Rigid Summicron 50 vs Pentax-M 50

[david k.]

The "not fade away" shooter.<div></div>

[arraga]

For those interested in comparations other than at f/8, in the link referenced abover there are quite a few comparations of pentax and minolta lens against leitz at f/1.4 and f/2.

 

Cheers, Santiago

[mozart 2]

A rebuttal of sorts:

 

Well, it has come as no surprise that no one - so far - has had sufficient curiosity to read about what constitutes a good scientific experiment and scientific honesty and integrity by reading the highly recommended commencement speech by Feynmann: "Cargo Cult Science".

 

Or that some of the responders have failed to fully understand to main point of my long redundant "dissertation". Namely:

 

"I firmly believe that that photographers should be spending more time and effort on obtaining the best from the equipment they have on hand and then sharing that knowledge and experience by assisting others to achieve the best that they can as well."

 

and/or that:

 

"How many architects spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades "debating" the various qualities of pencils, drafting tables and/or paper; erasers; etc. in making their architectural designs?

 

Only photographers have this deporably bad habit."

 

Unfortunately, I see that many of us are still speaking in terms of paper, pencils, and drafting boards and I will raise my hand and acknowledge my own guilt in this type of discussions.

 

Although I am very tempted to further the discussion along these lines, I shall try to briefly refrain myself.

 

I worked with Nikons as a staff photographer (late 1970's) for a three year period at the University of Illinois - College of Medicine - Peoria (Illinois) campus and have attended one of their so-called photographic seminars, - during the same time period - which ended up being little more than a constant sales pitch about the "virtues" of this and that Nikon lens and spent insufficient time on the basici and advanced elements of photography.

 

I wasn't and have never been all that impressed with their camera equipment. For example, the 100mm Macro Bellows Nikor lens exhibited so much curvature of field at wide open near 1:4 to 1:1 reproduction ratios that I could easily focus on the center have the middle and edges of the image way out of focus. That never happened when I used the 100mm Macro Bellows Lens made for the Leicaflex SL & SL II, which I also worked with at the same reproduction ratios.

 

More to the point, I have always wondered why Nikon, if they are so great or superior in quality, never (to my knowledge) made enlargers and/or projectors of the same quality as their cameras.

 

In short, why tout the "greatness" or "superiority" of a photographic or an enlarging lens as one respondent did, if the manufacturer of that lens doesn't put into production an equally superior projector and/or enlarger. It doesn't make much sense to have, own, and/or use a "superior" lens only to have the results projected on a (now old) Sawyer or Bell & Howell Cube projector.

 

But since I promised that I wouldn't digress into this area any further, I had better take my own advice and keep my mouth shut. ;>)

 

With that said, there were several topics that I didn't cover in last night's extensive discussion. Now that I am awake, I shall bring them up for discussion and see what happens in this round.

 

For those of us who are readers of The Nation or who may be more progressive in their general or political thinking, I am certain that you are also aware of some of the major world issues that are confronting us today. With that in mind, I have taken portions of various articles from a recent issue of The Nation and offer the following proposal:

 

Given these issues, how are we as both photographers and citizens of the world going to respond to these and other issues immediately approaching on the horizon?

 

Hadn't we ought to cease - or at least minimize the non-virtuous "discussions" on paper, pencils, and drafting paper and begin thinking in terms of architectural design, i.e. what kind of world we wish to live in and/or what kind of world we ought to construct and how might bring our artistic knowledge and experience to bear in the construction of a far better and more humane world.

 

Of all of the photographers who work I've seen on photo.net, only one, a Mike Marcotte, is exhibiting not only fine photographic work with his (Canon, etc.) cameras, but even more importantly, he is showing a an acknowlegement and a commitment both to the past and to the future by photographing the Illinois prairie in a very unique and visionary manner. His photographs not only acknowledge the past richness of the Illinois praire - where I also grew up - but also presents in a very wonderful and unique manner - if any of us are really paying attention - the question of what kind of world do we wish to build next (on the prairie)?

