michali Posted May 2, 2012 Share #41 Posted May 2, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) My aperture ring seems to move a little too easy. Sometimes I knock it out of place accidentally. Anyone have the same? Funnily enough this happened to me yesterday. I took a couple of shots at f5.6 and then put the camera down, I picked it up again after a few seconds and fired off a few more. The second set of images were all shot at f16. I accidentally bumped the ring. I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the first to have done this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Hi michali, Take a look here Sometimes I think about selling my Noctilux 0.95. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted May 2, 2012 Share #42 Posted May 2, 2012 My aperture ring seems to move a little too easy. Sometimes I knock it out of place accidentally. Anyone have the same? +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted May 2, 2012 Share #43 Posted May 2, 2012 I find the 50/0.95 renders different than the Summilux - different colors (the Summilux rendering a little more red in the color), a little more "powerfull". I now use it all the time instead of the Summilux because of that. I have however to say that weightwise I find the Summilux ballances nicer on the M, and yes sometimes the longer minimum focal distance of the Nocti comes in my way. Because of that I have not been brave enough to sell my Summmilux (yet?). But time will tell. As long as I do not urgently need the money I tend to rather keep lenses for a longer time and waiting until I am sure to not want it any more. And last commet: you can ask this question and get opinions-but it is also a lot about taste so I wouldnt rely too much on opinions of other people (like me ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted May 3, 2012 Share #44 Posted May 3, 2012 I had a copy of the 0.95 Noctilux for six months before selling it to fund a move into medium format digital. That, and a 75lux with dreamy bokeh ... sigh, I still look back on those photos and am struck by how gorgeous they look. I know that selective focus hurts the eyes of some. A shot of a chair with cool bokeh is still a shot of a chair. But, introduced judiciously around strong storytelling visuals, the out of focus area and separation tend to add an emotional component that I find very compelling. It's all rather subjective. If a lens can help you better relay a feeling about what you are seeing ... then don't be afraid to express it. Go with what feels right to you, it'll make your approach more authentic and your results more dynamic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 3, 2012 Share #45 Posted May 3, 2012 Honestly, with digital especially, I think I'd let the 50 1.4 ASPH go and stick with the Cron and Nocti .95. If I could only have one of the above, I suppose it would be the 50 1.4...because overall it's a great lens with good speed, and it's particularly nice on film too. But with 2, I'd definitely keep the Nocti .95 My thoughts exactly - sell the 50/1.4 ASPH and keep the 50/2 and the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH. The original poster's images speak for themselves - they are truly staggering. No way in hell would I send the 0.95 Noctilux packing. I have one of the last version 50/1.0 Noctiluxes and am happy with it for my purposes as I am 100% film based. I have no desire for a 0.95 but would not even think of selling my 1.0 Noctiilux. These are special lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted May 3, 2012 Share #46 Posted May 3, 2012 Well, you can get as "interesting" images with a Summicron. Or a good 50 1.8. Or a cell phone cam. But they won't be the same. Really, lenses are like paintbrushes. While it's true someone really good could mimic what a Nocti does at 0.95 or f1 with a 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH at 1.4, the light, positioning/framing, and resulting "focal strength" (a better way of discussing the relationship between out of focus and in focus areas IMO)--all these things are going to be different. What the Nocti 1.0 or Nocti .95 do from wide open to 2.0 just isn't the same as the Summilux ASPH. Jamie is exactly right. The full range of Leica 50s are great lenses. But as for Jaap's and others' statements -- You could get the same image with the Summilux, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference -- they are simply not true. I have the 50 Summilux Asph and I have the current Noctilux. I also had, and sold, the f/1.0 Noctilux. The current Noctilux is different, and better, at wide open shots than any other lens. (I have not used the SLR Magic.) You don't have to like the Noctilux look. But to say that it is identical to the Summilux wide open is, objectively, untrue. Shooting both, I know which is which. Here's another thing: I saw a photo of Meryl Streep's daughter in New York Magazine. I said, Has to be taken with the Noctilux. Sure enough, I Googled the photographer and her blog had this rave about her new Noctilux. Like it or don't like it, it's foolish to deny that it has a unique DNA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted May 4, 2012 Share #47 Posted May 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... I have the 50 Summilux Asph and I have the current Noctilux. I also had, and sold, the f/1.0 Noctilux. The current Noctilux is different, and better, at wide open shots than any other lens. ... I can understand when you say, it is different than any other lens when shot wide open. What