Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: michael on September 10, 2009, 09:00:53 am
-
On Thursday morning I posted my Leica M9 review. I'd like to suggest that general discussion about the review and the M9 be made here rather than in multiple threads.
Of course if you have a specific new topic or question, go ahead and start one.
Michael
-
On Thursday morning I posted my Leica M9 review. I'd like to suggest that general discussion about the review and the M9 be made here rather than in multiple threads.
Of course if you have a specific new topic or question, go ahead and start one.
Michael
Hi Michael, I know it's hard to make any statement on image quality on the net without being ripped to pieces but can you tell us any more about the characteristics of the files at all, color accuracy, vibrancy, bite of the file, anything? Do they remind you more of a Phase file or a canon file?
-
Good question, but I don't want to go there yet, as a couple of hundred frames just isn't enough to base a firm opinion on.
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
-
Good question, but I don't want to go there yet, as a couple of hundred frames just isn't enough to base a firm opinion on.
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
Cool, thanks Michael.
-
It seems Leica has indeed delivered the product it should have delivered with the M8.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
-
It seems Leica has indeed delivered the product it should have delivered with the M8.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
It looks like I will need a new set of excuses for not buying a Leica with the introduction of the M9, what it boils down to is I can't spare the money right now, not until the World starts spinning again anyway.
I hope Leica sells bucket loads. The one thing that would scare me is the potential moire, I still have nightmares about that and my old SLR/n. Nitpicking a bit more, I like having two card slots so i can mirror each image for safety. Weather seal omission I think is a big mistake. And having to dismantle the camera to fit a new battery or card is just daft.
I would still have one given the chance.
Kevin.
-
From the review it is very encouraging that it appears leica are actually listening to people that use their products; something Canon and Nikon don't seem to want to do (direct to print button/mirror lockup comes to mind). They rushed a very critical product out of the door that simply wasn't ready for market which was a big mistake given the profile, price tag and the company's size but although their reputation has (rightly) taken a beating they say it still sold well. I don't know what the push was, perhaps to start to recoup the big r&d costs that must have been sunk into it due to cash flow issues.
It does sound like that this is the camera the M8 should have been and I hope for their sake they tested it properly this time! Great to see it is full frame, great to see 14 bit, great to see an iso button. Disappointing to see the silly bottom plate arrangement is still there, I'd also like to hear something about the turn on time was was a real deal breaker with the M8 - how are you meant to capture 'the decisive moment' (this is plastered all over their marketing) when it takes many seconds for the camera to turn on or you need to remove the bottom of the camera periodically?
For the kind of shooting this camera will be used for I'd take high iso performance over super sharpness which is probably never seen since the camera is used handheld but with lenses as good as theirs I can see why they did it. Fast lenses are NOT a substitute for high iso performance, just because I can get 2 eyelashes in focus doesn't mean all my low light problems are solved
The price is silly as expected. I still get the feel from their marketing they are cashing in on the brand and a slightly tarnished one at that. I guess the old leicas were a professional tool for PJs, press and some wedding photogs while the M series now probably fills the role of expensive plaything. I'd love to see Epson get back in the game and deliver something great at a reasonable price.
It is one heck of a good looking camera though, it must be said.
-
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
What is not mentioned if their DSP Moire removal is chroma moire or luma moire. Chroma moire is mostly removable by analysis of a higher resolution green image. However, luma, ie green moire is not removable, and that's what the OLPF is designed to reduce / eliminate. It's nice to think that a DSP could deal with luma moire, but according to basic sampling theory, it can't.
Graeme
-
Graeme,
How this work's out in practice remains to be seen. I haven't seen any moire yet, but that doesn't mean it's not lurking somewhere.
I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed.
M
-
On some digital cinema cameras, they have a removable OLPF which suits that need. The penalty for an OLPF is very small though (other than in manufacturer cost), but the pain of removing moire it when it occurs can be high indeed, and it's not always removable (and I'm talking luma here moire not chroma moire). I really wish OLPFs were not necessary.... With any sampled system it's always a balance of softness, ringing and aliasing. OLPFs don't ring, so you're balancing softness and aliasing. Softness is always a subtractive fault. Aliasing is an additive fault, so I always prefer the balance to be on the side of the softness as that looks more natural. There's also no need to have the pitch on the OLPF so strong as to make an overly soft image and never allow any aliasing at all. You can sensibly set the pitch so that under practical conditions you don't ever get a problem, but you still may see some on a brutally sharp test chart.
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
-
I of course defer to you on matters technical, but I've always found that when there's a bit of moire the tool in Capture One does a decent job, and in a pinch a slight blurring brush in LR or PS does a nice job.
I just don't like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
M
Ps: I guess we now know the approach that Scarlet / Epic are going to take.
-
I am no engineer, but I think the lack of an AA filter on an 18mp FF sensor should produce richer files than even the D3X (factoring in pixel pitch, etc).
Remains to be seen, naturally.
-
I get very little Moire from my 18mp P21 and if I do then I use the tools in Capture One, it's never been a problem and I shoot all fashion. Moire is always a combo of aperture, shutter speed, lighting, how steady you hold your camera, sharpness of lens and subject distance so it's only natural that some people rarely see moire where as others see it all the time. Because I rarely see moire I naturally don't want my camera smudging my files for me. I'm really excited by this M9. I hate having such a big heavy cumbersome camera as my Mamiya and 18mp is perfect for my editorial work and if an advertising client wants something bigger then I'll do what I usually do and thats rent a P30.
-
On some digital cinema cameras, they have a removable OLPF which suits that need. The penalty for an OLPF is very small though (other than in manufacturer cost), but the pain of removing moire it when it occurs can be high indeed, and it's not always removable (and I'm talking luma here moire not chroma moire). I really wish OLPFs were not necessary.... With any sampled system it's always a balance of softness, ringing and aliasing. OLPFs don't ring, so you're balancing softness and aliasing. Softness is always a subtractive fault. Aliasing is an additive fault, so I always prefer the balance to be on the side of the softness as that looks more natural. There's also no need to have the pitch on the OLPF so strong as to make an overly soft image and never allow any aliasing at all. You can sensibly set the pitch so that under practical conditions you don't ever get a problem, but you still may see some on a brutally sharp test chart.
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
good points Graeme, thanks
I love this general assumption that Canon and Nikon and Sony have stuck AA filters on their top range Full Frame sensors for no particular reason whatsoever!
- they are there because of moire, plain and simple.
Yes, they all balance the filter strength differently according to their decisions and trade offs, much as Graeme implies, what Nikon decides is a fair balance of softeness:moire, Canon may err differently, and Sony yet another, but they all seem to feel one is required.
I doubt Leica has come up with a magic formula that eluded everyone in Japan, but lets see. we can all hope for miracles.
-
They probably can't put an OLPF in because it would be very close to the sensor and they might have real issues with defects in the OLPF being visible - just a guess.
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
-
They probably can't put an OLPF in because it would be very close to the sensor and they might have real issues with defects in the OLPF being visible - just a guess.
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
-
Hi,
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
-
i got the m8 when i compared its files to the 5d files.....and got a 5dII when i compared them to the m8 files....
i would love to "switch" over again....i have collected several raw dngs from the m9 so far from the web...but the files don't seem to have that obvious advantage over the canon files at lower iso....the canon is obviously in a different league in terms of noise and price (and video, af,.....)
the DR of the m8 was a little less then the 5DII and fell off pretty quickly (unlike the 5DII).....
i would really like to know if the m9 shows more DR at lower iso and how it falls off at higher iso....
there is nothing like actually seeing the moment you take the shot.....RF rules....also with manual focus....
