Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: woof75 on January 17, 2011, 07:16:46 am
-
Thats what I've found. You can't tether with the Leica but I use the P21, P30 and P40 from phase and I find the image quality of the Leica to be at least as good as the Phase backs. I don't find any difference in quality between the phase backs, there all slightly different but only slightly and I wouldn't put one above the others in terms of IQ. Unless your doing massive prints of course.. Up to 17 by 13 inches or so though the Leica is as good and has very similar image characteristics. Oh yes, the lenses on the Leica are better too.
-
In that case my G9 is also just as good :D
-
@ced:
...And my G7 is as good as your G9.
-
Is that a joke?
-
How's your M9 for long exposures (multiple minutes)? Better or worse than the Phase backs?
-
Summilux lens produces good quality images (details in shadow area and the color tones). I use them for wedding engagement shoot, not for studio or billboard works :)
-
How well does it work for subjects closer than 1m. (or any number of other situations where a small format rangefinder is not well suited to the task) ;)
Ultimately, IQ is only part of the picture. Horses for courses, use the tool that makes sense for the job you're asking it to do.
-
yes, thats true, this is for images shot between 5 and 30 feet, fashion pictures. Really impressive, I've tried using canons and nikons instead of phase backs before and they weren't close enough for me but this M9 is a revelation. It does have it's drawbacks, the rangefinder takes some getting used to (which I now love) but for the most part it's really impressive. It's image characteristics are virtually the same as phase one when shooting fashion and if thats what you like (which I do) then this is a great alternative to a back.
-
sounds reasonable to me.
probably nice tones, nice dr, great lenses, shallow dof, all good for fashion.
best,
kipling
-
my wrench as good as my hammer ...
-
my wrench as good as my hammer ...
Funny.
It's amazing how equipment can change your style. It's not suppose to, but it does. I don't have a m9 but an m8 that I should weld the 28mm on because I never remove it and I used it a lot.
It really makes a beautiful studio look with profoto flash, actually prettiest file I have seen, but the studio is the last place you'd think about this camera, because it doesn't tether reliably and it's so small it's almost funny.
then again it changes everything when you use it because it forces you into making it work, which forces a different look.
So sometimes using a wrench for a hammer forces you to build a different house.
IMO
Bc
-
Sometimes no tethering is a godsend in a studio or on location.... One of the biggest differences I find between the M9 and a MF camera is by the end of the day my hand doesn't hurt..
-
@woof: what you say jives with what I've seen. If you can focus it, and feed it loads of photons, the Leica glass on an M9 works magic. It seems counter-intuitive, but the camera loves strobes.
The nice thing with the M-glass is that you can shoot wider-open and still get full quality, giving a shallower DOF and a more "MF-like" look. Trick becomes avoiding ghosting with the focal plane shutter and good modelling lights...
-
Actually in my M9 review I did compare it against the P30+ if anyone wants to read about it but it was pretty much on first release of the M9 so some firmware updates I'm sure have been done. I actually like the M system quite a bit and if i ever get the chance to retire it maybe my only kit to have. I used the M8 for a long time but needed bigger files and there are some limitations to this system that you just can't avoid so i moved up to MF but the M system is really nice especially with CCD sensors and the M glass. It compared pretty well but the end of day the P30+ was still a better file with IQ. But the M9 does compete pretty well. Someday I may buy the M9 but I like my Phase gear much better and the M system just does do everything I need even as a second kit.
Warning its a long thread http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10265
-
Which converter do you use for the M9 Guy?
-
very interesting to read. I would love to switch to an M9. And I would switch in a second if it was easy to focus and was an slr. Not saying that it would be better, but my style of photography needs to be quick to focus (pref af) and personally the viewfinder on a rangefinder bugs me. I wish it didn't!
Is it just sharpness you're saying is as good? Or tonality and colour too?
Sometimes image quality isn't just enough. It's the ergonomics of that camera that would mean I miss some shots. Maybe alot. Which as someone else funnily said, my wrench is as good as my hammer.
Either way, it's not going to be long before 35mm really does rival the P45's etc. These manufacturers must be worried!
