carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
brainiac wrote:
To my eye the lead guitarist's foot pedal is noticeably sharper than his guitar or face.
Okay, we will have to agree to disagree here. I think the wire coming out of the end of the guitar is as sharp as the pedal, which only looks sharper due to its highlights, I think.
Since the rest of your argument places the blame for this on the rangefinder and elevates the 5D, as an example, there is no point in discussing the rest.
In my view, an SLR with faster frame rate has much better versatility in overcoming this problem because you can constantly adjust focus around the guitarist's (moving) face by concentrating on the ground glass, maintaining composition, and holding down the shutter realease for as long as it will go.
My very first tests with my 5D and M8 were focusing. I was constantly focusing both cameras on something, and zooming in on the screens to verify the focus, and double-checking the results on my computer. I constantly felt that I had done something wrong with the M8, and that I had nailed it with the 5D (where I have experimented with the standard screen, the large raster spot Brightscreen, and settled on the Ee-S), but when I checked the results carefully, I found that the vast majority of the time, I was doing better with the M8. I simply feel insecure with it, but it works really well. Where I really have trouble focusing the 5D (and the electronic built-in system fails here too) is dark situations. I have repeatedly focused very carefully on something, and then had to confirm that I completely missed focus. I will double-check the M8 when it comes back from rangefinder adjustment, but I do think that the argument that the rangefinder is superiour for focusing at normal ranges is not only a technical one, but also a practical conclusion. For telephoto, macro, sports, and other specialty shots, the SLR systems are clearly more suited in general, but for regular shooting, I lean towards the rangefinder.
> Finally, both the 50 Noctilux and 75 Lux are slightly soft wide-open. In fact, if the Noct was used at f/1.0, then it would give the same shutterspeed (okay 1/3-stop less) as the 5D with a f/1.4 lens.
...but with more noise, more softness, and half the likelihood of placing the focal plane where it needs to be. That's not what I call versatility.
Huh, what? I mean the M8 at ISO 640 and f/1.0 vs. the 5D at ISO 1600 at f/1.4. There is no noise penalty there. And the focusing argument we continue to disagree on.
> Again, I find it far more likely that the lens was simply a little long for the shot.
That's why zooms are popular. The M doesn't offer a wide range of zoom options, although the tri-elmars are nice.
Sure, but zooms typically lose several stops in brightness compared to primes, so you lose more than you gain there.
> Finally, with my 5D I found that the focusing on the off-center points was error-prone and difficult to verify, so (before I switched to manual lenses), I was strictly using the center one, which was faster, more accurate and worked better in dim situations.
Look at all those options. That's versatility. I favour manual focus in low light but to each, his own. The M doesn't offer auto-focus, so it lacks that kind of versatility too.
You can call it options if you like. I was speaking of a failing technology, negating the majority of those options, leaving just the equivalent of the rangefinder.
p.s. anybody know why this text has gone small?
Because you are wrong :)
|
?
.