-
OLPF is basically two layers of crystals. The first splits the light in two vertically, the second horizontall, making each ray of light into 4 slightly spread out rays of light. The thickness of the OLPF governs the spread of the 4 beams. That thickness is usually related to the spacing of the photostites (and should also take into account micro-lenses and fill factor).
There seems to be very little measured effect, if any, from moving the OLPF closer to the sensor or further away - because the current RED Ones have the OLPF much further away from the sensor, so as to ensure any dust or dirt that gets on the OLPF is usually completely out of focus and practically invisible. If the OLPF was much closer to the sensor, it would be much easier to see any dust or dirt on it. Similarly, if the OLPF or coatings on it have any defects, they are much more visible if the OLPF is close to the sensor. So no, it doesn't need to be close to the sensor - just between the back of the lens and the sensor is fine.
Graeme
Hi,
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
-
Thanks Erik and Graeme!
-
The reason why buying a Leica is expensive is that you need one or more lenses, and there is no point using anything but the most expensive there is. You may need more than one body.I have known both PJ and event photographers to use three Leicas, each with a different focal length lens. More importantly you need an SLR system as well. It's a bit like a carpenter needing a hammer and a saw. They are that different. The Leica is a highly specialized crafted precision instrument. It is not an all in one workshop or whole body gym. Of course another way of looking at price is to say the cost of an M9 camera body is about the same as the mass produced, top of the line Canon or Nikon. It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it?
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
-
Lenses themselves to add a lot to the image in many way. How a lens deals with contrast is certainly part of that. I'm told it's the magic in the lens coatings that does a lot of that, but I'm not a lens guy so don't take my word for that. There is indeed vastly more to a lens than resolution / MTF - that's only part of the story.
Graeme
-
Hi,
Coating is important as it reduces the amount of light bouncing about in the lens. The dominant factor used to be aberrations, however. Aberrations are deviations from ideal imaging. Ideally a point would be imaged as a point, surrounded by a series of diffraction rings. This is never achieved. There are different aberrations that cause the point to be rendered as a disc. A very usual one is chromatic aberration which means that different colors don't converge at the same plane or same point. This depends on optical glass having different index of refraction for different colors (wavelengths) but there are many others.
Aberrations can be kept at minimum by choosing combinations of different glasses and using different surfaces. Leica is quite aggressive in their choice of materials, surfaces and number of lenses. Also some construction need very close tolerances. All this makes the lenses expensive.
If you are really interested in Leica lens quality you may check Erwin Puts pages: http://www.imx.nl/photo/ (http://www.imx.nl/photo/)
Best regards
Erik
Lenses themselves to add a lot to the image in many way. How a lens deals with contrast is certainly part of that. I'm told it's the magic in the lens coatings that does a lot of that, but I'm not a lens guy so don't take my word for that. There is indeed vastly more to a lens than resolution / MTF - that's only part of the story.
Graeme
-
Hi,
I'd just point out a few issues.
1) Colours and tonality is probably dominated by raw conversion and the Bayer filter array and it's transmission characteristics.
2) One of the major strength of Leica lenses i that they perform near optimally at full aperture.
3) To utilize the sensor and lenses fully you need exact focus (and may need focus bracketing to achieve it) and have the camera on a stable tripod.
The rangefinder on the Leica is AFAIK good enough for the sensor resolution (around 70 LP/mm) but if you want your pictures sharp you need to do very careful focusing and avoid vibrations, and better forget about zone focusing.
Best regards
Erik
The reason why buying a Leica is expensive is that you need one or more lenses, and there is no point using anything but the most expensive there is. You may need more than one body.I have known both PJ and event photographers to use three Leicas, each with a different focal length lens. More importantly you need an SLR system as well. It's a bit like a carpenter needing a hammer and a saw. They are that different. The Leica is a highly specialized crafted precision instrument. It is not an all in one workshop or whole body gym. Of course another way of looking at price is to say the cost of an M9 camera body is about the same as the mass produced, top of the line Canon or Nikon. It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it?
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
-
The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
-
The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about moire at all?
It always depends on the conditions. I do sometimes shoot on the street with my P65 and the results are as sharp as with any tripod ... So it is not question between tripod and hand held. It is about weather and light conditions.
-
Hi John,
Your question is a good one. I've been looking for an answer to that question myself.
My thought is that the cropped sensor is really optimizing the qualities of your wide angle glass as it is eliminating the soft (er) edges that all lenses have. There are already lots of posts stating that the Tri Elmar is looking soft at the edges with the M9, as well as other lenses. One of the advantages of the M8 sensor is that you won't see this as much.
Over on the getdpi forum: fultonpics asked David Farkas of Dale Photo "are you saying that up to 20 X 30 printed image (with proper light) they will not look significantly different if from an M8 and M9?" http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10124 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10124)
David responded with: "The overall look and feel of the prints do look the same, but there is a bit more detail and sharpness in the M9 print. Carlos might want to chime in as well... he was at our event yesterday. I had the sample 20x30 M9 prints on display.
David"
I wouldn't worry about moiré at all. I shoot with the DMR and the longest modular APO glass and nothing produces moiré like hummingbird feathers. I process my files in Aperture (I'm in the process of switching to FlexColor and Phocus as the detail rendition is far superior with the latter) and moiré cleans up extremely well in Aperture. I've heard the same for Phocus after the 3f file is brought in from Flex Color. It's a non issue for me.
I think Michael said it best with his comment above: "I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed."
I couldn't agree moire !
Given the premium you'll have to pay for the M9 and the beating you'll take when you sell your M8, only you can decide whether the cost can be justified. Think of the glass you could buy with the cost of moving to the M9!
__________The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
-
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
I totally agree with this, while I'd always want the best lenses/sensor for a camera, used handheld I'd happily take one at a lower price that had say a D3 sensor. The super quality and how/where rangefinders have been traditionally used seem to be at odds with each other; the pixel peepers will love it though.
If I had an M9 I don't think I would ever shell out for leica lenses for the same reason, I guess perhaps I don't get 'it'. Still, it doesn't stop me wanting one though
-
You can get screw on filters that stop moire, http://www.caprockdev.com/antimoire.htm (http://www.caprockdev.com/antimoire.htm)
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
-
Moire would be a real concern for me, I shoot aerials often over Cities, a clear day and views across a city at infinity will produce the right frequency for moire somewhere. I proved that with the Kodak SLR/n.
I have never owned a M of any kind but I do have a desire to own one, not because I can make a list of things it does better or worse than another camera, but because of the sum of what it is. I can appreciate the things Leica gets right, maybe because after too many decades of using film and digital my priorities are the basics and not the add ons. I'm sure you could get a degree in understanding the pro's and con's of Canons AF system, when to use this setting or that setting, God knows I've spent a year working on the permutations and hours standing out in the street at low light figuring when it will or will not deliver a focused image and to be honest I don't know much more now than I did when I started.
I am at least now pleased with Canons range of wide angle lenses and after weeks of searching I now own a 24mm mkII.
If I was a Leica owner the choice is much wider of decent optics.
I like the size, I like the control, I like the simplicity, I like the quality, I like the lens choice, I like there not being a mirror, I like the history of the Leica. I don't like the price, neither do I think it is over priced. Wether point for point a Nikon or Canon can beat the M9 on file quality is neither here nor there, they are completely different tools.
kevin.
-
Hi,
On the other hand: The Leica is perfectly capable of exact focusing, has fast and small lenses. Using moderately high ISO and careful work may be possible hand held.