Thanks,
-
How's your M9 for long exposures (multiple minutes)? Better or worse than the Phase backs?
I am bumping my own question to you woof75, in case you thought I was being rhetorical: I really would like to see this test being done, and you have the means to do it.
Thanks,
Ray
-
sharpness I find better, but more importantly tonality and colour I find to be the same. As I mentioned, I find the image characteristics to be very similar to a back whereas I find nothing else is. I do love the rangefinder, it's gorgeous but it's a pain and I'm not into manual focus and comparing it to a 1ds mark 3 it sucks when it comes to handling. Comparing it to a mamiya afd3 with a phase back I prefer it. For a start, there's virtually no shutter vibration, manual focus is slow but it's just as slow on a MF camera, at least the leica is accurate and most importantly for me it doesn't weigh a tonne. The viewfinder is funny, it's a bit weird to get used to but with wide lenses it's really nice, when I use my mamiya now it's like looking down a tunnel, the leica is a bit more present and immediate or something. Also, shooting people there's a lot less camera between you and the person.
-
oh sorry, no idea..
-
Given that an H25 from 2003 still beats a 1Ds III and 5D II in color, tonality, resolution, and noise when used at base ISO. Given that the several other advantages of medium format (e.g. leaf shutter lenses, tech camera bodies, view cameras, waist level finders etc) do not seem to be on the radar of Canon/Nikon etc. Given that 2010 was the strongest year we've had...
Worried is not the word I would use :-).
The death of MF is predicted to happen because of the next Canon/Nikon camera EVERY single time a Canon or Nikon camera is released or rumored to be released. It gets kind of tiresome.
-
I agree, I see almost no IQ improvement in the DLSR's over the last few years.
-
Have M9 and I am constantly blown away with the results. It is a joyful experience to use, but even better when you open the files.
Not sure if its the sensor, the lenses or the physics of rangefinder. Maybe it all adds up.
www.tjphoto.net
-
Not sure if its the sensor, the lenses or the physics of rangefinder. Maybe it all adds up.
Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
-
Which converter do you use for the M9 Guy?
Sorry I use C1 for pretty much all my cams. Today I have the Phase of course but i also recently got a Sony 850 for certain gigs and C1 does a nice job on those. But I am very prejudice on C1 and i fully admit it been a user since the 1ds days. It went ugly for a time being but the latest version is damn good.
-
Also i have said this many times and I know it will ruffle the dust feathers of all the Canon, Nikon and Sony shooters but IMHO for the best IQ nothing still beats a CCD sensor. I love CCD sensors and had several Leica's with CCD's the DMR, M8 and obviously shot the M9 and almost every digital back including the S2 and I just prefer CCD even though I have a Sony in my stable which is a nice cam. Between the M9 sensor and the M glass it is basically a mini MF cam in technical(sensor) terms and understand completely why folks like it. Also lets not leave out good raw conversion which is very important. The biggest issue with RF is the versatility of the system as a whole but if you can work within it than it is a powerful tool in your arsenal.
-
If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.
-
If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.
CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).
99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.
It's that simple.
-
CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).
99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.
It's that simple.
Could not have said it better myself. Also big issue is just imagine 100k or more customers complaining about moire what a PR nightmare that will be. They simply will not chance it and CCD do cost more I believe but don't quote me. LOL
-
one of the best features of the M9 is that it has a manual focus system that works much better than manual focus on any modern SLR, Medium Format or 35mm. Manual focus was good with matte screens with a split screen, when it was correctly calibrated, but today with only matte screens it is just not precise enough.
With the M9 I manage to nail focus much more often than with my Canon 1dsmk3, and it hardly feels much slower.
-
I really want to use one of these, but that focusing just scares me off the investment.
But that said, I don't want to invest in a high end back if 35mm dslr or rangefinder technology is starting to equal it at much lower cost.
-
How's your M9 for long exposures (multiple minutes)? Better or worse than the Phase backs?