 

I have no doubts that many people may have heard or listen to the music of Mozart, but I often wondered how many people actually "hear" what his music is saying philosophically. His "Et incarnatus est" from the "Great" Mass in C Minor (Berstein recording) does - IMHO - suggest a world in which each member or citizen democratically contributes to the creation of a non-predetermined whole.

 

For anyone who has actually toured a home or workplace designed by the Frank Lloyd Wright, doesn't his architecture - despite being overly "male" and quite angular - represent a greater openness than the segregated interior boxes found in many homes and doesn't his architecture at least knowledge the area or place in which it is sited.

 

When I made a proposal that we learn from one another and share our experiences and knowledge photographic technique and/or the elements of photography, i.e. equipment was the first half of my suggestion. The second portion of that same call is what kind of world do we wish to create.

 

Let's hope that many of us came abandon our senseless and rather endless discussions of pencils, paper, and drafting boards and begin to offer far better architectural designs for this world.

 

Again, my best wishes for your photographic and humane endeavors.

 

Bill

 

 

Enjoy the brief readings including one of my favorite quotes from Lewis Mumford:

 

The teacher, to accept his social responsibilities in the world today, must understand the nature of the present crises. He must assist in the transformation of a social order based upon expansion, power, profit, one-side private initiative, into a social order based upon symbiosis: a co-operative sharing of the means of life, towards the fullest possible development of both personality and community. Understanding the pressing need for balance and integration in this symbiotic order, those responsible for teacher education must introduce the concept of wholeness, many-sidedness, interrelatedness in every part of the teacher's curriculum, and discipline. . . . Through the focusing of this many-sided social experience, through confident invention in the social arts, comes the hope of creating a balanced society, capable of maintaining and renewing itself, capable of enriching and deepening man's common heritage. . . .

 

This reorientation is a fundamental one. It means a shift from the belief in a science of dead things, analyzed, isolated, dissected, reduced to a tissue of simple abstractions, to a belief in a science of living things. In this new science, a qualitative understanding of pattern, form,, configuration, history, is a important as statistical analysis; and in terms of the method that accordingly develops, no situation is fully resolved and no problem is fully explored until it is seized in all its ultimate social relationships to human values and human purposes.

 

?? Lewis Mumford "The Social Responsibility of Teachers." Values for Survival 1946

 

 

From The Nation of July 18, 2005: http://www.thenation.com

 

"Climate and the G-8" by Mark Hertsgaard

 

 

"The July 6-8 summit meeting of the Group of Eight industrial nations comes as humanity is drifting toward unparalleled catastrophe. Climate change, a prime focus of the summit, is on track to kill millions of people in the twenty-first century. The victims will die not in the sudden bang of radioactive explosions but in the gradual whimper of environmental collapse, as soaring temperatures and rising seas submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread hunger, disease and chaos worldwide." . . . .

 

 

Also from The Nation of July 18, 2005:

 

"Avian Flu: A State of Unreadiness" by Mike Davis

 

"Avian influenza is a viral asteroid on a collision course with humanity. Since the horrific autumn of 1918, when a novel influenza killed more than 2 percent of humanity in a few months, scientists have dreaded the reappearance of a wild flu strain totally new to the human immune system.

 

The flu subtype known as H5N1, which claimed its first victims in Hong Kong in 1997, is that nightmare come true. Now endemic in waterfowl and poultry throughout East Asia, it is the most lethal strain of influenza ever seen, killing chickens, people and even tigers with terrifying ease.

 

Although avian flu officially has taken fewer than 100 human lives so far (mainly farmers and their children in daily contact with poultry), most experts believe that H5N1 is on the verge of acquiring the new genes or amino acids that would enable it to travel at pandemic velocity across a densely urbanized world, with the potential, warns the World Health Organization, to cause 20 million deaths.

 

Since early spring, moreover, all the biological weather vanes have been pointing in the direction of imminent pandemic. In Vietnam the virus has suddenly increased its transmissibility, with several likely human-to-human cases. In China, where officials now admit that more than 1,000 migratory birds have died, there are unofficial Internet reports--strongly denied by Beijing--of 120 related human fatalities. In an unprecedented collaboration to sound the tocsin, Nature and Foreign Affairs have recently devoted special issues to the "plausible scenario" of a pandemic that kills millions and wrecks the global economy.