So you have a small kit that you can easily carry about. It's probably very good at street photography.
But there is a but, could be the case that the Panasonic G1 does the same job at one tenth of the price? That's a real question, some of those Micro 4/3 lenses are very good and the Panasonic is quite small.
Best regards
Erik
I totally agree with this, while I'd always want the best lenses/sensor for a camera, used handheld I'd happily take one at a lower price that had say a D3 sensor. The super quality and how/where rangefinders have been traditionally used seem to be at odds with each other; the pixel peepers will love it though.
If I had an M9 I don't think I would ever shell out for leica lenses for the same reason, I guess perhaps I don't get 'it'. Still, it doesn't stop me wanting one though
-
But there is a but, could be the case that the Panasonic G1 does the same job at one tenth of the price? That's a real question, some of those Micro 4/3 lenses are very good and the Panasonic is quite small.
Best regards
Erik
You could use the same argument against any of the top cameras, not just the Leica.
Kevin.
-
My opinion...
The image quality of the M9 with Leica lenses will be more than good enough for most prints, even quite large ones. It was truly excellent with the M8 and there's nothing (yet) to suggest that the M9 image quality will be anything less.
The point (for me) about the M-series cameras is that it doesn't have many features, it's just a camera and me. No computing power to get in the way and take control of the picture taking. It becomes so much easier to connect with the subject using a rangefinder. Then there is the look of images taken using Leica glass. They have some magic that others don't have and which is almost impossible to measure or even describe.
Having used an M8 (and sold it, but kept the glass) and using Canon 5D and 1Ds3 since, I still miss the experience of using the Leica. There are serious limitations, telephoto and macro in particular, and the cost is high, yet the M9 is very tempting. Sadly my own piggy bank needs some replenishment first!
-
Hi,
I'd probably not treat my Sony Alpha 900 with 5/6 lenses for a Panasonic GS1. That equipment weighs about 11 kg and may be cumbersome to carry on a lot of European flights. For that reason it would be interesting to have a lightweight but competent equipment. The GS1 seems to be competent and with good lenses. Also a big camera with a big lens may be less than optimal for street shooting.
In a way I may see the GS1 as a contemporary alternative to the M9 at a much lower price.
You could use the same argument against any of the top cameras, not just the Leica.
Kevin.
-
I picked up an M9 on Friday (they've been available here in London for a few days now) together with a compact travel outfit of a wide Angle Tri-Elmar, a Zeiss ZF 35mm 2.8, and a 75mm Summarit.
After a couple of hundred frames my first reaction is complete delight. If the M9 proves reliable (I abandoned the M8 after it failed on a few occasions, mainly in humid tropical conditions) then here at last is a full-frame digital solution that's light enough to take everywhere and fit easily into an aircraft overhead locker along with all the other travel paraphenalia!
However, this morning using the Zeiss ZM 35mm 2.8 manually coded as a 35mm 2.0, I noticed some strange artifacts. In the far distance the girders and wire of a crane were rendered blue or yellow on the viewing screen at full magnification, instead of black silhouttes against the sky. Similarly the white framework of a window (again at the edge of resolution) were also rendered yellow or blue. As this shot was nearby I repeated the shot at all apertures from f2.8 to f22. Interestingly at f2.8 the effect was very much reduced, and at f22 it was gone completely, but at all other apertures it was present and most strongly at the highest resolving apertures of f5.6 to f11.
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
-
If the M9 proves reliable (I abandoned the M8 after it failed on a few occasions, mainly in humid tropical conditions) then here at last is a full-frame digital solution that's light enough to take everywhere and fit easily into an aircraft overhead locker along with all the other travel paraphenalia!
That's my biggest fear ... 'toughness' ...
Is the M9 supposed to be 'tougher' than the M8? I'm definitely intrigued by the M9 ... but I can't spend that kind of money on something that needs to be babied.
-
That's my biggest fear ... 'toughness' ...
Is the M9 supposed to be 'tougher' than the M8? I'm definitely intrigued by the M9 ... but I can't spend that kind of money on something that needs to be babied.
I've read nothing in the reviews to suggest any materially higher levels of weather proofing in the M9 versus the M8, however talking to Leica UK they emphasised that there's three years of practical manufacturing experience built into the new design, implying that it's evolved into a more robust camera even if it's not guaranteed as weather proof. I agree it's an ambiguous assurance for what's an expensive purchase, but I'm sure that as the months go past there'll be lots of user feedback to fill out the gaps in our knowledge!
-
I've read nothing in the reviews to suggest any materially higher levels of weather proofing in the M9 versus the M8, however talking to Leica UK they emphasised that there's three years of practical manufacturing experience built into the new design, implying that it's evolved into a more robust camera even if it's not guaranteed as weather proof. I agree it's an ambiguous assurance for what's an expensive purchase, but I'm sure that as the months go past there'll be lots of user feedback to fill out the gaps in our knowledge!
So tell us what are the characteristics of the files, my experience is with phase files and canon files, how does it compare would you say, I know it's hard to compare like this.
-
So tell us what are the characteristics of the files, my experience is with phase files and canon files, how does it compare would you say, I know it's hard to compare like this.
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
-
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
Yes, it's that smeared look that really bothers me about dslr's, it's not resloution that makes me use a back, it's the feel and depth and inherent sharpness, I'm hoping that the M9 may get up to the level of my P21 in these respects, we'll see I guess.
-
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
i am not surprised that the 24-105 will give you smeared results....even the 24-70 has no real chance compared to pretty much any canon prime....and compared to leica primes....there is no contest....
i have been looking at m9 raw files and so far have not found the P21 look i was hoping for.....the files look a little sharper (as is to be expected) then canon files, but by far not the obvious difference between the m8 and the 5D.....high iso looks better then expected (for a ccd)....pretty good up to 1000, but no comparison to the canons or nikons....
i have not seen a good DR comparison, leica is saying that the high iso will be imrpoved with firmware and the conversion profiles are still not quite "there" (or so the leica fanatics say....)
i was really hoping for a m camera with a DMF look....but this does not seem to be it....and we will probably never see one....if i had the cash to just buy one for fun, i might, but 7000 is a lot.....
in a way this really showed me how amazing the 5dII is and how really amazing the files are that come out of it....and the 7d looks amazing as well....the combination of the 2 (with some other advancements i haven't even thought of yet) will be on the market in less then a year.....for about a 1/3 of the price of the m9....it is just hard to justify on any level....
i think the m9 looks like a great camera and i am sure it will make a lot of people very happy....and it really looks like leica did their homework this time.....
as much as i love RF....it is not worth that much to me.....
also: there are still SOME issues with IR (and UV as well?) and there are some corrections in software going on....some superwides still show cyan shifts and such.....much, much,much less then the m8....much improved....but still....
and then you just pick up the canon and shoot.....without any problems at all....