I do not understand is when you say, it is better. I'm assuming you mean to say, you prefer it to any other 50mm. That, I can understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 4, 2012 Share #48 Posted May 4, 2012 Random... On the Leica Camera Blog there is an interview with the photographer that johnbuckley is talking about above. She is the French photographer, Brigitte Lacombe. I'm sure many have heard of here. On such a gear-centric site (LUF) and on such a gear-centric thread (this one) it is interesting that her name comes up and this is what she says about gear: Q: Do you have any tips for fledgling photographers? A: It’s never about the equipment that you have, or your technique, it’s about being extremely open and very attentive, and being a very, very present but silent observer. It’s about your approach to people, your interest and your compassion. Here is the link to the interview: Removing the Veil with Brigitte Lacombe Also random... I was looking at Lacombe's photos on another site and who should show up in one of Lacombe's pictures? Audrey Tatou, "Coco Avant Chanel", Paris, France, 2008. Here is the site, page down about a quarter of the way and there is Audrey Tatou. everyday_i_show: photos by Brigitte Lacombe Lacombe is famous for being on set with famous directors and actors and actresses and shooting. Anyway, back in 2008 here on the LUF someone spotted Tatou with a Leica M8 and I think a Summilux 75 in this somewhat famous Chanel ad filmed on the Orient Express. Well, now we know who's camera that must have been and how it got there... it was surely Brigitte Lacombe's camera because she was shooting Tatou on the set. Page down to the 4th clip on this page and go to 1:44 seconds if, you don't remember the 2008 discussion here:clip.dj - online youtube to mp3 and mp4 converter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted May 4, 2012 Share #49 Posted May 4, 2012 Random...On the Leica Camera Blog there is an interview with the photographer that johnbuckley is talking about above. She is the French photographer, Brigitte Lacombe. I'm sure many have heard of here. On such a gear-centric site (LUF) and on such a gear-centric thread (this one) it is interesting that her name comes up and this is what she says about gear: Q: Do you have any tips for fledgling photographers? Rick- there's only one problem with your quote above. We're not "fledgling photographers" here! We're all expert photographers with vast experience and unsurpassed in depth knowledge! Surely even a cursory glance at all of our comments right across this site should confirm this. I think you should be banned from this Forum forever for such blasphemy....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 4, 2012 Share #50 Posted May 4, 2012 Guilty as charged. Let the record show that I'm at the front of the front of the gear-centric line and also a fledgling photographer. By the way, I never did believe that BS she wrote for one minute. She's got 2 M9 cameras and a new Noctilux... I see right through it all... of course it is about the gear. Sheesh, does she think I'm stupid? I just thought it made an interesting and controversial post, you know, just a different way of beating the dead horse I get so tired of people flogging, about how great photographers can make great images with a Brownie. And, it got me to the second part aboutAudrey Tautou. Now that was good, right? How can any post that has M cameras and Audrey Tautou in it be bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 4, 2012 Share #51 Posted May 4, 2012 A: It’s never about the equipment that you have, or your technique, it’s about being extremely open and very attentive, and being a very, very present but silent observer. It’s about your approach to people, your interest and your compassion. Thanks for posting the links Rick. There clearly is a lot of gear discussions and pixel-peeping going on here and I think most people would do well to focus more on their skills, including how they relate to people, than on the technology. That said, I just don't care for Lacombe's photos of Keira Knightley; they look fake - she's too aware of the camera. Now, if that's Lacombe's or Knightley's fault, who knows. Most other photos are ok, except that I have a feeling that if the subjects had not been famous (I loathe the word stars) few people would have looked twice at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ib M Posted May 4, 2012 Share #52 Posted May 4, 2012 I actually sold my Noc. 0.95 and regretted it quickly. Fortunately regretted the buyer, and sent it back after a week and I was happy as a little child on Christmas Eve when I received it again. So unless you desperately need money, do not sell your Noc. you will regret it. Ps. has incidentally 50Noc. and 50 Cron, and thought it is a good combination Ib M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhrads Posted May 4, 2012 Share #53 Posted May 4, 2012 I love my 50's, it can be pathologic to a point.... When this thread started, I began to wonder the same thing. As an amateur "hobby" photographer, can I really justify owning a lens that costs $10000? I had a Canon 0.95 that I sold immediately after I bought the Noctilux. I stumbled on the Nocti when I was in West Palm Beach a couple of years ago, I still had my M8.2 and really went into the Leica shop looking to put my paws on a M9. They didn't have that, but they did have a Nocti and I convinced the Mrs that this was an opportunity that I couldn't pass up. I must say that for me, 50mm on the M8.2 wasn't