 

Governments have had ample warning, unlike the surprise of HIV/AIDS, that a new plague is coming. Indeed, Washington has had almost nine years to heed the advice of top influenza experts and mobilize the nation's resources to battle H5N1 in Asia and at home. The Bush Administration's failure to do so makes "homeland security" into a sick joke whose punch line may be a repetition of the 1918 catastrophe." . . . .

 

Also from The Nation of July 18, 2005:

 

"Beyond Gay Marriage" by Lisa Duggan & Richard Kim

 

"In the wake of the 2004 election, the right moved swiftly and decisively to capitalize on its "values mandate." As many as fourteen gay marriage amendments could take effect in the next year or so. But bans on gay marriage may be only the tip of "the great iceberg," as Robert Knight of Concerned Women of America put it after the election. Parlaying anti-gay marriage campaign victories into a larger "pro-marriage" agenda, conservatives have targeted domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary recognition through broadly worded state ballot initiatives, launched a grassroots campaign for covenant marriages, imposed new restrictions on sex education, expanded federally funded marriage-promotion initiatives and introduced state legislation to restrict divorce. Such initiatives appeal simultaneously to fiscal conservatives who see promoting marriage as a way to reduce state dependency, anti-gay voters who quail at the notion of same-sex unions, right-wing Christians who seek to enforce biblically determined family law and the mass of voters anxious about the instability of marriage. Conservatives have found a way to finesse their differences through a comprehensive and reactionary program that aims to enshrine the conjugal family as the sole legally recognized household structure.

 

Democrats and progressives, by contrast, remain perplexed and divided, publicly bickering over the role gay marriage played in the party's defeats. Senator Dianne Feinstein chided San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court for moving "too much, too fast, too soon" on the issue and thus energizing Bush's conservative base. In rebuttal, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) pointed out that anti-gay marriage initiatives--successful in all states in which they were introduced--had negligible impact on Bush's share of the vote, particularly in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Oregon. Nonetheless, many gay leaders expressed deep anguish at what they felt was a surprisingly strident outpouring of homophobia at the polls and pledged to renew neglected grassroots efforts. Meanwhile, the gay movement has continued to pursue its primarily litigation-based strategy on gay marriage, winning some significant if preliminary court rulings in New York, California, Washington and Nebraska, as well as scoring a legislative win for civil unions in Connecticut.

 

We believe that by engaging the marriage debate only in terms of "gay rights," both the gay movement and the Democratic Party have put themselves in a compromised and losing position. Faced with an aggressive marriage movement that has skillfully stoked and manipulated anxiety about same-sex marriage, progressive Democrats and gays must come together to reframe the issue as part of a larger campaign for household democracy and security, a campaign that responds to the diverse ways Americans actually structure their intimate lives.

 

The brutal central fact: Ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage passed easily in all eleven states in which they were introduced this past election, as well as in Louisiana and Missouri earlier in the year. In all, seventeen states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage; ten of these extend beyond marriage to eliminate other forms of partnership recognition, including civil unions and domestic partnerships. These initiatives go beyond blocking future progress for "marriage equality." Their attack on domestic partnerships and other civil contracts rolls back decades of success in winning recognition and benefits for couples of all gender combinations who could not or would not marry.

 

Michigan's Proposition 2 is typical of these broad state constitutional amendments. It mandates that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Although Christian-right activists and Republican politicians insisted during the campaign that the amendment's vague language would only "defend marriage" and not eliminate benefits for unmarried couples, the Republican state attorney general soon announced that Prop 2 "prohibits state and local governmental entities from conferring benefits on their employees on the basis of a 'domestic partnership.'" The governor's office canceled plans to extend benefits to employees in same-sex relationships, and several public employers, from the University of Michigan to the city of Kalamazoo, will be forced, by the end of the year, to retract benefits already given to same-sex couples. Conservatives have even been pushing to have Prop 2 interpreted to bar private businesses that contract with the state from providing benefits to unmarried couples.