-
i am not surprised that the 24-105 will give you smeared results....even the 24-70 has no real chance compared to pretty much any canon prime....and compared to leica primes....there is no contest....
i have been looking at m9 raw files and so far have not found the P21 look i was hoping for.....the files look a little sharper (as is to be expected) then canon files, but by far not the obvious difference between the m8 and the 5D.....high iso looks better then expected (for a ccd)....pretty good up to 1000, but no comparison to the canons or nikons....
i have not seen a good DR comparison, leica is saying that the high iso will be imrpoved with firmware and the conversion profiles are still not quite "there" (or so the leica fanatics say....)
i was really hoping for a m camera with a DMF look....but this does not seem to be it....and we will probably never see one....if i had the cash to just buy one for fun, i might, but 7000 is a lot.....
in a way this really showed me how amazing the 5dII is and how really amazing the files are that come out of it....and the 7d looks amazing as well....the combination of the 2 (with some other advancements i haven't even thought of yet) will be on the market in less then a year.....for about a 1/3 of the price of the m9....it is just hard to justify on any level....
i think the m9 looks like a great camera and i am sure it will make a lot of people very happy....and it really looks like leica did their homework this time.....
as much as i love RF....it is not worth that much to me.....
also: there are still SOME issues with IR (and UV as well?) and there are some corrections in software going on....some superwides still show cyan shifts and such.....much, much,much less then the m8....much improved....but still....
and then you just pick up the canon and shoot.....without any problems at all....
I may buy one from amazon, shoot a few frames every shot with it and return it, have a good look at the files and prints from the files and see if it's "there". I'm still hopeful.
-
I may buy one from amazon, shoot a few frames every shot with it and return it, have a good look at the files and prints from the files and see if it's "there". I'm still hopeful.
Please post here when and if you get to test an M9. I have the same concerns.
-
Please post here when and if you get to test an M9. I have the same concerns.
Certainly will, don't hold your breath though, it'll be a few weeks.
-
Just watched the interview with Stephan Daniel. I can't believe how open and candid Mr Daniel is, it is unique in the business (or any business). For example the change from C1 to Lightroom was just to avoid Phase One getting the whole list of S2 clients as they registered their software... He is also pretty open about Jenoptik's involvement: "the S2 is made by Leica and the M9 by Jenoptik...". Also "we started the M9 development April last year". It is not often that you get that sort of insight. Some of the sales numbers are very interesting and worth spending the time to watch the video "we can't supply all the M7 and MP ordered". Note that the candid approach stopped when the interviewers started talking about Panasonic. Leica is obviously not entirely comfortable with the collaboration.. Really fascinating stuff.
As for the M9 itself, if you were born before the 80's, you'll just want one and getting one or not will just be a budget issue (I'm negotiating with my banker...). The M8 was not quite right but the M9 is a proper digital M7 so if you've sniffed enough darkroom chemicals in your time, now you can move on. To me, the most interesting part is that ongoing lens development suggests Leica has very long term plans for the rangefinder range. That is odd as their appeal to the younger generation is pretty much nil and it will not take long before that generation becomes the whole market.
-
I just had a look at one in adorama and I hate that the frame line isn't a solid line at the bottom, how do you know your not chopping people's hands off, any way of customising that?
-
I just had a look at one in adorama and I hate that the frame line isn't a solid line at the bottom, how do you know your not chopping people's hands off, any way of customising that?
the framelines are "guide lines" at best anyway....if you want to make sure the hands are in, take a step back....there are a lot of different factors to consider, i think the frame lines with the m9 are optimized for about 6ft? but i could be wrong....leica fixed the lines with the m8.2, the m8 was a joke....there was just no way to tell because even the lines you saw were totally off....
anyway...i also have one on order from amazon....i might just go to samy's and shoot a couple of frames compared to the 5DII out the window....the more i see and hear about it , the more i am disappointed though....i still haven't heard anything or seen anything concrete about DR performance.....crispness and depth, "3D" look are there but by far not as pronounced (compared to the 5DII) as was the case with the m8/5D comparison....
in other words: my P20 at one point made me VERY happy.....if i compare the files today with the files from the 5DII....color, DR, detail.....the canon wins easily....
-
I watched the interview as well and it seemed very open and honest to me.
However, the difficulty with deciding whether it was or was not honest is that it took me all my time to drag my eyes off the camera and watch the guy doing his thing.
Now, I have never owned an M camera because I always figured rf sytems to be flawed for my sort of work, despite the fact that people like Jeanloup Sieff used them to great advantage. But, watching that damn thing sit there on the desk, I realised why I coveted it so much: simplicity. It looked like a camera and not something else. I couldn't lose the thought that it was a camera that would take one right back to the pre-digital age where the camera, once you'd bought it, was something that never crossed your mind during the work - it just was there and did what you wanted it to do, mainly not get in the way. Unfortunately, even in retirement, the thing and its glass are just too expensive - more so in retirement with no business against which to write it - than ever they were.
A very important and probably overlooked point was made by an earlier writer when he said that today's market for these Ms is with the older, experienced people; whence the next generation of buyer and what would create one sans the pulling power of nostalgia which the young can't share?
A lady at the 'interview' made a remark about refurbished Ms being available to 'students' at lower costs... what an odd idea that a private company (often short of cash) could take up that notion and subsidise a section of the community! Why? It seems to me that subsidies do little but propagate the wrong ideas about life's realities. Leica's guy didn't make that mistake when talking about your first 911! (I say yours because I ain't got one.)
Rob C
-
the framelines are "guide lines" at best anyway....if you want to make sure the hands are in, take a step back....there are a lot of different factors to consider, i think the frame lines with the m9 are optimized for about 6ft? but i could be wrong....leica fixed the lines with the m8.2, the m8 was a joke....there was just no way to tell because even the lines you saw were totally off....
anyway...i also have one on order from amazon....i might just go to samy's and shoot a couple of frames compared to the 5DII out the window....the more i see and hear about it , the more i am disappointed though....i still haven't heard anything or seen anything concrete about DR performance.....crispness and depth, "3D" look are there but by far not as pronounced (compared to the 5DII) as was the case with the m8/5D comparison....
in other words: my P20 at one point made me VERY happy.....if i compare the files today with the files from the 5DII....color, DR, detail.....the canon wins easily....
Suprised to hear that about the P20, have you tried reprocessing the raw files in the latest capture one?
-
IHowever, this morning using the Zeiss ZM 35mm 2.8 manually coded as a 35mm 2.0, I noticed some strange artifacts. In the far distance the girders and wire of a crane were rendered blue or yellow on the viewing screen at full magnification, instead of black silhouttes against the sky. Similarly the white framework of a window (again at the edge of resolution) were also rendered yellow or blue. As this shot was nearby I repeated the shot at all apertures from f2.8 to f22. Interestingly at f2.8 the effect was very much reduced, and at f22 it was gone completely, but at all other apertures it was present and most strongly at the highest resolving apertures of f5.6 to f11.
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
Loaded the shots into Lightroom and the artifacts have gone, clean as a whistle, the "moire" look was only on the M9's viewing screen. Looking carefully through a couple of hundred M9 shots I can't see a single example of moire...yet! But as that's using a mix of tripod and handled; wide apertures and stopped down; fabrics, buildings, and trees; daylight and artificial light; I'm starting to conclude that the lack of an AA filter isn't compromising the camera's abilities.
Incidentally, leaving work tonight I saw John Lennon's Rolls Royce in the car park I use. With fading light and a sleazy Soho in the background it was perfect rangefinder territory! Here's the scene with the M9.
[attachment=16591:Lennon__s_RR.jpg]
-
I look forward to reports from early adopters as they start to put the camera to use. Regardless, I sense an M9 in my future. Of course, since I already have a pile of Leica and other M-mount lenses the expense is a little more "reasonable". Maybe.
-
I may buy one from amazon, shoot a few frames every shot with it and return it, have a good look at the files and prints from the files and see if it's "there". I'm still hopeful.
Depending on where you live, wouldn't it be simpler to walk into a camera store with a flash card, make a few images and then take the card home? The clerk at any reputable store wouldn't have a problem with that, knowing that you'll come back to them if you do decide to buy one.