M9 can be better. The non-plus backs are limited to a few minutes of exposure, and even the latest P40+ is limited to only one minute of exposure. The M9 may be limited to about 30 seconds, but due to the faster M lenses, as fast as F 0.95, the amount of exposure that is needed for the same scene is typically much less. A "fast" lens in medium format is typically F2.8, and even the latest digital large format lenses are only as fast as F4. So, the larger format lenses can require exposures that are eight to sixteen times longer.
-
How well does it work for subjects closer than 1m. (or any number of other situations where a small format rangefinder is not well suited to the task) ;)
Ultimately, IQ is only part of the picture. Horses for courses, use the tool that makes sense for the job you're asking it to do.
M9 can be better for closer than 1m. Depth of field can be larger due to the smaller format, so macro work can be preferable. Also, the Phase One 645 cameras do not have any waist level finder, often making it difficult to do some close up work. With the M9, you can easily use the Visoflex as shown in the image below:
-
If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.
It's called the Leica S2.
-
I've tried using canons and nikons instead of phase backs before and they weren't close enough for me but this M9 is a revelation.
If I may ask, which ones of the Canons and Nikons were you using?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Or Pentax 645D...
You really believe that CCD-s are superior to CMOS. DSLRs were mostly CCD based, but CMOS took over much doe to lower noise.
Best regards
Erik
It's called the Leica S2.
-
Sorry Doug,
CCD vs. CMOS doesn't relate to color and probably also not to tonality and DR. Both sensor types simply detect photons. Early DSLRs were mostly using CCDs and they mostly had AA-filters.
Color is dependent on CGA (Color Grid Array) and not on CCD vs. CMOS.
I don't argue about implementation. Very well possible that some vendors make better compromises than others. Phase seems to put a lot of effort in individual calibrations of their backs and they may capitalize on that with Capture One using proprietary information.
It is very probable that DSLRs are biased to high ISO performance. The choice of CGA (Color Grid Array) may be affected by that, leading to some "color blindness" on some DSLRs. There was an article on DxO-mark comparing color filters on recent Canon and Nikon cameras detecting some color blindness on the Canon.
It seems that Sony's Alpha 900 has "better color" than the Nikon D3X, although both use a similar Sony made sensor. The Nikon has better high ISO characteristics but is said to have less good color. This may be a design compromise in the CGA. Nikon probably has better processing pipe line (14 bits against Sony's 12 bits) making for better DR.
Lenses matter a lot. A good lens will transfer more contrast for fine detail. MTF falls almost linearly with frequency, so a sensor with twice the size will have twice the "microcontrast", add to that a very good lens and an MFDB has a real advantage. The Leica M9 doesn't benefit from sensor size but their new lenses designed in the "Kölsch era" seem to be truly excellent designs, the "Mandler era" design are according to my understanding closer to main stream.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html
Best regards
Erik
CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).
99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.
It's that simple.
-
CMOS took over much doe to lower noise.
http://www.dalsa.com/sensors/products/ccd_vs_cmos.aspx
-
Thats what I've found. You can't tether with the Leica but I use the P21, P30 and P40 from phase and I find the image quality of the Leica to be at least as good as the Phase backs. I don't find any difference in quality between the phase backs, there all slightly different but only slightly and I wouldn't put one above the others in terms of IQ. Unless your doing massive prints of course.. Up to 17 by 13 inches or so though the Leica is as good and has very similar image characteristics. Oh yes, the lenses on the Leica are better too.
I cringe whenever I see subject headings like this one.
Usually, the writer does not set out clear criteria for the comparison, often is comparing equipment of different generations(P21 is so old it's discontinued), has very narrow application of the gear etc, etc. etc.
By all means, express your opinion, but have some respect and dedicate more time and effort to the piece. Otherwise you run the risk of slandering a brand.
X is better than y - how, why, when, and in whose hands and with what level of expertise?
Give us more info or you risk appearing to be no more than a brand-whore.
-
Sorry Doug,
CCD vs. CMOS doesn't relate to color and probably also not to tonality and DR. Both sensor types simply detect photons. Early DSLRs were mostly using CCDs and they mostly had AA-filters.
