I like film...(open thread)

[Guest JMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes, ha ha, I meant 1/500th of a MM.  

Too early in the morning to be talking numbers, I guess... 

Edited January 17, 2016 by jmanivelle

[A miller]

Unlike some, I guess I tolerate a bit of non-critical focus. I don't test my cameras every month—I just make photographs. 

 

To be clear, when my MM was out of alignment, the intended focal point (e.g., an eye) wasn't in focus at all by any standards (not just to a sharpness-centric pixel peeper) and thus the photo was ruined.   It is not just a matter of tolerance for sharpness.  When you are shooting a subject wide open lens like a summilux and you want only the person's eye in focus and instead you get only her ear in focus, that is a problem for anyone...

[chrism]

 

 

No momento by JM__, on Flickr

 

50 Noctilux 1.0 Leica M3 TriX @ 800

 

I like this very much! Well done.

 

Chris

[lleo]

...And, as I said, "ultimate sharpness isn't always my highest priority."   

 

Also since sharpness means nothing, or close to it. I can shoot the sharpest photo in history, but if I shoot a complete crap, sharpness won't be useful for anything.

[ramarren]

Leica M4-2 + Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC

Fuji ACROS 100

 

 

enjoy!

[Bobitybob]

Garth Farm across Llynnau Mymbyr, Snowdonia.

 

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!

 

R8, Vario Elmar-R 21-35, Ilford XP2

 

[Guest JMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

underwater blues by JM__, on Flickr

 

TriX @ 800 Noctilux e58 M3

[ramarren]

To be clear, when my MM was out of alignment, the intended focal point (e.g., an eye) wasn't in focus at all by any standards (not just to a sharpness-centric pixel peeper) and thus the photo was ruined.   It is not just a matter of tolerance for sharpness.  When you are shooting a subject wide open lens like a summilux and you want only the person's eye in focus and instead you get only her ear in focus, that is a problem for anyone...

 

If I'm making a portrait of a person and the eye is in focus but the ear and nose are not, I've chosen an aperture setting that produces simply too shallow a focus zone for the intent. I would not tolerate a photo in which the eye was focused and the ear wasn't: it would be a bad exposure for my purposes.That's what I mean by "tolerance". You're demanding that level of focus discrimination (for which I'd *always* use a TTL focusing camera, btw, where I can see the lens' precise focus plane directly, not indirectly through a separate focusing system), where I simply do not. 

 

This is one of the reasons why I sold the Summilux 75 many years ago. I have a Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 now and I mostly shoot such portraits at f/4 not f/1.4, the latter being too shallow a focus zone for my usual desires. 

 

It's all good. I have my biases and you have yours. For me, the rangefinder mechanisms and their likelihood of being out of adjustment are pretty much the same between the film and digital bodies. With the M-P240 or MM246, of course, if I need to zero in to your level of focus tolerance, I'll just snap the EVF in place and critically focus with the camera on a tripod. 

[ramarren]

underwater blues by JM__, on Flickr

 

TriX @ 800 Noctilux e58 M3

 

JM, that's a very cool shot! 

[A miller]

If I'm making a portrait of a person and the eye is in focus but the ear and nose are not, I've chosen an aperture setting that produces simply too shallow a focus zone for the intent. I would not tolerate a photo in which the eye was focused and the ear wasn't: it would be a bad exposure for my purposes.That's what I mean by "tolerance". You're demanding that level of focus discrimination (for which I'd *always* use a TTL focusing camera, btw, where I can see the lens' precise focus plane directly, not indirectly through a separate focusing system), where I simply do not. 

 

This is one of the reasons why I sold the Summilux 75 many years ago. I have a Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 now and I mostly shoot such portraits at f/4 not f/1.4, the latter being too shallow a focus zone for my usual desires. 

 

It's all good. I have my biases and you have yours. For me, the rangefinder mechanisms and their likelihood of being out of adjustment are pretty much the same between the film and digital bodies. With the M-P240 or MM246, of course, if I need to zero in to your level of focus tolerance, I'll just snap the EVF in place and critically focus with the camera on a tripod. 

 

There is no subjectivity in what I am saying.  It is an objective fact that digital Ms are more sensitive to NOTICEABLE RF misalignment that film Ms.   This is coming straight from Leica based on objective criteria.  So I am not sure what you are arguing about.  

If you don't like my eye and ear example, then let's take a few steps back and try to get a person's entire face in focus only to find that it is not in focus but rather the person either in front or back of the subject is in focus.  

With digital, the drop off of what is and is not in focus is generally immediate and not gradual like in film.  Consequently, the misalignments will be more noticeable and unacceptable.  

 

This is not about styles or approaches to photography (so please don't get me wrong if I have offended you); it is about objective facts.  Anyone who questions this should call Bill Weiser at Leica USA in NJ and ask him.  He would be happy to explain it to a good Leica customer.

[Doc Henry]

Now that would be crazy. 500mm, even in NYC, is nearly 2ft!

Ian, I think Adam speaks about the difference in  the order of 1/1000 of millimeters or in microns.