 

Although propositions like Michigan's are aimed at same-sex couples, they will impact all unmarried couples. Many of them could eliminate domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary statuses at state, and possibly private, institutions; revoke out-of-state and second-parent adoptions for gays and straights alike; invalidate next-of-kin arrangements, including those involving life-and-death medical decisions; and imperil joint home-ownership arrangements between unmarried people.

 

Is this exceedingly narrow vision of kinship and household arrangements what voters endorsed this November? Not if we take their actual living patterns as an indication of their preferences. Marriage is on the decline: Marital reproductive households are no longer in the majority, and most Americans spend half their adult lives outside marriage. The average age at which people marry has steadily risen as young people live together longer; the number of cohabitating couples rose 72 percent between 1990 and 2000. More people live alone, and many live in multigenerational, nonmarital households; 41 percent of these unmarried households include children. Increasing numbers of elderly, particularly women, live in companionate nonconjugal unions (think Golden Girls). Household diversity is a fact of American life rooted not just in the "cultural" revolutions of feminism and gay liberation but in long-term changes in aging, housing, childcare and labor." . . . .

[richard jepsen]

William

 

Wow!! Good question! How can photography address world issues? Discussions about these valid concerns deserve a separate thread.

 

Forum posts about photographic tools have been helpful to me. I used info from this site to focus on which M lenses I thought suited my needs.

 

Robert Monaghan Medium Format Library site has links to a host of photo topics. This wonderful resource debunks many misperceptions about equipment. At the end of the day the photographer behind the penciles and paper is what makes the difference.

[arraga]

I am completely lost with the calculation of an ersatz 'rangefinder baseline' in SLRs, appling f/stops and lens diameter. Care to explain, or give some references?

 

Cheers, Santiago

[jeremy_tok]

Wow, long post. I'm not entirely sure what architects use to record their designs, but I'm pretty sure they no longer use rulers and pencils.

 

I can speak from the perspective of an engineering designer who has specialized into mechanism design. We have long since stopped using rulers and drawing boards. CAD is the norm -- it kicked off with AutoCAD but quickly 3D modelling software became the standard. Personally I'm well-versed with Pro/Engineer Wildfire, a software so titanic it makes Photoshop look like a DOS application.

 

It's important you get an idea of what CAD must do today to follow my thoughts. Besides allowing the designer to model parts, by defining dimensions, "features" (in the design sense), surfaces, material, etc. it must allow the designer to record the design history, a little like layers in PS. But unlike PS, CAD today must allow collaborative work in Real Time. For example at Airbus on the A380 design team, designers from Toulouse, Hamburg (where I did my internship), Bremen, Madrid, Phoenix, Montreal and lots of other locations work in parallel. The aircraft is built minute-by-minute and is updated instantaneously. There are thousands of terminals with CATIA installed on several continents contributing to the design of the aircraft.

 

We pay tremendous attention to the CAD we use. We pay more attention to it than most companies do with their ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system. We attend fairs, read trade magazines, visit training courses offered by the software houses. We spend a lot of time in university learning how CAD systems are organized.

 

CAD is expensive. CATIA costs $16K per year per terminal. Many companies have a CAD manager. At Airbus, not only is there a CAD manager, they have a multi-hundred employee department to administer the running of CATIA.

 

So yes, we designers spend a lot of time thinking, talking about, mulling over, and spending on our tools.

[johns1]

I've never had a Pentax 50mm lens, but the good results I have always received from using the Pentax 100mm macro and their 40mm pancake lens on my Super ME has made my digital SLR decision a no-brainer: I plan to buy the *1stDS later this summer after I amortize last's week's purchase of a 75mm Summicron to feed my "M" habit. I also like the fact that I may be able to use my old Pentax lenses on the DS. (The new Pentac will be our family's first purchase of any kind of digital camera.)

[mozart 2]

Santiago:

 

Sorry, but due to other commitments today - working in the garden, etc, supper and paying bills this evening, I can only provide you with one source at this time.