Color is dependent on CGA (Color Grid Array) and not on CCD vs. CMOS.
I don't argue about implementation. Very well possible that some vendors make better compromises than others. Phase seems to put a lot of effort in individual calibrations of their backs and they may capitalize on that with Capture One using proprietary information.
It is very probable that DSLRs are biased to high ISO performance. The choice of CGA (Color Grid Array) may be affected by that, leading to some "color blindness" on some DSLRs. There was an article on DxO-mark comparing color filters on recent Canon and Nikon cameras detecting some color blindness on the Canon.
It seems that Sony's Alpha 900 has "better color" than the Nikon D3X, although both use a similar Sony made sensor. The Nikon has better high ISO characteristics but is said to have less good color. This may be a design compromise in the CGA. Nikon probably has better processing pipe line (14 bits against Sony's 12 bits) making for better DR.
Lenses matter a lot. A good lens will transfer more contrast for fine detail. MTF falls almost linearly with frequency, so a sensor with twice the size will have twice the "microcontrast", add to that a very good lens and an MFDB has a real advantage. The Leica M9 doesn't benefit from sensor size but their new lenses designed in the "Kölsch era" seem to be truly excellent designs, the "Mandler era" design are according to my understanding closer to main stream.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html
Best regards
Erik
You're a pretty brave man to take on someone with Doug's knowledge, experience and real-world acumen on this issue. I can't wait for the reply.
My understanding of colour in the digital era is that what happens on/in the sensor is but a part of an interconnected complex. The variables include optics, anti-reflection coatings, the sensors behaviour, analog-digital conversion, image processing and not to forget final display media to name but a few.
You are entitled to your view, but I think it's very simplistic.
-
I'm not exactly a brand whore, I own Mamiya, phase and leica. The qualifications are all in the thread if you read it.
-
Hi,
Yes characteristics of optical glass affect color and so may antireflex coating do that. Still maintain that sensors as such only count photons, so there is no difference between CCD sensors and CMOS. The color interpretation of the sensor is entirely decided by what is in front of it. Once photons are detected they are converted to a voltage (which lacks color) and that voltage is converted to a number, Thee numbers are also without color. The color is assigned in interpretation, taking different factors into account.
So I cannot see any advantage of CCDs vs CMOS regarding color.
Best regards
Erik
You're a pretty brave man to take on someone with Doug's knowledge, experience and real-world acumen on this issue. I can't wait for the reply.
My understanding of colour in the digital era is that what happens on/in the sensor is but a part of an interconnected complex. The variables include optics, anti-reflection coatings, the sensors behaviour, analog-digital conversion, image processing and not to forget final display media to name but a few.
You are entitled to your view, but I think it's very simplistic.
-
CCD does live video very well, as one can see whenever one watches a moon landing :) just "full frame CCD" doesn't.
As for Moiré, one can fight it optically by using a low-rez lens, no high frequencies ergo no Moiré. Of course, Leica lenses are not known for their low resolution, but my P45+ clearly outresolves the Mamiya lens it was delivered with, so no Moiré risk.
I'm slowly getting tired of battling the BS back and forth. Current MF cameras are cr*p bodies with decent sensors.
Edmund
CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).
99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.
It's that simple.
-
You're a pretty brave man to take on someone with Doug's knowledge, experience and real-world acumen on this issue. I can't wait for the reply.
Doug may be an expert on camera systems, usage, adaptation, processing, sales and so on, but he wouldn't be human if he didn't make the odd scientific slip.
From my time on this forum, it's become clear to me that Erik really knows his tech - I concur with everything he's said (apart from the fact that I know nothing about Leica design generations).
This is simple physics/engineering, universal in application and coldly objective: "real-world acumen" doesn't arise.
My understanding of colour in the digital era is that what happens on/in the sensor is but a part of an interconnected complex. The variables include optics, anti-reflection coatings, the sensors behaviour, analog-digital conversion, image processing and not to forget final display media to name but a few.