Mike.
-
i think the frame lines with the m9 are optimized for about 6ft?
I believe he said the lines are optimized for one metre, about 3.2808 feet. It was 2 metres for the M8
Mike.
-
Just finished the Peter Karbe interview. Slooow, but, again, so candid "er.. we mixed up the MTF graphs..". I am very impressed and it makes Leica a very likeable company, miles from what I imagined. I am getting more and more revolted by the consumable aspect of our tools which are manufactured by drones and must be thrown away after a short, marketing-defined lifespan. This is definitely the opposite, a company that creates timeless products. The M8 is now obsolete but its owners can feel safe in having made an investment that can follow them for decades. Hasselblad used to be like this but I doubt H2 owners felt the same when the H3 came out. Again, I can see an M9 in my future but, unfortunately, can't see much of a future for the M series. Maybe Leica, or another manufacturer (Panasonic?), can make a modern digital body to lengthen the fantastic M lenses usefulness but I don't see the new generation putting up with the rangefinder when modern focusing is measured in tenth of millimetres..
The S2 of course, is the opposite. This is a camera open to the future and which begs to be updated regularly. Maybe that's why it's the product Leica decided to nurture in-house.
-
Depending on where you live, wouldn't it be simpler to walk into a camera store with a flash card, make a few images and then take the card home? The clerk at any reputable store wouldn't have a problem with that, knowing that you'll come back to them if you do decide to buy one.
Mike.
I need to test it with my light on my type of subjects though.
-
I'm following the discussions on this product with great interest but little likelihood of ever owning a Leica - although I'd love to try an M9 - and no axe to grind whatsoever, but I was very impressed by the observation below, taken from one of the preceding posts.
"This is definitely the opposite, a company that creates timeless products. The M8 is now obsolete but its owners can feel safe in having made an investment that can follow them for decades." (my emphasis)
Er, quite...
-
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.
-
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.
I'd be happy to take one of those M8s out from under the carpet as soon as someone shoves one under there.
I still shoot a Lieca IIIf from time to time, although not for important work, admittedly.
-
I'm following the discussions on this product with great interest but little likelihood of ever owning a Leica - although I'd love to try an M9 - and no axe to grind whatsoever, but I was very impressed by the observation below, taken from one of the preceding posts.
"This is definitely the opposite, a company that creates timeless products. The M8 is now obsolete but its owners can feel safe in having made an investment that can follow them for decades." (my emphasis)
Er, quite...
Maybe the M8 is obsolete, but the debt collectors follow you for decades ...
They do say that the difference between men and boys is the size of their toys.
-
Hi Guys,I`m after a bit of advice.I can feel an M9 purchase just around the corner and was wondering which lens to buy with it.
-
I'll shoot my M8 for a long, long time. Its great for editorial with a 50mm or 28mm. The files are the best I've seen from anything other than an MFDB. Better than what I've seen from the M9 thus far.
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.
-
I'll shoot my M8 for a long, long time. Its great for editorial with a 50mm or 28mm. The files are the best I've seen from anything other than an MFDB. Better than what I've seen from the M9 thus far.
Really? Wow. Is it the M8 or the M8.2? Leica glass...nuff said.
-
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.
Could the same not be said of the M9 when the M10 comes out? There really is no timelessness with digital. Sure, you can argue that the M9 may have better resolution and low light handling than any piece of film out there now, but come a new sensor that can shoot noiseless files at 6400 ISO with a sensor that out-resolves a Summilux at f/8 and the M9's going to fade into obscurity as well. I suppose in a way, the M8 is sort of the M5 of digital - but I still love my camera, and it still has produced some of the sharpest images I've ever weened out of a digital camera.
-
Could the same not be said of the M9 when the M10 comes out? There really is no timelessness with digital. Sure, you can argue that the M9 may have better resolution and low light handling than any piece of film out there now, but come a new sensor that can shoot noiseless files at 6400 ISO with a sensor that out-resolves a Summilux at f/8 and the M9's going to fade into obscurity as well. I suppose in a way, the M8 is sort of the M5 of digital - but I still love my camera, and it still has produced some of the sharpest images I've ever weened out of a digital camera.
I like the reference to the M5; had you been talking wheels it could have been the Edsel but never an M5!
Realistically, you are horribly right. I bought my D700 just a couple of weeks ago not because I think it is the second or third best of the line, but because it`s the basic step that takes me into Nikon FF and allows me to use existing glass. I have no illusions that it won't be obsolete before the flowers spring forth again, but I don't give a damn about that. It is as good as it needs to be to keep me happy and printing at A3+ at a pretty cool level of excellence - if I can consistently make it do that with my limited digital skills. The beauty is that I know it isn't the camera's fault if something blows; I imagine even its bedmate the D200 is better than I am, but now my lenses are able to do what they were meant to do at their focal lengths! That playing field is now level and what will be will be.
Rob C
-
Really? Wow. Is it the M8 or the M8.2? Leica glass...nuff said.
Yes, Dolce, its the real deal. M8, Leica and Zeiss glass. The Zeiss 21, 28, 35 and 50 1.5 and F2 are great. The Leica 28 cron is amazing, although I like the Zeiss 28 better. The Leica lenses have a different look, less contrast while being really sharp. The 28 cron produces some incredible mids on b&w film. I never used it really for fashion. JR has some nice fashion with the M8, I've used it for editorial portraits and for web based motion ads, in store displays, life style crap, head shots for a bunch of furniture designers. For beauty I need TTL. I tried beauty with a rangefinder, I shot a test with a Mamiya 7 and I hated the pics. They weren't what I expected, while the RZ shots on both film and Aptus 54s were what I expected.
-
already here in the UK I'm seeing a slurry of used M8's...1 shop has gone from 1 to about 7 in just a few days, and original version bodies are appearing now for under 2k which is good for UK prices!
That pared with a nice 28 and 50/75 do still make a great combo if you need a set up for say travel / stock that is both discreet and high quality...more so than my electrical tape covered up 5d with 35 and 85mm lenses!
also I read an article today (can't remember where) talking about leica going from a camera for pj's to a camera for celebs (see Seal as their new spokesman, etc) but still surely they do make the best small but high end street / travel kit. (wether its a digital or a film M)
Marc
-
Hi Guys,I`m after a bit of advice.I can feel an M9 purchase just around the corner and was wondering which lens to buy with it.
I asked the question earlier,Which lens would be a good first buy to start my journey into the Leica system.Any advise from you Leica Boys?................Please!
-
yes which 35mm for a new M9 ? :-)
-
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).
Michael
-
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).
Michael
Hi Michael, thanks for this...if I wanted to go just slightly wider with a 28mm instead of the 35...what would you suggest...I'm liking this focal length a lot lately...
by the way, I really like the 'a paris' shot...the hand to the left almost looks like someone holding the frame of a photo of the woman in the store window...very cool...and that window looks so familiar...St. Germain des Pres maybe, near the church?...
-
Hi Michael, thanks for this...if I wanted to go just slightly wider with a 28mm instead of the 35...what would you suggest...I'm liking this focal length a lot lately...
by the way, I really like the 'a paris' shot...the hand to the left almost looks like someone holding the frame of a photo of the woman in the store window...very cool...and that window looks so familiar...St. Germain des Pres maybe, near the church?...
It depends what you need. For example, I want small lenses and don't need anything faster than 2.8 or 4. So I would never invest money on a huge 35 1.4 or similiar. I think the 35 summarit is great, especially for the size and price. as for 29, I once again prefer the small 2.8.
