Nocti vs 50 APO

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A noctilux on a M8/9 is understandable as the high iso performance of those cameras are terrible. You simply need to use a fast lens.

[jaapv]

That's another discussion

[Advertisement]

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

[CheshireCat]

after all one cannot suppose that you would claim artistic merit for an image that was meant as demonstration of the Noctilux' OOF rendering, and demonstrates it well. However, it is a good demonstration of the pitfalls of Noctilux photography as well.

 

 

On the contrary, that photo would have been quite less interesting if shot with an f/2 lens.

[CheshireCat]

A noctilux on a M8/9 is understandable as the high iso performance of those cameras are terrible. You simply need to use a fast lens.

 

 

Uhm... I don't think anyone buys a Noctilux to work around the crappy ISO performance of M8/M9.

That would be silly, considering you can buy the wonderful Summilux 50/1.4 and a used M240 for the same price of the Noctilux

[rsh]

I only have the 50 Summilux and I think it is a pretty good lens.

 

 

 

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!

Edited April 14, 2016 by rsh

[Flu]

There are only a few thing we know with certainty - Human beings are not created equal. Minds and eyes see all different colors and shapes even if we are all looking at the same exact thing. For example, the fairly recent gold or black/blue dress phenom which stirred up a viral internet argument shows plainly that we are split down the middle.

I can completely understand that Bokeh to some can be distracting where to others it may actually serve to accentuate the isolated subject. It all comes down to how your mind works and perceives. I personally see fast glass as an asset, an additional tool at my disposal for when I want to use it. This mindset is also congruent with Leica or any other manufacturer for that matter.

Because regardless of manufacturer, Bokeh (aka fast glass) is almost always much much more money than slower glass. Would companies price their fast lenses that high if the demand for them wasn't equally as strong? Who would pay for lenses with such absorbent prices unless their rendering effects were highly desired by the vast photographic an non-photographic majority? I guess one could say it's all down to marketing right?

At the end of the day, I like almonds and you like pistachios. Ultimately, there's no right or wrong. Let's just all enjoy our Leicas yes?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the contrary, that photo would have been quite less interesting if shot with an f/2 lens.

You may be surprised that I agree, however, for me, only from a technical point of view.

[Peter H]

Portrait photography is a fascinating subject. My personal preference is for context because otherwise it's just looking at one of the billions of faces available to be looked at.

 

In my opinion Context, which inevitably involves composition, is an essential ingredient of a good portrait if it is to have any more than family interest or identification value.

 

So the question of subject isolation and blurred-out background is to be handled with a lot of care and consideration. Yet I see it used increasingly as a means to getting an acceptable shot of a face just because the background's not attractive, and that's not something I'd encourage.

 

I'm not talking about a photo used specifically to illustrate the properties of a lens, but about portrait photography in general, and the sometimes negative influence of very wide apertures.

[Paul J]

Subject isolation needs, first, to come from composition and content. Any sort of isolation from Bokeh, is questionable, or in the least, very limited. Blurred backgrounds do not stop the eye from travelling around them, in fact, it's easy for it to have the opposite effect. Consider bokeh, appealing only to Bokeh enthusiasts and you are off to a good start. Of corse, people love great photography which happens to have Bokeh in it, in the right balance.

[wattsy]

On the contrary, that photo would have been quite less interesting if shot with an f/2 lens.

 

 

How do you know that, were you there? My immediate reaction on seeing the photograph was that the background actually looked rather interesting (especially in terms of context) and I'd like to be able to see it as more than a blur (at that kind of focus distance, something like F4 at least). Environmental portraiture can be one of the most satisfying genres and I'm not sure I've ever seen any good examples of it where I cannot make out the environmental context of the subject. Have a look at the work of any of the top photographers working today (proper independently published ones, not bloggers), – for example, have a look at the environmental portraits of Mark Steinmetz (a personal favourite of mine) or Alec Soth, Vanessa Winship to name only a few off the top of my head. The idea of using F0.95 to blur out the background to make it more interesting is IMO ludicrous.