my favorite. I had been shooting a 35 very happily but expected to get back to 50mm one I got a M9 which took another 6 months and again, I stumbled upon. Today I have the 0.95 Nocti, a 50's vintage Summarit 1.5,a V4 50mm Summicron, an Elmar M 2.8 collapsible, and somewhere in the back of the closet a 3.5/50 that a patient gave me (Hektor?). I really use the Nocti and the Cron. I couldn't see getting rid of either. Every time I look at what I've shot with either I'm impressed. I've never had the summilux 50 and don't see adding it any time soon. Surprisingly, I miss that Canon 0.95 and wish I had kept it longer to shoot side by side with the Nocti. It had a different signature, lots of haters out there, but the one I had was marvelous. No, I won't get rid of my Noctilux. It's too special, and there are plenty of times that it's my walking around lens no matter the weight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted May 4, 2012 Share #54 Posted May 4, 2012 I can understand when you say, it is different than any other lens when shot wide open.What I do not understand is when you say, it is better. I'm assuming you mean to say, you prefer it to any other 50mm. That, I can understand. Yes, of course you are right, since one's appreciation of any lens is subjective (unless you are Sean Reid or Mr. Puts, or someone who does intensive testing -- and even then the appreciation has to be subjective!) But the thing about the Noctilux f/0.95 is that it has a beautiful distinctive look, when shot wide open. But unlike the f/1.0 Nocti, it also can serve at smaller apertures. Would you use it at smaller apertures, as an every day normal lens? No, but you could. And I suppose that's why one could say it is "better." Still, you called it right: I did mean to say I prefer it. And, of course, to each his own. I'm just tired of the statements, "That could have just as easily been taken by a Summilux; you wouldn't know the difference." And the response to that is, not correct on either count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 4, 2012 Share #55 Posted May 4, 2012 Thanks for posting the links Rick. There clearly is a lot of gear discussions and pixel-peeping going on here and I think most people would do well to focus more on their skills, including how they relate to people, than on the technology. That said, I just don't care for Lacombe's photos of Keira Knightley; they look fake - she's too aware of the camera. Now, if that's Lacombe's or Knightley's fault, who knows. Most other photos are ok, except that I have a feeling that if the subjects had not been famous (I loathe the word stars) few people would have looked twice at them. I agree with you. Her photos don't do anything from me either. My reaction as a looked at her stuff was, I could do this with a Rebel EOS if, I could persuade Meryl Streep to fawn al over my shots. The take home lesson is that if you have a cool camera and are good with people, you can make it. Stop worrying about the gear and gain people skills instead. People skills means, convince people you are good and you can make them look fabulous, then yo got it made, like Lacombe... and maybe speaking in a french accent to American actors helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 4, 2012 Share #56 Posted May 4, 2012 and maybe speaking in a french accent to American actors helps. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence [...] The question is, what can you make people believe that you have done?" I have been approached by everything from Australian movie actors to United Nations SRSGs asking about my cameras. So flaunting it may, on occasion, be a way to attract attention. What one does thereafter has to be founded on skill though and the kit is unimportant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted May 5, 2012 Share #57 Posted May 5, 2012 The Leica M series cameras and lenses are tools and nothing more...but not all tools are created equal. I agree with the premise that a skilled photographer can create memorable images no matter what gear is involved, but I also believe that in the proper hands the M9 and 0.95 Noctilux are capable of magic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted May 5, 2012 Share #58 Posted May 5, 2012 ..., but I also believe that in the proper hands the M9 and 0.95 Noctilux are capable of magic. Magic is in the moment captured and not, what it was captured with. Any gear could have been used for that. From the cheapest to the most expensive. It doesn't really matter! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 5, 2012 Share #59 Posted May 5, 2012 Magic is in the moment captured and not, what it was captured with. Any gear could have been used for that. From the cheapest to the most expensive. It doesn't really matter! Well, my skills must be pretty poor, because it's made a colossal difference to my pictures. There's just something about a Noctilux perfectly focused at f/4 on my M9 that makes a good image special. To my eyes, and of my family, anyway. It gives me huge pleasure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted May 5, 2012 Share #60 Posted May 5, 2012 Any gear could have been used for that. From the cheapest to the most expensive. It doesn't really matter! I respectfully disagree. I suggest pistols at dawn. I will use an M9 and Noctilux f/0.95 and you can have... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/178411-sometimes-i-think-about-selling-my-noctilux-095/?do=findComment&comment=2001543'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.