The Noctilux f1 is still magical

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Your 'excuses' are my reasons.

 

Pete.

 

Then at least have the good manners to acknowledge the point.

[swamiji]

Then at least have the good manners to acknowledge the point.

 

Your "point" isn't valid in this environment.

[pico]

Here, in a blind test can you tell the following 3 images apart (taken with the 3 Noctis, f1.2, f1, and f0.95:

[...]

 

I don't know if the display below will help. The three pictures are aligned to the common element which is the tree and trimmed to eliminate the bit of non-overlapped edges

 

See them here.

 

The Slideshow option under View (upper left) is better.

.

Edited July 14, 2014 by pico

[Herr Barnack]

Can't even discuss a lens without getting pissy, can we?

[farnz]

Then at least have the good manners to acknowledge the point.

You accuse me of poor manners when I've tried to help you by explaining why telling lenses apart using photographs posted on a forum is so difficult and then you dismiss the valid reasons I've given you as excuses despite others here trying to explain the same to you? That's rich.

 

Pete.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

You accuse me of poor manners when I've tried to help you by explaining why telling lenses apart using photographs posted on a forum is so difficult and then you dismiss the valid reasons I've given you as excuses despite others here trying to explain the same to you? That's rich.

 

Pete.

 

Yes, because my point (if you actually go back and read this thread from the beginning) has always been precisely that. The image posted by the OP could have been taken by any lens. You have come to the same conclusion and yet do not acknowledge it.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

… but then the discussion moved onto whether the different Noctiluxes have different characters that can be recognised, which they do and can providing that a medium is used that retains the character. Enough.

 

Pete.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

… but then the discussion moved onto whether the different Noctiluxes have different characters that can be recognised, which they do and can providing that a medium is used that retains the character. Enough.

 

Pete.

 

Well, that may be what you were talking about. But I wasn't.

[farnz]

Well, that may be what you were talking about. But I wasn't.

Kindly remind me who posted the image apparently taken with a Noctilux and challenged members to state which one … ?

 

Pete.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Kindly remind me who posted the image apparently taken with a Noctilux and challenged members to state which one … ?

 

Pete.

 

I did, and nobody was able to identify the correct lens... But that does not mean I was involved in a "discussion .... whether the different Noctiluxes have different characters". My point was always that, yes they have different characteristics, of course they do, but rather that you would not be able to identify which lens took a particular image in a blind test. In fact you could take a pic with an Elmar at f4 and not be able to identify if it was a Noctilux or an Elmar (as was shown in the other thread I linked to).

Edited July 14, 2014 by Ansel_Adams

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Basically, saying one lens is different from another doesn't mean you will necessarily be able to identify it in a lineup. When it comes to lenses there are so many other variables at play (some of which you have identified) that it is almost impossible to identify which is which....

 

And therefore you can save a lot of money any get an Elmar if you don't need f.095 (which was the lens I used in the test shot).

[Stealth3kpl]

If you had to put money down, which lens is this:

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!

 

Pete

[MarkP]

If you had to put money down, which lens is this:

[ATTACH]447153[/ATTACH]

 

Pete

 

iPhone

[atournas]

Yes, because my point (if you actually go back and read this thread from the beginning) has always been precisely that. The image posted by the OP could have been taken by any lens. You have come to the same conclusion and yet do not acknowledge it.

 

It seems that, perhaps understandably, people do not read carefully posts longer than a couple of lines. The OP, which was mine, stated that the Noctilux f1 was not only for available darkness and, to make that point, I uploaded a 100% crop of an image taken at f/5.6.

 

I already emphasized that point by answering another post in this thread. Sorry, but I can't make it any clearer.

 

Paul

[erl]

Paul, I have just gone back and read your original post. Everything you wrote is perfectly legitimate in my opinion. The fact some posters have 'taken' you included picture as 'the point' of your thread, have missed the point.

 

You have offered an opinion, a good one, but some have chosen to take your pic out of context and use as a whipping stick against something you never intended. I trust you are smiling indulgently at your computer screen.

 

For those that wish to continue with semantics about recognizing this or that lens, let me suggest this. I will drive over to your place, either in my 1989 Saab Aero or my 2000 Subaru Forrester, and first hand inspect your large scale hard copy of your test photos and pass my professional judgement and conclude which lens you used, not based on any crappy reproduction over the internet. Even good images can look crap here. I will perform that test, but in return I expect you to look at me and tell which of the two cars on offer brought me to you. I think that is equally reasonable.

[atournas]

Paul, I have just gone back and read your original post. Everything you wrote is perfectly legitimate in my opinion.

 

For those that wish to continue with semantics about recognizing this or that lens, let me suggest this. I will drive over to your place, either in my 1989 Saab Aero or my 2000 Subaru Forrester, and first hand inspect your large scale hard copy of your test photos [...]

 

Thanks, Erl, for the time you took to re-read my OP. And, by the way, I am also partial in some things and I would have seen a 1989 Saab Aero, whatever car you would have driven in.

 

Paul

[swamiji]

It's easy to remove any lens/sensor fingerprint in post. It's harder to preserve it. It amazes me people are boasting about their poor post processing skills, and attribute it to the lack of differences between lenses. I challenge anyone/everyone to hone there skills to the level they not only preserve the fingerprint, but to increase the visibility of the fingerprint, or even create a fingerprint where none exists.

 

It's the responsibility of the speaker to be understood. If your photo can't be understood, it's not the viewers fault.

Edited July 15, 2014 by swamiji

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

It amazes me people are boasting about their poor post processing skills, and attribute it to the lack of differences between lenses.

 

You have mentioned this before and I didn't comment at the time. The image I uploaded was developed and scanned by one of the very best labs on the planet Carmencita Film Lab (favoured also by aliane | micmojo scrapbook). There is nothing wrong with the scan.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

It seems that, perhaps understandably, people do not read carefully posts longer than a couple of lines. The OP, which was mine, stated that the Noctilux f1 was not only for available darkness and, to make that point, I uploaded a 100% crop of an image taken at f/5.6.

 

I already emphasized that point by answering another post in this thread. Sorry, but I can't make it any clearer.

 

Paul

 

Well, I think you should include yourself in that then because nobody questioned the ability of the Noctilux to take photos in normal light!

 

The only thing some of us were saying was that there was nothing magical about that particular image and that it could have been taken with almost any lens. Which I think is fair comment if you are going to start thread titles "The Noctilux f1 is still magical".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

If you had to put money down, which lens is this:

[ATTACH]447153[/ATTACH]

 

Pete

 

That is not a lens. Its a dog. Looks like a labrador retriever ...