[Paul J]

IMO, The photo would be the same even if it were entirely sharp front to back. I don't feel it's overwhelming presence is adding anything to the content beyond it's look which some will like and others will find distracting. I think if you are using Bokeh to remove something you don't like, you are far better served to remove what ever it is by changing your photo, the composition, the content, the background, what ever. Otherwise you are not removing it, just replacing it with something even more nondescript and the distraction remains. IMO, The only time it works is if you have something more significant in your picture and it's then a case of having "the moment". But it better be a very good moment!

Edited April 14, 2016 by Paul J

[Paul J]

How do you know that, were you there? My immediate reaction on seeing the photograph was that the background actually looked rather interesting (especially in terms of context) and I'd like to be able to see it as more than a blur (at that kind of focus distance, something like F4 at least). Environmental portraiture can be one of the most satisfying genres and I'm not sure I've ever seen any good examples of it where I cannot make out the environmental context of the subject. Have a look at the work of any of the top photographers working today (proper independently published ones, not bloggers), – for example, have a look at the environmental portraits of Mark Steinmetz (a personal favourite of mine) or Alec Soth, Vanessa Winship to name only a few off the top of my head. The idea of using F0.95 to blur out the background to make it more interesting is IMO ludicrous.

While I completely agree in this case, I would also add that while we have our personal tastes, that should not effect what others do with their own work. It's best to be open to it and accept that somethings work some of the time.

 

While most modern photography, and by that I mean of the best part of the last century and particularly the current predominant trend is for full depth, that does not mean it should be the only thing that is done. It has been an age old argument that tos-and-fros since the f64 group movement. I can throw a long list of names at you that use the opposite; for a start: Sarah Moon, Paolo Roversi, Deborah Turbeville, Serge Lebon, Peter Lindbergh, Boo George, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

 

It's a subject that needs more explanation than can be done in a couple sentences but in brief, Low depth of field and blur works when the overall image has a spirit that is being communicated beyond the physical and tangible elements - but that is not something that often exists a casual pressing of a button. By it's nature of singling things out, what ever is being singled out needs to be a focused and directed message - something that is missing from 99% of shots being made in this way.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Paul J

[wattsy]

 I can throw a long list of names at you that use the opposite; for a start: Sarah Moon, Paolo Roversi, Deborah Turbeville, Serge Lebon, Peter Lindbergh, Boo George, Serge Lebon, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

 

 

I don't think your list says the opposite at all – most of these examples were/are using larger format cameras, an inevitable consequence of which is of course using a longer focal length (and narrower depth of field) for a given field of view. The spatial qualities associated with using a larger format is a world away from the Noctilux on 35mm. Some of these photographers are also favourites of mine and I wouldn't associate any of them with an "F0.95" look. Deborah Turbeville in particular couldn't be further removed from the anodyne F0.95 look favoured by many Noctilux users.

[Paul J]

I don't think your list says the opposite at all – most of these examples were/are using larger format cameras, an inevitable consequence of which is of course using a longer focal length (and narrower depth of field) for a given field of view. The spatial qualities associated with using a larger format is a world away from the Noctilux on 35mm. Some of these photographers are also favourites of mine and I wouldn't associate any of them with an "F0.95" look. Deborah Turbeville in particular couldn't be further removed from the anodyne F0.95 look favoured by many Noctilux users.

Sarah Moon - 35mm

Paolo Roversi - 10x8, Leica & f1 Noctilux, more recently Blad Digital.

Deborah Turbeville - 35mm

Serge Lebon - 35mm

Peter Lindbergh - 35mm

Boo George - 35mm

Stieglitz & Steichen - large format - but I'm sure they wouldn't be using large format today if born in this era.

 

I could add a lot to this list.

 

The means to which we can achieve blur are many, but the overall effect, while differing between formats and techniques is ultimately quite similar.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Paul J

[wattsy]

I wouldn't have considered Lindbergh or Moon as "35mm" photographers but I defer to your knowledge. That said, none of those you have listed are what I would consider an environmental portrait photographer nor, leaving that point aside, do I really think they exemplify the kind of F0.95 look favoured by many Leica users here (for example, do you really think there is much in common between Paolo Roversi's and Thorsten Overgaard's portraits, even if both might favour a narrower depth of field?).