The point in dispute here is CCD vs. CMOS. So take away all of the variables which are common to both: "optics, antireflection coatings" - eliminate those because we can use the same lenses in front of both types of sensors; "image processing and not to forget final display media" - likewise, eliminate those: we can process and display CCD/CMOS images identically. What out of your list are we left with? "the sensors behaviour" - yes; but Erik already explained which aspects of the sensor's behaviour matter. And "analog-digital conversion" - I can see no physical reason why the ADC should have any impact on colour; the ADC operates on electrons (CCD) and voltages (CMOS), neither of which are coloured phenomena! The incoming photons brought the colour information, and they're long gone by the time we get to the ADC.
You are entitled to your view, but I think it's very simplistic.
Sometimes the truth is surprisingly simple.
Ray
-
@ tim jones: did you use the M9 for the - brilliant ! -commercial work shown on your website ?
Mario
-
good for you
if you cant tell the difference, you saved yourself a lot of bucks
Thats what I've found. You can't tether with the Leica but I use the P21, P30 and P40 from phase and I find the image quality of the Leica to be at least as good as the Phase backs. I don't find any difference in quality between the phase backs, there all slightly different but only slightly and I wouldn't put one above the others in terms of IQ. Unless your doing massive prints of course.. Up to 17 by 13 inches or so though the Leica is as good and has very similar image characteristics. Oh yes, the lenses on the Leica are better too.
-
I have used Phase backs ever since the P25 was released...now have the P65+ on an H2 body. A year ago I decided to get an M9 after reading many good reviews on the system, including the one on LL. I have been mesmerized by the camera and lenses..I would say, pixel for pixel, the M9 is all as good as my P65+....files are much smaller...18 mega pixels vs 60, but the light weight and portability is a good trade off. I will be going on an expedition to the high arctic Svalbard in early june and will be on zodiacs and kayaks, and shore landings and have chosen to take only my Leica M9 system and travel very light. I use primarily C1 to process my M9 files, but on occasion use Lightroom too. Eleanor
-
Mario,
yes, i would say about 50 % of the content on my site has been shot with the M9 .
I usually bring it along and pull it out and shoot a few while my canons are being unloaded.
The stuff i get out of the M9 always destroys the canon . I shoot with all the canon L primes, with the the 5Dmkii, EOSs 1 D mark iv
and the EOS 1 DS iii . The Leica kills it. I haven't been brave enough to shoot any jobs with it yet, but i'm getting there. It gets me jobs, though. I have a leaf aptus 22 back which is a really nice file maker . I would put the M9 right there with it.
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
-
recently I bought a second M9, now I finally feel 'brave enough' to use it commercially. This camera nailed the coffin of all my medium format attempts. In a controlled studio situation on a tripod my Canon delivers what I and my clients need beautifully. Off the tripod it's now only Leica M9 with aspherical glass for me. that's a sweet combination.
-
[envy]
M9, M9, M9,.....
I mean - doing great images is one thing ... but to impress the ladies ..... :P
Nothing beats the beauty of an old Zeiss Ikonta or a huge Deardorff ...
[/envy]
-
Fascinating reports on M9. For those of you who use M9 for landscape work, have you attempted stitch panoramas? I understand than one disadvantage of a rangefinder is that framing is not as precise
as that of a DSLR. I've used Canons and Nikons for stitching work, not because of need for big prints, but because I like the look stitch panorama using normal or mild telephoto lenses rather than a
cropped wide angle shots. So I have been seriously considering Leica M9 for travels and shooting in remote locations where a small lightweight kit would come in handy.
Thank you,
Richard
-
Hi Richard
(This topic really has not much do do anymore with medium format, anyhow...)
I use a Leica M9 for outdoor photography (besides my Nikon gear and a P45+) and am extremely pleased with it!
There's simply no other system on the market offering the same great quality in such a small package.
I use it mainly with the 24 mm, 35mm and 75mm, the 18mm and 135mm I only carry when I expect to really need them.
To shoot panoramics isn't any more difficult than with a single lens reflex, you get used to the range finder quickly, even hand held.
On the tripod, I use and recommmend the nodal point adapter from PT4Pano, a small German manufacturer
http://pt4pano.com/en/products/kiss-panorama-system
It's a great little smart and lightweight adapter, which lets me produce very precise panoramas with great detail.