-
It depends what you need. For example, I want small lenses and don't need anything faster than 2.8 or 4. So I would never invest money on a huge 35 1.4 or similiar. I think the 35 summarit is great, especially for the size and price. as for 29, I once again prefer the small 2.8.
I agree with you, a Summarit 28mm would be ideal if a 28mm was the first choice. But for a first Leica lens I'd still go with a 35mm, and possibly the Summicron f2 rather than the Lux f1.4. The 35 offers a classic field of view and if the user is new to rangefinders the 35mm frame in the viewfinder is easier to manage, as opposed to the experience of even some non-eyeglass wearers often needing to peer around the edge of the viewfinder to see the 28mm brightline.
Steve
-
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).
Michael
Here here!
'cept my kit was a 35 1.4 that lived on the M3s and 4s I used for 30+ years, a 50 2.0, and 90 2.0.
Been fighting a series Of DSLRs, latest being a 5D II, for the last few years. Picking the thing up just doesn't feel right, but have been happy enough with the images. However...as mentioned by someone else, there is a combination of low contrast and sharpness(especially the 35/1.4) with the Leitz optics that is very hard to describe verbally.
In fact, I just got a deal on a series 2 35/1.4 and anticipate picking up an M9 when they start showing up on the used market. Like with my first M's, will have to rely on being at the right place at the right time to afford the thing. It's still pretty damn funny to see the amount of rancor the name Leica stirs up. Heck, I was on unemployment when I got my first M3. How come the MF and LF folks don't engender the same responses? Their stuff is even more expensive.
PS - Michael : how is the finder accuracy with the M9? They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate.
PPS - If you're going to go on about absolute image quality, use an 8X10 and drum scan or go home.
-
PS - Michael : how is the finder accuracy with the M9? They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate.
The M9's finder accuracy is quite a bit better than the M8's, but still not as good as one might want it to be. The nature of the beast.
Michael
-
"They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate."
Parallax compensation isn't the issue, it's the change of focal length depending on focus. The frame-lines of the M9 are calibrated for 1m distance - the M8 to 0.7m, the M8.2 to 2m.
-
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).
Michael
Thanks For that info Michael, It`s been a toss between the 35mm f1.4 summilux and the 50mm f1.4 lux and I think I`m going for the 35mm as my first lens.
Regards Andy
-
Andy,
They are both superb lenses. It ultimately comes down to a matter of personal shooting style.
Michael
-
"They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate."
Parallax compensation isn't the issue, it's the change of focal length depending on focus. The frame-lines of the M9 are calibrated for 1m distance - the M8 to 0.7m, the M8.2 to 2m.
Under what situations does this become a real problem?
Always composed for full frame with the M3 and 4 and never noticed any great discrepancy between the intended framing and that captured on film, or even thought about it. Now the various DSLRs...always have to take viewfinder slop into account.
So exactly what is the shift of say a 35mm 1.4 from 1 m to infinity? Or any of the other lenses used with the brightframes, for that matter? Not finding much in a general search. Most posts seem to be about focus or zooms, not focal length shift, which would be the only thing to consider for brightframe accuracy.
-
It's quite noticable, at infinity you might get a 5-10% larger area in the final image. But it's pretty much the same as with the film-Ms, we never realized it, because we had no instant image control ;-)
Just put a 35mm-lens (classic design, internal focusing may change the impact of this) on a SLR and focus between 1m and infinity, you will so how the image area changes.
This effect is called "breathing", it's an issue in cinematography, when the focus switches fast between fore- and background you'll notice a "zoom"-effect. Very advanced lenses (like Zeiss Master Primes, up to 50k$ each...) use double internal focusing to compensate it.
-
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).
Michael
The 35 1.4 Summilux has some focus shift when closed down - I wonder if a 35 cron may not be a smarter move for the general shooter.
Edmund
-
It's quite noticable, at infinity you might get a 5-10% larger area in the final image. But it's pretty much the same as with the film-Ms, we never realized it, because we had no instant image control ;-)
Just put a 35mm-lens (classic design, internal focusing may change the impact of this) on a SLR and focus between 1m and infinity, you will so how the image area changes.
That's also why focus stacking cannot be accomplished simply by masking.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
I'm curious how the Canon best primes would compare with the Leica, at last I am happy with my Canon lenses since I bought the 35mm f1;4 and new 24mm f1;4 the 85mm f1;2 is next on my list. Having said that the 17-40mm I have used and loved and hated does not look as bad as I think it should against those primes. A 5DII with those primes would be a better match for the M9 than a 24-105mm zoom.
Kevin.
-
If you really want sharp then you can always stick Zeiss manual lenses on Canon or Nikon; the big advantage is that you then get the Canon or Nikon hi-ISO performance while keeping SLR framing and usability. Or you can go all out like Michael and then you even have Zeiss AF!
The only real thing the Leica has going for it is form factor - which is not to be underestimated.
Edmund
-
The Zeiss 21, 28, 35 and 50 1.5 and F2 are great. The Leica 28 cron is amazing, although I like the Zeiss 28 better. The Leica lenses have a different look, less contrast while being really sharp. The 28 cron produces some incredible mids on b&w film.
Curious as to how Zeiss lenses work with leica's 6 bit / lens recognition system...
-
That's also why focus stacking cannot be accomplished simply by masking.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think there is another reason, assuming that I understood the earlier post, and that by focus stacking you mean achieving infinite DOF by stacking multiple exposures, each focused at a different distance. When you focus on a nearby object, the background is out of focus. When you focus on the background, the nearby object is blurred. The problem is that the blurred image of the nearby object is larger than the size of the focused image of the nearby object. Hence it is not possible to obtain a focused image of the background surrounding the nearby object. Therefore it is not possible to create a focused composite image.
As an aside I feel quite annoyed at having downloaded and tested (but not bought) a new focus stacking programme, only to slowly realise that in general focus stacking is impossible. Odd how these people are prepared to charge you a pretty penny for their software, but they do not explain that it can only work for a restricted range of scenes.
-
Not to be a fanboy [never intended to be]; but:
"It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it? "
Anytime the Daewoo over the Porsche, to be honest.
I don´t have the time, nor the will, nor the energy to have to "serve" a car or a camera. They HAVE to serve me. And I don´t have to get intimidated by ANY aspect of it. I´ll get the Daewoo for the LOL´s and the smile you´ll get upon your face on every single corner on a winding road. Even on the city. Because they are THAT simple, cheap and chearful cars are usually the ones you remember everyday. Not the bloated exotica. Think Panda, Hyundai, Aygo, the first gen KA. They are simple, straightforward, and pretty reliable. Built to serve, not to be served -unless bad sample, that is-.
I´d rather have a piece of equipment I´m not afraid to get stolen, to scratch, to get dirty, to almost break. And Leicas are an eyecandy for burglars: red.dot magnetism.
I too think that any digital camera, due to its nature, is doomed to die in a max of four years. I´m sorry. And that it is not really true that of "it´s on the lenses". Not any more. Make it a trio: lenses, sensors, and builtin software. That´s what will give you the quality.
You could have a camera for forty years before. Just change the film. Unfortunately, now the "digital film" is not replaceable after a single use, or to get a better performance. The sensor stays with the body [but for MFDB].
So get a Oly 4xx, a K7, or a GH1, and have fun with them and the pancakes avaliable to them. There are some true gems for them, as the DA 35 macro [a pitty that it is a retrofocus design. A real miss for rangefinder photography, I have to say. That lens is simply spectacular].
Do not be afraid to scratch the car if you´re having fun with it.
-
"Anytime the Daewoo over the Porsche, to be honest. "
I agree with you when it comes to the camera part, but here I don't I prefer a porsche over Daewoo any second. It is just fun to drive.
-
"Anytime the Daewoo over the Porsche, to be honest. "
I agree with you when it comes to the camera part, but here I don't I prefer a porsche over Daewoo any second. It is just fun to drive.
You ever tried the Daewoo Matiz or the former Atos on a roundabout?
Just for the LOL´s. The Porsche, or Fords for that matter, are way too precise.
And that´s it on cars for today.
-
Em... gimme the Porsche, please, if you are giving them away.
Ever had one of them on a roundabout? Fast. You indicated you yearn excitement, LOL's even...
Rob C
-
Well if we are talking about analogies with cars the basic fault people labour under is that if a car holds the road well it is a good car. But what an enthusiast would say is that if a car handles well it is a good car. They are two separate things. A car with good road holding is great, until the road holding ceases. On the other hand a car that handles well lets you know when the limits are reached in a controlable way, giving you the opportuinity to modify its corning behaviour as you go on your way.
And that surely is the way with a Leica, it is a great handling camera, you know where the limits are and it isn't going to let you down. A big DSLR does everything you could want, until it all of a sudden it becomes unwieldy and you can't carry it anywhere without people staring, you need a massive backpack with all your lenses, and you end up not taking it to the limit because its been left at home.
On the other hand, ex-Formula 1 World Champion James Hunt drove an Austin A35 van after retiring from racing, both to carry his budgerigar's to breeders shows, and with the intent of having as much fun corning at 30 m.p.h. as he once did at 130 m.p.h. So we should all give up and buy a Holga if we want something fun and cheap.
Steve
-
Em... gimme the Porsche, please, if you are giving them away.
Ever had one of them on a roundabout? Fast. You indicated you yearn excitement, LOL's even...
Rob C
Well, although I actually do have a Porsche, I must say I've had much fun in a rental Ford Fiesta (or somesuch) on roundabouts... you get to feel the car shaking and pushing the limits of grip and structural integrity as you "scream" around the corner, all while never actually approaching the speed limit.
j
-
And Leicas are an eyecandy for burglars: red.dot magnetism.
That has not been my experience. Thieves are often fools. A few years ago, some burglars broke into my guest house, and stole a lot of cheap garbage. They took a nearly worthless old Casio keyboard that belonged to my wife. It had been sitting on top of my guitar amplifiers, many of which are worth thousands. The only thing of actual value they took was an air compressor. Thank God they left my vintage amps alone.
When I shoot with practically any film camera (which the M9 certainly resembles from the front), people look at me with pity, as if I haven't yet discovered that digital cameras are available. Recently, I was shooting with a Rollei TLR when a man told me his grandfather also had "an old box camera" at one time. If your local thieves have some idea what a Leica is, well, then your city has a better class of criminal than mine.
My Porsches have been extremely reliable. They aren't cheap to repair, but they don't need repaired very often either. I sold an air-cooled 911 last year for a very large percentage of what it cost in 1987 when it was new, but I don't see many 22 year old economy cars for sale around here. Film Leicas are kind of like that too. Expensive to buy, but still worth maintaining long after other equipment has gone to the scrap heap. I don't know if that will hold true for digital Leicas though.
-
Not to be a fanboy [never intended to be]; but:
"It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it? "
I agree with many of your points but they only really hold true if you only want a car to get you from A to B reliably and economically. What if you want to push the limits? High performance stuff takes work to get the most out of it. You get out what you put in.
A GH1 can take the same pictures as my 5D2, much as a Daiwoo can get me to the shops just as well as a Porsche, but the 5D2 is capable of much higher performance if I choose to use it and more importantly, when I need it.
A really high end bit of gear is pleasant and easy to use AND capable of high performance.
-
I agree with many of your points but they only really hold true if you only want a car to get you from A to B reliably and economically. What if you want to push the limits? High performance stuff takes work to get the most out of it. You get out what you put in.
A GH1 can take the same pictures as my 5D2, much as a Daiwoo can get me to the shops just as well as a Porsche, but the 5D2 is capable of much higher performance if I choose to use it and more importantly, when I need it.
A really high end bit of gear is pleasant and easy to use AND capable of high performance.
Bad comparison. A GH1 also has useful qualities and capabilities that the 5DII does not, like size and weight, and the twistable LCD. Better to compare the 5DII to a rebel...not to be a nitpicker.
JC
-
Hi,
I would rather compare a Porsche and a truck. Truck moves more stuff, Porsche moves little but fast. Speed limits apply to both, beware of sergeant Nyquist!
Best regards
Erik
I agree with many of your points but they only really hold true if you only want a car to get you from A to B reliably and economically. What if you want to push the limits? High performance stuff takes work to get the most out of it. You get out what you put in.
A GH1 can take the same pictures as my 5D2, much as a Daiwoo can get me to the shops just as well as a Porsche, but the 5D2 is capable of much higher performance if I choose to use it and more importantly, when I need it.
A really high end bit of gear is pleasant and easy to use AND capable of high performance.
-
Hi,
I would rather compare a Porsche and a truck. Truck moves more stuff, Porsche moves little but fast. Speed limits apply to both, beware of sergeant Nyquist!
Best regards
Erik
Since when are there speed limits ? ;-)
-
Thanks For that info Michael, It`s been a toss between the 35mm f1.4 summilux and the 50mm f1.4 lux and I think I`m going for the 35mm as my first lens.
Regards Andy
andy,
careful with the 35mm lux. it does have rather significant focus shift. the 28mm cron does not and the 35mm cron to a much lesser extent.
peter
-
Ja, ja, Richtgeschwindigkeit, und die Polizistin heisst die Schöne Müllnerin ;-)
Herzliche Grüsse
Erik
Since when are there speed limits ? ;-)
-
An earlier post didn't work.
I've used my own D3x and M8 a lot in Paris.
I use a $100 50mm/1.8 on the Nikon
The D3x wins strongly over the Leica; However, when you are very very close to people, the M8 with its toy-like aspect is a crowd pleaser, I lend it to people who don't like cameras, and they thaw.
Edmund
-
Looking at the comparison photos today from the M9, the a900 and the Canon, the Canon image appears, at least to me, as if there is a slight ghost image vs the type of image I would expect to see from subpar processing or mediocre optics. Other reviews have noted the Canons tended to have some moire effects which would seem to indicate their AA filters are less aggressive than some other DSLRs. Anyone?
-
I think there is another reason, assuming that I understood the earlier post, and that by focus stacking you mean achieving infinite DOF by stacking multiple exposures, each focused at a different distance. When you focus on a nearby object, the background is out of focus. When you focus on the background, the nearby object is blurred. The problem is that the blurred image of the nearby object is larger than the size of the focused image of the nearby object. Hence it is not possible to obtain a focused image of the background surrounding the nearby object. Therefore it is not possible to create a focused composite image.
As an aside I feel quite annoyed at having downloaded and tested (but not bought) a new focus stacking programme, only to slowly realise that in general focus stacking is impossible. Odd how these people are prepared to charge you a pretty penny for their software, but they do not explain that it can only work for a restricted range of scenes.
