the 58 1.2 the unwieldy adapter makes it even larger than the Noct on a mirrorless camera. The Rokkor is also seriously soft wide open - but I guess it is a very good lens for the price. The Noct-nikkor is no doubt much better, but they are upwards of $3k these days, and I don't want to own a lens so difficult to service...
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
DoF isn't directly comparable between the Noctilux and a 58mm Rokkor for the reason you mention but is for a 50mm f1.2 Zuiko, Nikkor or Canon.
Noctilux DoF @ 3m 21.3cm
Zuiko, etc, DoF @ 3m 25.3cm
Not a huge difference and, in terms of the out-of-focus effect, the results on film would be quite similar. I only use film and wouldn't be interested in attaching anything to a digital camera.
Let's face it, none of these lenses is stellar wide open and that includes the Noctilux. They're last gasp lenses for low light or for throwing backgrounds out of focus. The Rokkor gives perfectly good results at print sizes of up to about 8x12 or slightly bigger.
If you want shallow DoF, better quality and still at a much cheaper price than the Noctilux you could always go for a Mamiya 645 and 80mm f1.9 Sekor. Just for your interest, here are the DoF stats for this one: Sekor DoF @ 3m 23cm. Very close to the Noctilux, very similar able of view but much better results all round.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Oh c'mon, Noctiluxes are for more than just shooting park benches....and at night, no less!
You can shoot your mother with one:
My Mother by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or a good friend:
Lee by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or a kid you don't know:
Untitled by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or someone you only met 10 minutes ago:
Rebecca by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or how about a nice road (or two!) in a far-off land (and who says you have to choose between travel and a Noctilux):
Roads Less Traveled #1 by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
So it can have many purposes. Actually I don't think I've yet shot a park bench with it.....hmm, come to think of it, not a bad idea!
You can shoot your mother with one:
My Mother by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or a good friend:
Lee by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or a kid you don't know:
Untitled by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or someone you only met 10 minutes ago:
Rebecca by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
Or how about a nice road (or two!) in a far-off land (and who says you have to choose between travel and a Noctilux):
Roads Less Traveled #1 by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr
So it can have many purposes. Actually I don't think I've yet shot a park bench with it.....hmm, come to think of it, not a bad idea!
Similar threads
