Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,088   Posts: 1,635,907   Online: 1008
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106
  1. #81
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,798
    Quote Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
    And I'll note again that many published experiments have shown this statement to be inaccurate.
    They don't show a thing except in regards to a specific camera/focal length/exposure time/focus. That's the real point. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. There are so many variables involved with this subject that absolutes have no validity. The only absolute is what you wind up with after the fact using all the tools to the best of your ability within the parameters of a specific situation. All of the debates and experiments involve an involuntary subjectivity because of the inescapable nature of photographic possibilities, and that isn't a very solid place to stand. If someone made a test with the exact camera, lens, focal length, and exposure, and had the same idea as me as to what constituted sharpness, I'd pay attention. Other than that, it's a TV in another room.

    Rather than "does it make a difference?", which of course it can, the question should be "in what situations might it make a difference, and if so, how much?"
    Last edited by JBrunner; 02-05-2010 at 01:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    That's just, like, my opinion, man...

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Laser pointers do not leave trails on the wall; it just looks like they do.
    Considering that the dot from a laser pointer is something that the film sees during exposure, then what something "looks like" to the film is exactly what will be recorded. Of course it is not left on the wall. We all know that. It is just a ray of light, not a ray gun beam that marks the wall. However, if the shutter is open, and the aperture is such that you can properly expose the dot on the wall, there will be a streak in the picture.

    The point I am making is that the streak is not very informative. It tells you how much movement there is, but does not tell you how much movement is acceptable.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,168
    Hi

    The reason why people use rfdrs, like M2, Canon P or Retina IIIs for street shooting is

    shutter lag - milliseconds
    shutter noise - in a noisy street - unobtrusive

    Many SLR's e.g. OM1 wont have much mirror bounce until the return stroke when the picture is in the can but will still be noisy and have more delay.

    Note with the OM1 you can inhibit the mirror.

    In HCB's day the Nikon F was not available and SLR were not really used by PJ.

    It is possible to tolerate the delay of a Contax G1 or G2, and the lenses are excellent, but it is difficult to justify.

    Noel

  4. #84
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,075
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Let me just approach this in a slightly different way.

    Those of you who say MLU doesn't matter, are you saying that it's a worthless gimmick perpetrated upon us by the cameramakers? So, they all got together and said, let's sock it to those poor bastards and add on a feature that they really don't need...

    And if you support this hypothesis, I ask: how much extra profit do you suppose it enabled them to reap from these bodies with the worthless MLU?

    Or did they do it not for profit but simply for sh*ts and grins? I'd find that hard to believe; the modern [film] camera, to me, is one of the most purposefully designed tools I can imagine. It really wasn't until the digital generation that we started to see all kinds of nonsense shoved in the box just to make people feel like they were getting more for their money.

    This all reminds me of the lovely quote by Marx. No, not that Marx, the Marx most people still respect, Groucho Marx:

    Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.
    Last edited by keithwms; 02-06-2010 at 09:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,168
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post

    Those of you who say MLU doesn't matter, are you saying that it's a worthless gimmick perpetrated upon us by the cameramakers?

    [/I]
    MLU was necessary for non retro focus wide angle lenses, they wanted to sell system cameras, to bury the rangefinders like Contax IIa and Leica M2, which could accept non retrofocus lenses.

    It was also useful for low vibration shots of star fields etc.

    MLU is not so fashionable today...

    Noel

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    They don't show a thing except in regards to a specific camera/focal length/exposure time/focus. That's the real point. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't.
    Of course, which is what I said earlier. Just refuting the blanket assertion that it is a "myth" or it never matters, which is what some are saying.
    -brian hayden
    http://fed-2.org

  7. #87
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,944
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    MLU is not so fashionable today...
    Well neither am I, but my employer still seems to find me important enough to use me regularly.

    Seriously though, my employer likes my work because I use and don't short cut the best processes. This means they have less to worry about; the machines will start on the first try, run reliably, and everybody gets home safe.

    MLU is one part of a regimen of best practices for getting sharp pictures and it costs next to nothing in money or time to use it.

    To me it seems truly silly to put all the effort needed to carrying, setting up, and throwing a camera on a tripod just to ignore using the MLU which takes all of 5 extra seconds to use.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,168
    Yes but you can get nearly the same effect (now days with inverted telephotos) with a SLR on self timer which fires the mirror early, you still get a delay, but the vibration will be less.

    Some of the earlier SLR you lose a frame resetting the mirror?

    As I read it the OP was about street shooting not star fields and the like. Maybe I'm wrong again.

    When I take night shots I may fire the shutter with a black felt table tennis bat obscuring the field of view as even a leicia fabric shutter has an impulse on blind movement,and my tripods are not that heavy to necessarily absorb.

    Noel

  9. #89
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,729
    Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I have always thought that in an SLR in short exposure say 30th to 1000th sec. by the time the mirror reaches the top of its travel and hits the foam bumper the picture has already been taken.
    Ben

  10. #90
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,944
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I have always thought that in an SLR in short exposure say 30th to 1000th sec. by the time the mirror reaches the top of its travel and hits the foam bumper the picture has already been taken.
    First, the mirror has to be completely out of the way or it will be in the picture so I doubt that the shutter fires until it's up all the way. This is part of why a rangefinder can fire faster, there is no mirror to wait for.

    Second, there are two impulses "felt" by the camera. First the acceleration of the mirror upward from it's resting position and then the mirror being stopped. Even if your thought was true, the initial acceleration would be affecting the camera before the shutter fired.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin