\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.pindelski.org\/Blog2\/Fish_and_chips.JPG\")
\nWinston contemplates the annual cod harvest.<\/p>\n
<\/i>
\n<\/center><\/p>\n
You see, the depth of field of those gargantuan optics is less than the distance from my son’s eyes to the tip of his nose, at f\/0.95. And if you do not use these lenses fully open, why use them at all? Further, everything but the eyes would be blurred, and I really wanted that Union Jack to be clearly discernible. Third, both are manual focus and while the Nikon’s finder comes with a focus confirmation light, the Leica’s rangefinder can barely do its job at f\/1.4. F\/0.95? Be prepared to work that focus collar and take multiple snaps. Finally, dynamic range would be shot, the highlights hopelessly burned out.<\/p>\n
Then again, the iPhone used to take this snap has 8.5 billion transistors in its CPU to do all the magic<\/a>, which includes taking 9 images in Night Mode, picking the best bits and doing all sorts of things I will never understand to deliver broad dynamic range. The Leica and Nikon? 8.5 billion fewer transistors.<\/p>\n The recorded exposure? 1\/4 second at f\/1.8, ISO 800. The result? Stunningly sharp, with a quick pass through Focos<\/a> to add a touch of background blur. The blur lens of choice? Why, none other than the 50mm f\/2.8 Elmar which came with my Leica M3 in 1971.<\/p>\n The result? A picture of a young man on top of his game, with straight As at mid-semester in his Senior year at prep scool, and looking forward to four years at college.<\/p>\n My beer? Served 10F too cold. What else would you expect of a former colony?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Computational photography at its best. Nikon just reintroduced its Noct Nikkor which boasts an aperture of f\/0.95 and is about the size of a Mack truck. At $8,000 the price is comparably huge. Leica has long had its f\/0.95 Noctilux at a scant $11,000+. Neither could have done a good job, fully open, of this … Continue reading Fish and Chips<\/span>