[LRflex] Re: Low light sampe
- From: Herman Kempers <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:17:58 +0200
Hi Richard,
Mayby I'm mistaken, but about Walter's 57 mm on a G1; I suppose you ment by
effective focal length of 114 mm that Walter's camera has a crop factor of 2x ??
Well, a crop factor does not make a tele of a 57 mm. A 57 mm will keep the
same specs, doesn't matter if you use it on a full frame or a camera with a
smaller sensor. Same depth of field. Walter only gets the crop similar of a
114 mm when using his 57 mm.
best herman
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Richard Ward <ilovaussiesheps@xxxxxxxxx>
Verzonden: zo 09-05-2010 16:16
Aan: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Onderwerp: [LRflex] Re: Low light sampe
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 pixels tter 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/>
--
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