 

The first source of information regarding the measuring bases (to determine the focusing accuracy) of rangefinder and SLR was Walter Heun who conducted both the Leica Photographic Seminars I attended many decades ago - one in Peoria, IL and the other at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. I have no doubts that other resources could be found, if needed.

 

Although I thought that I had briefly covered that point in a previous discussion (above), I see that I will need to clarify things a bit more. Unfortunately, I will have to do that some other time - perhaps next weekend when I am home. I work - during the week - in one part of the state of Michigan and live - on the weekends - in another area. Long story.

 

In the meantime, I'll give you some additional information, which might be useful. In a rangefinder camera, the image size (viewfinder) and the focusing base (the distance between the two "rangefinder mirrors" or focusing areas remain constant regardless of the lens used. With the Leica rangefinder, rangefinder lenses range from 21mm to 135mm. Perhaps, more on that later.

 

Unfortunately, the measuring base changes with the lenses used in an SLR. For example, if you put on a 35mm F/2.0 lens, the measuring base is 17.5mm or in this case 1/2 (F/2.0) of the widest aperture (35mm). With a 90mm F/2.0 lens on an SLR the measuring base is increased to 45mm - 90/2 = 45mm. So focusing accuracy is increased with the use medium and longer telephoto lenses and decreases with the use of lenses below that focal length. Another example, a 35mm F/2.8 lens, the measuring base would further diminish, i.e. 35mm divided by 2.8 (or approximately 3mm), which would give you a measuring base of 10.5mm

 

To put in another way, the use of a 90mm F/2.0 lens on a SLR increases image size and maintains a certain amount of brightnes in the viewfinder. Since the image is magnified and still relatively bright, our eyes are able to better distinguish fine detail, i.e. to determine whether our image is in focus or not.

 

When a wide angle lens, such as a 35mm F/2.0 lens is placed on a SLR camera, the image detail size is reduced and, obviously, the image looks further away. Since our eyes don't always see so well and with image detail being smaller, focusing accuracy is made more difficult, especially under low light.

 

That's why it is important to - at least to think about it - purchase (good) high speed lenses when adding wide angle lenses to your photographic pallet.

 

Many people falsely assume that wide angle lenses have greater depth of field and so they believe that they don't have to worry too much about rapid and accurate focus with wide angle lenses. However, since depth of field is based upon two factors, namely, the aperture used and the ratio of reproduction, all lenses will exhibit the same depth of field using the same ratio of reproduction and the same aperture. A look at depth of field tables, such as those found in (older, but sill good) books such as The Honeywell Pentax Way or The Leica Way will provide confirmation.

 

Depth of field tables are based upon the fact that our eyes don't see that well. We can, for example, "see" a circle as a dot, if that dot has a diameter of less than 1/100 of an inch on a 7 X 10 print held approximately 10 inches away. In order for that dot to have a circle of less than 1/100 of an inch on a 7 X 10 print held 10 inches away, that dot or "circle of confusion" has to be at least 1/700 to 1/800 of an inch in diameter on the negative/slide. Why? because the 1/700 or 1/800 "circle of confusion" will be enlarged to 1/100 of an inch on a 7 X 10 or on a 8 X 10 print.

 

It should occur to you - and to anyone else reading this post - that if you're enlarging a print up to 11 X 14 or greater, you should consider using higher depth of field standards, i.e. 1/1100 or 1/1600 of an inch diameter "circle of confusion" (done by stopping down further) on the negative/slide or increasing the viewing distance to some degree.

 

Obviously, if your focusing is not all that accurate, you could easil begin to enlarge an already large circle of confusion. In other words, if the image isn't in correct focus on the film, it will become progressively unsharp the greater you enlarge the negative or slide.

 

You can easily "test" this phenomenon by placing a wide angle lens on your SLR, turn off the lights or at least dim them and then attempt to accurately focusing on something that is 10 to 15 feet. If you attempt to do it somewhat quickly, you'll find out that your lens will probably (and frequently) rest at or near the infinity mark or that you will spend a great amount of time trying to determine whether you're in focus or not.

 

When you're done, check the depth of field scale on your lens to then determine what F/stop you will need to have the negative somewhat in focus at the film plane.