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

 

Leica M4-2 + Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC

Fuji ACROS 100

 

 

 

enjoy!

 

Really nice this tree Ramarren

in b&w

Best

Henry

[ramarren]

There is no subjectivity in what I am saying. It is an objective fact... 

 

I disagree, and I would disagree with Bill Weiser as well if I spoke with him. Both your and his statements are your subjective opinions.

 

The fact that you can see the maladjustment of the RF more easily with the highly sensitive, very flat digital sensor and the more curved, less critical recording of film masks the focus error does not mean that the digital camera's RF is any more or less prone to maladjustment, it simply means that the maladjustment is more visible. That is the fact of the matter, and is what I have been saying all along.

 

That you choose to shoot at f/1.4 with a 75mm lens at relatively close distances is your choice. That you are very sensitive to tiny variations in focus quality at such shallow DoF establishes your tolerance for an image being out of focus to be very small. That you can see these focus variations with the digital camera and the film camera masks it through its more imprecise film plane and film's more variable positioning is evident. This critical tolerance has nothing to do with the propensity of the RF mechanism to be more or less out of adjustment on one camera or another, it's just a matter of what you can see rather than what you can measure. That's another fact.

 

Let's leave it at that and get back to enjoying some photographs, okay? 

Edited January 17, 2016 by ramarren

[Guest JMF]

Ian, I think Adam speaks about the difference in  the order of 1/1000 of millimeters or in microns.

Best

Henry

 

Exactly, this level of precision has been necessary for 35mm format cinema film productions for decades and is nowadays even more a topic with FF digital stills camera bodies.

 

Anyway let's post pictures , right ?!

Edited January 17, 2016 by jmanivelle

[A miller]

 

The fact that you can see the maladjustment of the RF more easily with the highly sensitive, very flat digital sensor and the more curved, less critical recording of film masks the focus error does not mean that the digital camera's RF is any more or less prone to maladjustment, it simply means that the maladjustment is more visible. That is the fact of the matter, and is what I have been saying all along.

 

yes, this is ALL I am saying.  But I am also saying that with digital the misalignments (if sufficiently prominent) don't just show up on wide open close up shots but also regular shots, which might not also show up with a film M.  

 

 

 

Let's leave it at that and get back to enjoying some photographs, okay? 

 

OKAY!!

Edited January 17, 2016 by A miller

[Doc Henry]

There is no subjectivity in what I am saying.  It is an objective fact that digital Ms are more sensitive to NOTICEABLE RF misalignment that film Ms.   This is coming straight from Leica based on objective criteria.  So I am not sure what you are arguing about.  

If you don't like my eye and ear example, then let's take a few steps back and try to get a person's entire face in focus only to find that it is not in focus but rather the person either in front or back of the subject is in focus.  

With digital, the drop off of what is and is not in focus is generally immediate and not gradual like in film.  Consequently, the misalignments will be more noticeable and unacceptable.  

 

This is not about styles or approaches to photography (so please don't get me wrong if I have offended you); it is about objective facts.  Anyone who questions this should call Bill Weiser at Leica USA in NJ and ask him.  He would be happy to explain it to a good Leica customer.

Many people send their digital camera with their lens to Wetzlar for adjustment of the RF

Personally my M8 or M9 works perfectly and all my pictures are correct when I used these cameras

It is true, as Adam said, with the film the M are more tolerant of the fact that there are several layers of film.

So use your analog camera

Best

Henry

[pop]

I disagree, and I would disagree with Bill Weiser as well if I spoke with him. Both your and his statements are your subjective opinions.

Your statement is based on fact and not on opinion, then? Does it take into account that the RF mechanism has been somewhat redesigned for the digital bodies, those having a greater girth? Can you disclose the source of your information, please?

[cwolffensperger]

Or use both and be aware of the pitfalls each way of working has to you! For me both digital and analog are here to stay, and just use the differences to implement in the pictures I'm taking. So for me both analog and digital have a place. But not having a digital M, and hearing all this I'll just stick to my analog M's and keep digital with the fujis! And hope to see more inspiring pictures here!

[Doc Henry]

So you have said "post pictures"

 

 

Here one picture taken recently

 

Kodak Portra 160

Leica M7

Summicron 28 Asph

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

Or use both and be aware of the pitfalls each way of working has to you! For me both digital and analog are here to stay, and just use the differences to implement in the pictures I'm taking. So for me both analog and digital have a place. But not having a digital M, and hearing all this I'll just stick to my analog M's and keep digital with the fujis! And hope to see more inspiring pictures here!

 

 

Just to be clear, I AM NOT TRYING TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM USING DIGITAL CAMERAS.  God Forbid.  Digital is wonderful and the Leica stable of digital bodies are a Godsend.  I was merely pointing out a technical difference between the two formats.  I will admit that it frustrated the hell out of me with my MM, to the point that I was wishing it good-riddens when I sold it.  But that's just me and everyone will have their own experiences.  I wish everyone happy shooting in all formats!