[Peter Kilmister]

My tuppence worth on this subject having owned the Nocti 0.95, the 50 APO Cron, and the 50 Lux 1.4:

 

The Noctilux 0.95 I found cumbersome and heavy. It is so large that it seriously blocks the viewfinder. Expensive but good in poor light.

By comparison the 50 APO is small, light, and produces wonderful images. My favourite lens by far. An everyday lens that I love.

The 50 Lux 1.4 also produces wonderful images but is big although a joy compared to the Nocti.

 

I sold the Nocti. Do I miss it? No, definitely not.

[Paul J]

I wouldn't have considered Lindbergh or Moon as "35mm" photographers but I defer to your knowledge. That said, none of those you have listed are what I would consider an environmental portrait photographer nor, leaving that point aside, do I really think they exemplify the kind of F0.95 look favoured by many Leica users here (for example, do you really think there is much in common between Paolo Roversi's and Thorsten Overgaard's portraits, even if both might favour a narrower depth of field?).

No, i'm not comparing Paolo Roversi to any other person or Noctilux user.

 

Peter Lindberg has always been a nikon man, he has used other cameras too at times, these day it's pretty much 100% Nikon. Sarah Moon has favoured 35mm but I'm sure you've seen her polaroid work as well.

 

I agree, environmental portrait is different - it is, after all, about the environment too. But I do see the potential of it working and we should appreciate images because we like them, not because we think it should be a certain way, and with that in mind anything is possible. It's certainly no reason to not try and work and develop it.

 

Aesthetic is arguably somewhat irrelevant, or at least separate or secondary in any successful work. Someone starting out, who has not developed a point of view will see a photo, with it's effects and think it is the effect they need to copy, being completely oblivious to what they are actually being drawn to in a work in the first place, not consciously taking in the content or message or point of view of the photo. Bokeh, Polaroid, expired film, large format, medium format, instagram filters, or any obvious visual effect can be easily copied but take it away and the picture remains. Paolo Roversi is incidentally the perfect example of this because while his aesthetic from gear has changed considerably, his pictures remain essentially the same. But his exceptionaly artful use of medium on top is what elevates him to the stuff of legends.

 

Another obvious example of this right now is the young genius, Harley Weir, who has single handedly changed the face of fashion. You can not look anywhere at the moment without seeing her style being blatantly copied for the last year at least. Though the worst part is the overall aesthetic is a small part of her work - it is the underlying content, the visual cues, innuendo, the subconscious, that is in almost every shot you see of hers that has made her instantly famous and so appealing. But all some people see the success of her work and think it's the use of film, the colour, the angles and overall casting/hair/makeup and think that is what they need to copy. They don't even look long enough, or have the awareness yet to see what it is that actually draws them to the work in the first place.

 

Before anyone spends any time thinking about their aesthetic, they need to spend the time working out and developing what their point of view is. The rest just happens by itself. But the main problem being, manufacturers and marketers don't want you to know this and this is generally the first place people think to look - here we are, talking about this, in a *leica* forum.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Paul J

[CheshireCat]

The idea of using F0.95 to blur out the background to make it more interesting is IMO ludicrous.

 

 

Please re-read my sentence. I am talking about making the photo more interesting, not the background.

 

Some of the examples you pointed to are nice environmental portraits, the background being a significant part of the message, and therefore part of the composition (in some shots, it has been even staged).

 

Other examples you pointed to are uninteresting, weak photos overall.

[wattsy]

Please re-read my sentence. I am talking about making the photo more interesting, not the background.

I thought it was pretty clear I was also referring to the photograph rather than just the background, even if a pedantic reading of my sentence might suggest otherwise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CheshireCat]

The spatial qualities associated with using a larger format is a world away from the Noctilux on 35mm.

 

 

What are these romantic, intangible "spatial qualities" ?

Once FOV and DOF are matched, the only difference between a large format and a Noctilux on 35mm will be related to lens aberrations and digital vs film.