ISO Mdness?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.....even Leica lenses are incapable of resolution levels to keep up with the sensors. I feel the same is the case with the quest for ever increasing ISO capabilities.

I doubt that resolution levels of many Leica lenses are yet exceeded..... some way to go yet (although not at smaller apertures).

 

Higher ISOs are simply expanding the capabilities of what can be photographed - I certainly shoot far later into the twilight than I ever used to and can now take images which I could not in years gone by. I'd welcome increases in recordable dynamic range .

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gmpphotography]

technology is a tool. with better tools, u can theoretically achieve better results. imagine what Cartier-Bresson would achieved if he had had Leica M Monochrom

 

His results would have been basically the same. Cartier Bresson was an amazing photographer because of his vision and his style. That is something the camera had nothing to do with. He could have done the same work with a Zeiss Contax or a Kodak Retina, for instance. With a Leica M Monochrome his photographs would have been sharper, with more detail. But the camera didn't make the photographer. It's the person behind the camera that does that.

[kdriceman]

 

His results would have been basically the same. Cartier Bresson was an amazing photographer because of his vision and his style. That is something the camera had nothing to do with. He could have done the same work with a Zeiss Contax or a Kodak Retina' date=' for instance. With a Leica M Monochrome his photographs would have been sharper, with more detail. But the camera didn't make the photographer. It's the person behind the camera that does that.[/quote']

 

And, I sometimes wonder if cleaner, sharper images would actually have diminished his style. It is hard to imagine his work as clinical and ultra-sharp.

[AlanG]

And, I sometimes wonder if cleaner, sharper images would actually have diminished his style. It is hard to imagine his work as clinical and ultra-sharp.

 

We associate various technical qualities to each photographer. Ansel Adam's work would not be so great if he did not make the images as clean as he did. Often the technology determined the approach that was possible. Weegee could have used a Leica or a Speed Graphic for his images and it wouldn't have mattered much to me.

 

But we have moved on technologically and it is up to each photographer to define "the look" for one's work. If you shoot 35mm Tri-x and street photos there is likely going to be an association made between your work and others who came before you. (For better or for worse.) The same thing if you shoot large format b/w landscapes.

 

So perhaps blurring the lines between these approaches will lead more to try something new. And this technology can help make that happen. Of course there is no setting on the camera that says, "Fresh Ideas."

[gmpphotography]

Of course there is no setting on the camera that says, "Fresh Ideas."

 

This reminds me of Marty Forscher of Professional Camera Repair in New York City. Many years ago he was asked about his opinion in regard to the ever increasing automatic features on cameras. He said that he could imagine a camera with about ten buttons on the back. They were all labeled like Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson etc. He said all one would need to do is press any of those buttons and the camera would automatically take pictures like those photographers. He then went on to say that the number ten button was to be pressed if someone wanted to take pictures of their own.

[gmpphotography]

I doubt that resolution levels of many Leica lenses are yet exceeded..... some way to go yet (although not at smaller apertures).

 

One of the highest resolving lenses Leica ever made was the 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R. It was initially made for the US Navy for a high resolution 35mm camera system.

Joseph A. Schantz, Assistant Head of Research and Development Department at the Navel Photographic Center in Washington, DC. published a paper about the research that the US Navy conducted for this high resolution 35mm camera system. For that four lenses were developed by Ernst Leitz Canada, one of which was the 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R. The lens was initially classified for several years. It was after its declassification that the lens became part of the lens line for the Leica reflex cameras.

The 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R is capable of a resolution of 600 lines per millimeter. That means the lines are 1/600 mm wide. That corresponds to 6 microns. The new Leica 24 megapixel sensor has an individual pixel size of 6x6 microns. This effectively means that it requires the full resolution of the Apo-Telyt-R to take advantage of the sensor. It is generally assumed that this is the limit of resolution of most Leica lenses. That is a level of sharpness achieved by few if any other lenses on the market. With other words, any higher pixel count appears to be beyond what lenses can deliver.

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R is capable of a resolution of 600 lines per millimeter. That means the lines are 1/600 mm wide. That corresponds to 6 microns.

1000 µ / 600 = 1.67 µ. Not 6.0 µ.

[gmpphotography]

1000 µ / 600 = 1.67 µ. Not 6.0 µ.

 

Sie haben recht. That of course means that my argument was also flawed.

But we must also consider that the 600 lpm is the ideal, diffraction limited value. At smaller apertures the resolution will suffer. The US Navy test further indicated that 300 lpm is a more realistic value. Based on that I come up with a theoretical resolution of 43 megapixel. Correct?

[mjh]

One cannot say that beyond a certain megapixel count the sensor will outresolve the lens; it’s just that there is a law of diminishing returns. But it is easy to see that the M Monochrom (the highest resolution M currently available) doesn’t outresolve typical M lenses – thus the stairstepping effect some have observed. I doubt this will change with the new M so there is still room for higher resolution sensors. Whether its is worthwhile, everything considered, to further increase the pixel count, now that is a different question.

[pop]

1000 µ / 600 = 1.67 µ. Not 6.0 µ.

 

Further, if the lens is to resolve 600 lines per mm, 1.67 µ should be the distance of the lines and not the width. Otherwise, you could not tell a line from the space between the lines, I would think.