 

From my past experiences in working with customers at the Camera Shop I worked at decades ago, I suspect that the F/stop will be around F/8 or F/11. Using either F/stop under available light conditions will give you very slow shutter speeds, which will, obviously, contribute to the making of unsharp photographs due to the possibility of camera shake or subject movement or both. Although the addition of added light - flash - will greatly help, the aesthetics of your picture will also change as well.

 

Obviously, split image viewfinders in SLR are useful, but even they don't always provide a solution when rapid and accurate focus is needed under available conditions. Besides, some of the split image viewfinders "black out" if not view precisely dead on or when using lenses with slower F/stops.

 

Obviously, everything (in photography) is inter-related and so we should become more aware of the whole and not overly concentrate on minor details in isolation from one another.

 

BTW - the "rangefinder" focusing device was the result of the need in World War I to determine the distance or "range" between the gun, i.e. howitzer and the target. Obviously, this type of "range finder" was rather huge (comparatively) - a greater distance between the focusing mirrors was used to determine the distance from the gun to the target. One cannot place such a lengthy "rangefinder" on a 35mm camera - besides it would probably weigh a ton or nearly so.

 

That is one of the reasons, why Leitz/Leica rarely goes beyond 135mm in their array of their rangefinder telephoto lenses and why they created the Visoflex (decades ago) to accommodate longer lenses up to 560mm and why they made their lens designs different so that one could unscrew the lens head on the 135mm Hektor, for example, and put in on a focusing device, such as the Bellows II which attached to the Visoflex III, in order to enable this lens combination to focus from infinity to nearly 1:1. They did all of this back in the late 1920's or early 1930's. The Visoflex III and the Bellows II were the last models made.

 

Hope this is useful. If not, please post another response and I'll try to add some additional information.

 

Best regards in your photographic endeavors!

 

Bill

[jeremy_tok]

A graphic generated from CATIA of the A380

[jeremy_tok]

...only a multi-million dollar French CAD package. We have gone a long way since the days of the drawing board.

[mozart 2]

Jeremy:

 

Thanks for your lastest contribution, but "updating" me and/or everyone doesn't really address the point that I was trying to make, i.e. the architect, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't design "Fallingwater" "better" because of certain papers, pencils, or drafting boards - since they are merely "tools" in his artistic service. The same goes for your CAD system; it is merely a "tool" in your artistic/engineering endeavors.

 

Richard:

 

Thanks for reading my lengthy post and for taking up the challenge. it would be very nice to have a discussion post and I'd be happy to make my own contributions from time to time.

 

I shall look into your suggested recourse as time permits. FYI - I work in one area of the State of Michigan during the week and live in another area (home) on the weekends. Household duties and other considerations often, but not always take up a great deal of my spare time.

 

Best wishes!

 

Bill

[jeremy_tok]

A few years ago, I got tired of people saying "And did you really think van Gough obsessed about his brushes? Pah!" so I did a little research to see if he did. Here are some passages of his I found, and I requote from an earlier post of mine:

 

(19 August 1882) ... The next time you send money, I shall buy some good marten brushes, which are the real *drawing* brushes, as I have discovered, for *drawing* a hand or a profile in colour. Also, I see they are absolutely necessary for very delicate branches, etc. No matter how fine, the Lyon brushes make too broad stripes or strokes. My painting paper is also almost used up - toward the first of September I shall have to buy a few more supplies, but I shall not need more than the usual allowance.

 

(c. 2 March 1883) ...Do you remember that last summer you brought me pieces of mountain crayon? I tried to work with it at the time, but it didn't work well. So a few pieces were left, which I picked up the other day; enclosed you'll find a scratch done with it; you see it is a peculiar, warm black. You would greatly oblige me by bringing some more of it this summer. It has a great advantage - the big pieces are much easier to handle while sketching than a thin stick of conté, which is hard to hold and which breaks all the time. So for sketching outdoors, it is delightful.

 

[Jeremy]....and now for the killer paragraph...

