Newbie and Lens Selection

[chris_chen]

Kai,

 

<p>

 

Full Linn down to the cables; all bought pre-1987; sounded good then,

sounds good now; no "upgrades". Love those Saras.

 

<p>

 

Being a gear head (engineer) with a fanatical attention to detail

since I was young, I like precision mechanical things. You think a

Leica M4 cocks smootly, try a Colt Python - silk.

[jeff_stuart]

Mark,

 

<p>

 

All lenses exhibit a decreasing DOF at wider apertures. For portraits

and some stills, especially when the subject is close, the thin DOF

at f1.4 can be used to emphasize the subject.

 

<p>

 

Comparing shots taken by the Summilux at f2.0 vs. f1.4 the difference

in focus is subtle but discernible. I wouldn�t give it up, I like the

effect. The only fault I see in the �lux is it gets a little soft

when opened that last stop. That used to bother me. It doesn�t bother

me so much now.

 

<p>

 

I have the lenses you are considering along with the 35 Summicron

ASPH. The newer (90 & 35) designs are amazingly sharp. But in the end

I have more good shots taken with the 50 than either of the others. I

like the perspective, the close (for Leica anyway) focus, and the

thin DOF when I want it. And the extra speed doesn�t hurt.

 

<p>

 

BTW I also have the .85 body � it works great with these lenses.

 

<p>

 

Good luck, whatever you choose I think you�ll do well,

[chris_chen]

Lens speed?

 

<p>

 

Film Speed?

 

<p>

 

Try 1200 FPS slug speed from the Python 8^0.

 

<p>

 

Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and relax. Both are

compelling, and each shoots to paper material.

[jacques_balthazar]

"Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and relax. Both are

compelling, and each shoots to paper material," writes Chris.

 

<p>

 

I would rephrase by "Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and

relax. Both are compelling, and each shoots through people".

 

<p>

 

Only, photography does so spiritually, while guns are designed to

cause irreversible physical harm. I would never equate both

activities, and actively support outlawing the second.

[ray_moth]

If we consider shooting as a hobby, Jaques, then it's unfair to talk

about the harm that guns can do. I don't see why you want to spoil

others' sport. In responsible hands, a gun is as harmless as a motor

car, a chainsaw, an electric drill or any other powerful machine. In

irresponsible hands, however ...

 

<p>

 

The point is, you'll do better with both a camera and a gun if you

can learn to hold them steady. The difference is, with a gun you'll

know pretty soon if you missed whereas, with a camera, you only find

out when it's too late!

[jacques_balthazar]

I know this is off topic, so my apologies.

 

<p>

 

I am certainly not as acquainted with the firearms market as I am

with the photography one, but, correct me if I'm wrong, the vast

majority of firearms are *DESIGNED* to cause grave physical harm to

living beings. Only a small minority of firearms are *DESIGNED* for

harmless sports purposes.

 

<p>

 

While I have no problem with a hobby that consists of using a firearm

to shoot through a cardboard target or collecting firearms for their

fascinating historical or mechanical intricacies, and while I have no

real grievance against people who use firearms to hunt common animals

for game (though I fail to share their pleasure), I do have a major

problem with the free existence of a firearms industry, and, even

more, with the ease of circulation of firearms.

 

<p>

 

Guns, handguns in particular, are not *DESIGNED* for fun, they are

designed to kill you, me and my kids. Nobody hunts deer with a Python

handgun.

 

<p>

 

This industry strives on death, murder, power abuses and violence in

general.

 

<p>

 

Chainsaws, cars, drills or a Leicaflex are not *DESIGNED* to inflict

violence, though they are obviously useable as weapons. For me, that

is a crucial ethical difference.