[pico]

The 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R is capable of a resolution of 600 lines per millimeter. That means the lines are 1/600 mm wide. [...]

 

To be fair, one should cite the method used for measuring line-pair resolution. To get the very highest resolution would require ideal focus, ideal subject distance, ideal light frequency (all blue), binary contrast. A 600 lp/mm lens is more likely to produce half of that under everyday circumstances, and under 200 lp/mm for most of us.

 

Who needs that much resolution, anyway?

[gmpphotography]

Further, if the lens is to resolve 600 lines per mm, 1.67 µ should be the distance of the lines and not the width. Otherwise, you could not tell a line from the space between the lines, I would think.

 

Lines per millimeter or line pairs per millimeter do refer to the width of the lines. It is an industry wide standard to measure resolution. Resolution test targets always show patterns of black and white lines in ever decreasing size. When used correctly, it will give accurate resolution figures. However, we must also recognize that resolution alone is only an incomplete measure which to judge lens performance by. The contrast level is of equal, if not greater importance. The best and most complete information about lens performance is given by the modulation transfer function which takes resolution, contrast and aperture settings into account.

[tobey bilek]

People are taking advantage of higher ISO now that they have it. I almost never do, in fact I do not know if it even works on my cameras.

There has been a quest for lower and lower light pics for ever, but my experience is even if you get an image, the light is terrible, so why bother. But to each his own.

 

Nothing like a nice disk city skyline show in the golden hour with the lights coming on, but I use my Gitzo for help. Why go thru all the effort of being there at the right season, light , weather, etc and accept less than a nice clean pic?

 

I do notice most wedding photogs are using existing light. I can`t imagine what these look like. The few I have seen tend to look poor. But some churches do not allow flash, so what are you going to do.

[kdriceman]

People are taking advantage of higher ISO now that they have it. I almost never do' date=' in fact I do not know if it even works on my cameras.

There has been a quest for lower and lower light pics for ever, but my experience is even if you get an image, the light is terrible, so why bother. But to each his own.

 

Nothing like a nice disk city skyline show in the golden hour with the lights coming on, but I use my Gitzo for help. Why go thru all the effort of being there at the right season, light , weather, etc and accept less than a nice clean pic?

 

I do notice most wedding photogs are using existing light. I can`t imagine what these look like. The few I have seen tend to look poor. But some churches do not allow flash, so what are you going to do.[/quote']

 

The world does not stop after sunset. There are things that happen in poor light that make interesting photographs. There are other things that happen very quickly in good light. For each of these cases a good high ISO camera is very nice to have.

[sblitz]

Meter will try to create daylight from darkness. Is that really the shot you want or do you want what is illuminated to be illuminated and the rest in darkness? A fair reading of the light in that situation will likely yield less need for some super high iso. Now if it is action under the lights like a sporting event okay I can buy it although there have been plenty of great shots without. A wedding with natural light? Perhaps. My point is that high iso is nice but not necessarily necessary for a good shot in the dark. Especially if it is supposed to be ashot in the dark

[jaques]

High ISO is awesome. As others have said fast lenses, narrow depth of field, tripods and motion/camera blur can all suck big time. Being able to shoot at a higher ISO, stop down and stop the action are all good things- in certian situations. I would rather have the capability than not and cannot understand purists (luddites?) who even bother to argue differently? There are many occasions where a higher ISO range on the M9 would have been greatly appreciated by me.

 

In these discussions one always hears something about Bresson or Adams or whoever: this is red herring. In those days many people were forced to use FLASH if they wanted a sharp picture with a reasonable DOF in low light. In fact they used flash all the time and in broad daylight too. That's how many of the forerunners got around their ISO issues... they HAD to use flashes to get the pictures they wanted or needed. Try going wide open, 1/15 on a tripod at a political rally shooting the rapidly moving backlit candidate whose face is in shadow... the editor will not be impressed is what I am thinking...

 

Flash photography enabled entirely new types of photography- and this does not mean rendering the scene as it is (it is dark there is nothing to see) it meant shining a light on what had been hidden- the results may be stark but also absolutely brilliant.

 

Jacob Riis use of the new medium changed the face of New York City:

 

How the Other Half Lives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Many Leica purists prefer not to use flash at all. Having high ISO means they can indulge this desire even in dark places. And they can chose how they want to scene to be exposed- not be dictated to bu the limitations of low ISO capacity No doubt higher and higher ISO performance will open up new ground for new types of photographs. What is there to be against in that?

[sblitz]

Nothing. But it isn't the be and end all and there is a price to pay for the capability that may not deliver what you think. Should I drop my m9 for the latest toy and pay up because of better iso? A fair read is probably not when you truly understand the shot mood you are trying to capture. Now much improved dr, that's a different story but then again I can always shoot film

[k-hawinkler]

Just saw some shots a friend of mine took at a swim meet with his 5DmkIII @ ISO=12800 and 25600 at 1/1000 s and f/2.8 in a poorly illuminated hall. Better than usable I would say.

 

Similarly excellent results with a D800 from another friend.

 

Those images speak for themselves.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sblitz]

Better than flash?