atournas Posted November 7, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use the 21/2.8-M ASPH for slide shots. I've found that, while I can confidently get sharp pictures at 1/125, using a tripod produces results of extraordinary quality. If top speed of 1/1000 is usable, the difference vanishes. In general, shooting critical pictures without a tripod does not reveal Leica glass superiority to its full glory. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 7, 2009 Posted November 7, 2009 Hi atournas, Take a look here Using a 21mm lens - is a tripod always necessary ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted November 7, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 7, 2009 In general, shooting critical pictures without a tripod does not reveal Leica glass superiority to its full glory. Paul This is technically correct. But I fear that if we were to cull out from photographic history all images that were not shot with maximum sharpness, not much of it would be left. And most famous images would be gone from it. 'Sharpness' (maximum definition) is not the most important thing in photography. The image must be sharp enough to 'work', and 'working' is defined by its subject matter and our own purpose with the image. Sharpness -- I have written this before -- is the excuse of boring photographs, and the fetish of boring photographers. This is what makes hand-held photography possible. If on the other hand we were interested in 'sharpness' only, we would all sit in our homes photographing resolution targets. Me, I am interested in capturing the life around me, moving, living. The old man from the Age of HCB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 7, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 7, 2009 'WATE' is an informal acronym for 'Wide Angle Tri-Elmar', i.e. the 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar. The old man from before zooms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 7, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 7, 2009 Cron is an abbreviation of Summicron, while lux is an abbreviation of Summilux. I used to us my 19mm Elmarit-R a lot, and rarely on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted November 7, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 7, 2009 In general, shooting critical pictures without a tripod does not reveal Leica glass superiority to its full glory. Paul I always wondered why Cartier-Bresson's shots were not quites as good as they should have been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 7, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 7, 2009 What is this "Tri-pod" of which you speak... It appears to be a means of anchoring a camera to the spot, losing all the benefits of quick reaction and fluidity of movement... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 7, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pictures are always sharper with a well designed tripod. Practically 1 / 2x focal length should be sufficient if you hold the lens with palm up, pinky finger down, push the camera into to forehead and jam your elbows into your chest. Fire between breaths. Your feet need to be 15" apart and45deg to the lens axis. Look up how to shoot a rifle. Same thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted November 7, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 7, 2009 Perhaps age and/or infirmity would dictate use of a tripod with a wide angle lens (or any other lens). Unless your own steadiness is a factor in all your photography, I can't think of a good reason for a tripod unless you're doing 16x20 enlargements, or shooting in low light conditions where you need a really low shutter speed. It certainly takes away from the spontaneity. I shoot both SLR and RF cameras with WA lenses in the 15-20mm range and occasionally the horizon isn't exactly horizontal in my exposure with handheld shots, but a little bit of rotation in PS or on the darkroom easel takes care of that handily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted November 7, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 7, 2009 Lars_bergquist and Pete made some remarks after my post, with which I can't agree more. However, I thought the original post was a question about the use of a tripod with the 21mm Elmarit and I remarked accordingly. We are not concerned about tripod if we are not concerned about sharpness. The status of Leica M in street and documentary photography is well established. On the other hand, we sometimes mistake the camera for the photographer's eye. We more show off with the M in hand--come on, let's admit it!--and tend to deny that, for street black-and-white pictures, a humble P&S digital toy might capture the magic as well, perhaps with some luck. Let's not go too far and declare all unsharp, blurred images pieces of art. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 8, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 8, 2009 Let's not go too far and declare all unsharp, blurred images pieces of art. Paul Far from it. That would be just as silly as to declare all sharp, unblurred images pieces of art. Sharpness and unsharpness are always relative to the picture's visual message. Each image must be judged on its own merit, not according to some mechanical formula. Definition on the other hand, however you measure it, is a measure of the quality level of a lens. With a high definition lens, you can have sharpness when and where you want it, and unsharpness when and where you want it. With a low definition lens, all your images will be unsharp, whether you want it or not. High optical quality gives us creative freedom. The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.