[LRflex] Re: Low light sampe
- From: Walter Kramer <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 19:00:00 +1000
Thanks to all who commented.
Learn something most days. Richard, the link was an eye opener for me
in terms of the results on the Nikon at high ISO settings, really nice
and a great deal of flexibility there for shooting options. I see my
error also in shallow DOF as I was concentrating on getting the highest
shutter speed I could to stop action as much as possible but that forces
another kind of compromise which I had not anticipated.
Ted, the M9 option is out of scope and I fear the M8.2 is also out of
reach for now, however the Voightlander 35mm f1.2 is a possibility on my
M6. I'm just wondering what B&W film would be appropriate indoors and
at night under lights?
Aram, your links were interesting and I believe I had that lens once and
quite liked it. Sounds like the larger sensor is the consensus here
although to respond to Richard's prompt, the people who want these shots
are quite happy with the results and can't understand my gripes. They
are often amazed and pleased that no flash was used.
On 10/05/10 00:16, Richard Ward wrote:
> Hi Walter,
> I saw your post inquiring on lowlight shooting and your sample image
> posted here. Personally, I think the primary 'bad' aspect of your posted
> image is the touch of motion blurring mucking things up. Your primary
> obstacle to critical sharpness may be the lens itself - it's an 114mm
> effective focal length and f1.2 has to be shaving your depth of field down to
> next to nothing.
> Your inquiry regarding a Summilux on an M9 being a better choice would,
> imho, be emphatically yes, but based mainly on the fundamental technologies
> and optical realities involved. A) There is no getting around that assuming
> equally good technique, you get less 'wiggle' with a 50mm primary than a
> 114mm tele, make it a 35mm wide and it's more of a mismatch. Then B) the
> sensor in the G1 is half the size of the M9. This means the M9 has the
> advantage in photosite size (4.3µm versus 6.8µm pixel pitch) and bigger
> pixels¾tter light gathering. To see some 'real life' examples of the
> advantages sensor size can give in low light check the sample images on
> dpreview for the Nikon D3s Full Frame Sensored camera (especially the ones of
> the plane on the flight line shot with available darkness!).
> To oversimplify the argument and surely annoy a list member!: A camera
> with small sensor photosites has to work much harder electronically to
> magnify the 'signal' being generated by the incoming photons and therefore
> cameras with big sensors with big pixels is going to have a big advantage
> when the light gets dim and the photons get scarce. There are ways to
> technologically compensate, but there is only so much bending and shaping
> they can do to overcome the physics involved here.
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d3s-review-samples/slideshow
>
> I also wonder how well received your G1 + Konica f1.2 Fifty images are
> received by those requesting the images? Sometimes a good 4x6 inch print is
> all someone's after and they can't understand when us 'real photographers'
> are all gripes and groans about an image not being good enough for a 16x20
> exhibition print.
>
> OOps.. look at the time... Gotta go!
>
> Richard in Michigan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Walter Kramer<walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 9:17:09 AM
> Subject: [LRflex] Low light sampe
>
>
> panasoni G1, Koniva 57m f1.2
>
> p://www.flickr.com/photos/25126059@N02/4591944508/sizes/l/
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/25126059@N02/4591944508/sizes/l/>
>
>
--
Walter Krämer
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bus: 03 9854 2463
Mob: 0414 884 965
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
