colonel Posted March 25, 2015 Share #101 Posted March 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I thought this forum was mostly for people that 1. Had a Leica, 2. Quite liked it. Seems a simply entry criteria to me .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Hi colonel, Take a look here Summicron 50 APO Disapointing?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted March 25, 2015 Share #102 Posted March 25, 2015 I thought this forum was mostly for people that 1. Had a Leica, 2. Quite liked it.Seems a simply entry criteria to me .... Not quite. Having a Leica is not one of the prerequisites (if that's the word I mean). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted March 25, 2015 Share #103 Posted March 25, 2015 I understood that any pictures posted had to be taken with a Leica body or alternatively a Leica or PanaL lens... Ownership? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 25, 2015 Share #104 Posted March 25, 2015 Well, you can join and use the forum without posting any pictures at all, even though that may spoil the fun for some. Once you do post some pictures, this part of the forum rules applies: "Prerequisite for placing a photo is that it has been made with Leica equipment and/or has a strong relationship to a Leica subject." Ownership of the camera or lens is not relevant. What constitutes a "strong relationship to a Leica subject" might be subject to lengthy debates, but on a pragmatic level it is usually readily apparent. So, on the whole, ownership of anything made or sold by Leica is not a requirement at all, even if a welcome addition. It also helps if you like Leica cameras and lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 25, 2015 Share #105 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) My only problem with this lens is f/2 if they do the same thing with a Noctilux I sell my car and buy it at once, for the moment I keep my Summilux I wonder why today a good photo must be sharp Edited March 25, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted March 25, 2015 Share #106 Posted March 25, 2015 [quote name='erick;291005 I wonder why today a good photo must be sharp I have always been of the belief that a "good" photo (or any photo at all) should have at least something in focus' date=' preferably that [i']something[/i] should make sense in the context of the subject/composition/narrative. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #107 Posted March 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have always been of the belief that a "good" photo (or any photo at all) should have at least something in focus, preferably that something should make sense in the context of the subject/composition/narrative. but sharp today means something else than "in-focus" if you look at the photos that have made history nearly none are really sharp 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 26, 2015 Share #108 Posted March 26, 2015 No, most are really sharp, eg the nat geo picture of the afghan girl, Ansel Adams, etc. If Capa or Adams could have had a sharp modern camera they would have jumped at it. They were using the best at the time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted March 26, 2015 Share #109 Posted March 26, 2015 Erick change none to a lot and I completely agree with you. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 26, 2015 Share #110 Posted March 26, 2015 No, most are really sharp, eg the nat geo picture of the afghan girl, Ansel Adams, etc. But many are not - D-Day landings for example - and as ever it depends on what you mean by 'sharp', how you view images and so o. I'm always wary of absolutes because there are always exceptions;).I've just bought a copy of "The decisive moment":eek: and the images are 'in focus' and 'sharp' (enough), but whether they are as bitingly crisp as could be achieved today is another question. Does it matter? IMO not in the slightest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #111 Posted March 26, 2015 a film was about 6 millions pixels ... what is sharp today and before ? 100% full screen ? it seems that for many sharpness means something that I don't like at all Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #112 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) If Capa or Adams could have had a sharp modern camera they would have jumped at it. They were using the best at the time.sharpness at that time and now are differentlook at the pictures of Sally Mann today ... they are not what you call sharp and why they should be ? Capa ? you mean that one ? Edited March 26, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #113 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Erick change none to a lot and I completely agree with you.change a lot for a ton and I completely agree with you Edited March 26, 2015 by erick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 26, 2015 Share #114 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Yes, many classic (old) pictures are not sharp, even out of focus, but their takers would mostly have loved them to be better technically. On the question of what is sharp, I completely decline to answer this as its a facetious discussion. Basically if the subject is in focus with lack of motion blur that is good enough. 6mp vs 50mp is only relevant for printing, cropping or some types of editing Of course out of focus and motion blur can be used as artistic techniques, however this applies to a tiny number of photos Rgds Edited March 26, 2015 by colonel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #115 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Yes, many classic (old) pictures are not sharp, even out of focus, but their takers would mostly have loved them to be better technically.better is different than sharper, better (for me) is always more soul Edited March 26, 2015 by erick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted March 26, 2015 Share #116 Posted March 26, 2015 Because they can buy sharpness but they cannot buy talent. So in their uneducated minds, they substitute talent for sharpness and there they are, happy to be "good photographers". I'd rather call them efficient button pushers & producers of sharp files. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 26, 2015 Share #117 Posted March 26, 2015 Because they can buy sharpness but they cannot buy talent. So in their uneducated minds, they substitute talent for sharpness and there they are, happy to be "good photographers". I'd rather call them efficient button pushers & producers of sharp files. Come come Gas does exist but all things being equal we would prefer better technical standards. We can all depreciate from these in PP if we want to. I do like imperfection. I am shooting much more film at the moment. But when I want digital I want the best, I mean that is half of why I bought into leica , for the lenses ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #118 Posted March 26, 2015 better technical standards. better has definitively nothing to do with sharpness, anyone with a tripod and good gear can take a sharp photo after one week learning photography I agree totally with NB23 if I want sharp photos I sell my Leica gear and I buy a Nikon 810 + Zeiss Otus lenses 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 26, 2015 Share #119 Posted March 26, 2015 better has definitively nothing to do with sharpness, anyone with a tripod and good gear can take a sharp photo after one week learning photography I agree totally with NB23 if I want sharp photos I sell my Leica gear and I buy a Nikon 810 + Zeiss Otus lenses Would you ? The weight, presence and size of that stuff is a no go for me The Pentax 645d is cheap these days but the attraction for me is zero I wanted the quality from a small and unobtrusive kit AND I love the RF and manual focus. I always pick up the M, rather then the A7, when given a choice Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 26, 2015 Share #120 Posted March 26, 2015 Would you ?but I am not looking at all for sharpness, I like the 3D of Leica lenses + a small systemand Sony Alpha is not a system Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.