 

(c. 4 March 1883) ...Will you do me a very great favour - send me a few pieces of that crayon by mail? There is a soul and life in that crayon - I think conté pencil is dead. Two violins may look the same on the outside, but in playing them, one sometimes finds a beautiful tone in one, and not in the other. Now that crayon has a great deal of tone or depth. I could almost say, That crayon knows what I want, it listens with intelligence and obeys; the conté pencil is indifferent and unwilling. The crayon has a real gypsy soul; if it isn't asking too much of you, send me some of it.

 

[Jeremy] All extracts are from his letters to his brother Theo who financed his painting obsession.

[mozart 2]

Jeremy:

 

Are you really "dense" or just way "overexposed". ;>)

 

All of your van Gogh quotes have just proven my point with regard to the "tools" of photography or, in this case the "tools" of an artist.

 

Part of your last quote, which I've copied and pasted only proves my point once again: "That crayon knows what I want, it listens with intelligence and obeys; the cont� pencil is indifferent and unwilling."

 

Substitute the workings of a Leica rangefinder working under available light conditions with the lens wide or near wide open and also substitute the workings of a SLR camera under the same conditions using the lens at wide or near wide open and you will finally get my point. Having actually done theatre (in the round) during many final rehearals using up 12-13 rolls of 36 exposure film for each play, I can assure you that a Leica rangefinder is the preferred "tool" for the job and that all of my negatives were accurately focused and consistently well exposed. And I haven't even stated or implied that it cannot be done with a SLR; I have only indicated that it is not the preferred "tool" IMHO and experience!

 

Obviously, van Gogh knew - like the rest of us (should) - what tool(s) he needed to bring his artistic vision into existence.

 

Given that point, shall we endlessly discuss "brushes" and "crayons" hoping that they will, somehow, automatically or magically, raise our artistic level considerably regardless of whether we have a creative vision or ability or not? All that this type of discussion leads is nowhere; it is a "Salierian" type of thinking and acting:, i.e. merely and thoughtlessly following the establish rules of composition.

 

Perhaps, Einstein put it more wisely:

 

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."

 

Might it just be possible that intelligent, creative, thoughtful, etc., discussions in other more important realms might be far more fruitful. Might a combination of the two realms: the technical and the aesthetic lead to the creation of new or better rules of composition, i.e. Mozart. Might even a discussion as to how we photographers are going to meet, deal with, give insight to, react to, etc. some of the problems confronting this world, i.e. the Avian Flu - of ours prove to be far more fruitful and intelligent?

 

Or shall we only respond to this possibility by endlessly and thoughtlessly discussing which form or variety of garlic bulbs or cloves, etc. one should wear around our necks and/or where to put garlic bulbs or cloves in various places around our homes in order to ward off the "evils" of the possible forthcoming Avian Flu epidemic.

 

Or shall we more intelligently deal with the possibility of the forthcoming "plague" by addressing some of the fundamental issues - like doing some "homework" on the situation and discussing what is the real status of our public health system, etc.

 

By the way, I had the privilege of actually viewing van Gogh's original "Starry Night" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City many years ago. There is a substantial difference between the original and all of the "copies" that I've enjoyed.

 

Again, no offense and my best wishes in your endeavors.

 

Bill

[aizan_sasayama]

It only seems like there's endless discussion of pencils and rulers because that's the main

point of these forums. Anyhow, who can deny that it isn't magical to find the right tools,

materials, and techniques?

 

The sort of discussion you're looking for should be in the Philosophy of Photography

forum on this website. But since we're here, what's the present photographic crisis?

[travis1]

i luv pentax.

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3530725-md.jpg">

[travis1]

pentax ist*DS with pentax 50/2 at f2 above..

[john_fleetwood]

The M3 of SLRs.<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

Those old Pentaxes had some great lenses. The newspaper photogs liked Nikons for three reasons. The controls were layed out similarly to the Nikon RFDR cameras, the 180/2.8 lens, and they took motor drives. If your preferred RFDR was a Leica then whether you used a Nikon or a Pentax was neither here nor there. They BOTH focussed the wrong way.

[douglas k.]

"What am I to read into your curt answer? Pentax lenses are excellent? Leica lenses are over-rated?"

 

The answer to each question is "yes."