You are correct, problems can occur if you lack images between a near and far object, it is important to stop down enough and to include intermediate steps between near and far objects.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, although I actually do have a Porsche, I must say I've had much fun in a rental Ford Fiesta (or somesuch) on roundabouts... you get to feel the car shaking and pushing the limits of grip and structural integrity as you "scream" around the corner, all while never actually approaching the speed limit.
j
Well, that seems more like self-delusion to me! To extend, you could just sit in the garage and play the soundtrack, if you want fake thrills.
Must say, I would love the Porsche though; even if it is a pendulum I could always go slowly and just show off! Perhaps that's because I've had Fiestas and they are, when you stop confusing poverty with economy (another level of self-delusion), a load of cheap crap except when you have to pay for them.
;-)
Rob
-
Hi Guys,I`m after a bit of advice.I can feel an M9 purchase just around the corner and was wondering which lens to buy with it.
I guess you take a look at Voigtländer lenses. They seem to
have the right feeling with them.
-
I guess you take a look at Voigtländer lenses. They seem to
have the right feeling with them.
That was my plan 3y ago: To buy a M8 and get those relatively cheap Voigtländers which get rave reviews. However the first 2 samples I tried on the M8 (loaned) were no even close to the one Leica lens I tried. I was really dissappointed and instantly gave up the Leica plan - buying a setup of Leica lenses was out of question - much too expensive for me.
so: Try those Voigtländers on a Leica before deciding to go for that way.
bernie
-
That was my plan 3y ago: To buy a M8 and get those relatively cheap Voigtländers which get rave reviews. However the first 2 samples I tried on the M8 (loaned) were no even close to the one Leica lens I tried. I was really dissappointed and instantly gave up the Leica plan - buying a setup of Leica lenses was out of question - much too expensive for me.
so: Try those Voigtländers on a Leica before deciding to go for that way.
bernie
Try the Zeiss M mounts. I don't think they are better or worse than their Leica counterparts, they are just different. Much more contrast, about as sharp or sharper, much cheaper.
-
I've purchased the M9 to use as a landscape camera.
It replaced a d3x / 14-24 combo.
After a few months I'm extremely happy with the switch.
For landscape type photography there are two issues that I wish were different.
Long exposures. The camera cannot do an exposure longer than 250 sec, and then after that there is a mandatory 250 sec dark frame subtraction. This rules out using it for star trails and other longer exposures. Seems this is related to the CCD sensor and not something that could be changed easily.
Bracketing for HDR panos. For a single shot HDR the bracketing controls are great. # of exposures, spacing, etc.
However, the bracketing only works when the camera is in "A" mode. For pano's one needs to set the shutter speed manually - but if this is done then none of the great bracketing controls are available.
One can still change the exposures for an hdr pano manually, but this means touching the camera to turn a dial in between each shot, taking time (in which the scene can change) and potentially introducing motion.
Hopefully this will be fixed in a future firmware upgrade as it really is an unnecessary limitation, imposed by firmware programming and not an limitation of the camera.
Other than that I'm pretty much sold. Prints look great, my whole kit (less a small tripod) fits in a small fanny pack and using an RF again is really fun.
One from Antelope a few weeks ago with the M9 and wate.
(http://www.efines.net/images/fm/Fines_20091208_0221_2_3_4_tonemapped_adj_web_800.jpg)
-
That's about the best picture I've seen of the slots. Congratulations. It's abstract too. I see a few women shapes too. Or is it just too late already.
Eduardo
I've purchased the M9 to use as a landscape camera.
It replaced a d3x / 14-24 combo.
After a few months I'm extremely happy with the switch.
For landscape type photography there are two issues that I wish were different.
Long exposures. The camera cannot do an exposure longer than 250 sec, and then after that there is a mandatory 250 sec dark frame subtraction. This rules out using it for star trails and other longer exposures. Seems this is related to the CCD sensor and not something that could be changed easily.
Bracketing for HDR panos. For a single shot HDR the bracketing controls are great. # of exposures, spacing, etc.
However, the bracketing only works when the camera is in "A" mode. For pano's one needs to set the shutter speed manually - but if this is done then none of the great bracketing controls are available.
One can still change the exposures for an hdr pano manually, but this means touching the camera to turn a dial in between each shot, taking time (in which the scene can change) and potentially introducing motion.
Hopefully this will be fixed in a future firmware upgrade as it really is an unnecessary limitation, imposed by firmware programming and not an limitation of the camera.
Other than that I'm pretty much sold. Prints look great, my whole kit (less a small tripod) fits in a small fanny pack and using an RF again is really fun.
One from Antelope a few weeks ago with the M9 and wate.
(http://www.efines.net/images/fm/Fines_20091208_0221_2_3_4_tonemapped_adj_web_800.jpg)
-
I've purchased the M9 to use as a landscape camera.
It replaced a d3x / 14-24 combo.
After a few months I'm extremely happy with the switch.
For landscape type photography there are two issues that I wish were different.
Long exposures. The camera cannot do an exposure longer than 250 sec, and then after that there is a mandatory 250 sec dark frame subtraction. This rules out using it for star trails and other longer exposures. Seems this is related to the CCD sensor and not something that could be changed easily.
Bracketing for HDR panos. For a single shot HDR the bracketing controls are great. # of exposures, spacing, etc.
However, the bracketing only works when the camera is in "A" mode. For pano's one needs to set the shutter speed manually - but if this is done then none of the great bracketing controls are available.
One can still change the exposures for an hdr pano manually, but this means touching the camera to turn a dial in between each shot, taking time (in which the scene can change) and potentially introducing motion.
Hopefully this will be fixed in a future firmware upgrade as it really is an unnecessary limitation, imposed by firmware programming and not an limitation of the camera.
Other than that I'm pretty much sold. Prints look great, my whole kit (less a small tripod) fits in a small fanny pack and using an RF again is really fun.
One from Antelope a few weeks ago with the M9 and wate.
(http://www.efines.net/images/fm/Fines_20091208_0221_2_3_4_tonemapped_adj_web_800.jpg)
Hey bro, awesome picture. Would you mind to post more? PLEASE!
-
The voigts as James Russell said is like putting a chevy engine in a porsche. Compared to leica glass they are to up to snuff. Yes I have used a few. The Zeiss glass the 50 f2 the 21 2.8 the 25 mm lenses are much better. But for me nothing is more important then shooting at 1.4 so I have nothing but leica glass now. I have shot a lot of street people homeless the classic street stuff. I do not sneak photos. The Leica is always more welcome as it is small and non threatening compared to nikons and canons. I shoot canons for my professional work love them but they get a more stiff reaction people get uptight on the streets when I shoot them. David
-
Curious as to how Zeiss lenses work with leica's 6 bit / lens recognition system...
None of my lenses, Zeiss or Leica, are coded. OK, the 21 is coded, by me, with a sharpie, its the only one that shows any cyan issues.
-
You are correct, problems can occur if you lack images between a near and far object, it is important to stop down enough and to include intermediate steps between near and far objects.
Cheers,
Bernard
I've only just seen this reply. No, it is independent of the number of frames you take. The problem is that when you focus on the distance, nearby objects are blurred, and the blur outline is larger than the in-focus outline. So you can never get an image with an in-focus rendition of the region around nearby objects. The result is halos which cannot be removed wihtout some form of manual editing or interpolation. It is possible that for landscapes with ~planar subjects with no foreground trees/obhects this is not an issue, but in general it is a problem.
-
Hello everyone
I have been looking at the Leica M9 with 4 lens; and just prior to it coming out i was looking at the ALPA 12 Max with 4 lens and a digital back with some lens with a TC frame as part of the platform for point and shoot. The programme reviews have been great on each camera. I am trying to understand the benefits of each camera against each other. Any views please?