Any stitching software will be able to render seamless images from those captures, I use Photoshop (CS5) and AutoPanoPro.
Mind you, if you never used a Leica before, you have to be aware that it's a whole different style of shooting: More demanding but at the same time more rewarding.
Good luck
Jost von Allmen
-
Mind you, if you never used a Leica before, you have to be aware that it's a whole different style of shooting: More demanding but at the same time more rewarding.
May I ask in what sense? Except for the rangefinder difference are there other things that would make it different from MF or 35mm? Thanks, Joris.
-
Mind you, if you never used a Leica before, you have to be aware that it's a whole different style of shooting: More demanding but at the same time more rewarding.
As a recent Leica owner, I would agree shooting it is more "demanding". Very old school. Difficult to master in some ways, and for those used to SLR's it takes some time to visualize the crop. Being left eye dominant makes it a little more challenging because it's really hard to use your left eye. Cropping is much less accurate, and focusing can be extremely challenging.
What I might dispute is your latter statement ... more rewarding. If by making something harder to do and then being able to still get great results offer some extra level of satisfaction ... not to me, I personally don't see that as a reward. I would describe the experience often as acceptable frustration ... much like when I shoot my p65+ on my Alpa.
I like the Leica because of its quality vs size. It's a great backup system for my MF gear, better than cameras like the GH2 and Sony A55 (although they are very good for the size as well). What would make it a much more usable landscape system would be liveView, so cropping and focusing aren't more like guess work.
I'm still not sure I"m going to keep mine ...
-
Thank you for the feedback Jost von Allmen, JV, and Wayne Fox. I appreciate all the comments, suggestions made as well as the questions raised.
This may turn out to be another "try before you buy" adventure like shopping for medium format. Years ago I was able to focus accurately on 4x5 and 8x10 ground glass, but I am not sure my
aging eyes would be up to that now - or the Leica rangefinder. The remarks lead me to believe it might be challenging. Will need to find a dealer who may be willing to rent over a weekend.
(Sorry about wondering off MF topic.)
Richard
-
Being left eye dominant makes it a little more challenging because it's really hard to use your left eye. Cropping is much less accurate, and focusing can be extremely challenging.
This is interesting because I focus with my left eye too and I don't find it any different or more difficult on DSLRs. Could you briefly explain why it would be more difficult for "left eye focusers" to focus on the Leica rangefinder?
-
Focusing the M8 isn't a problem at all. May come from some years of using film Leicas, but just look for a vertical and its pretty crisp. In fact, its one of the best features of the camera: you know what you are getting sharp.
Cropping is another matter entirely, although much better in the M9.
-
Focusing the M8 isn't a problem at all. May come from some years of using film Leicas, but just look for a vertical and its pretty crisp. In fact, its one of the best features of the camera: you know what you are getting sharp.
Cropping is another matter entirely, although much better in the M9.
Yes, as long as that 'vertical' is what you want sharp and you don't change the framing. Regarding DOF, it has nothing to do with being RF or SLR. The best advice I can give anybody is that DOF doesn't exist: you have a single sharp plane and nada mas: the rest is slow or rapid failure depending on size of image (and print) and stop selected. The best psychology is to think of the most important feature of the image and make that where you focus.
Focussing on one thing and then moving the camera to recompose is also a nonsense. Because you substitute-focus on a pole six feet from the camera you shouldn't assume that when you move slightly to frame another, difficult-to-focus subject also six feet away, that the two will both be sharp. Doesn't work like that; for it to happen, instead of your plane of sharp focus being flat, it would have to be a shell-shaped one or, in the extreme, a circular one allowing you to shoot behind your own back - something that HC-B might have appreciated. And unless you run riot with a tape, how do you know you've estimated the distance of the substitute correctly and that the real subject is exactly the same distance away? Guesswork...?
Easy answers are only to be found in advertisements.
;-(
Rob C
-
Rob, true enough, or rather was true enough, but the world is changing, focus-stacking is here. How long before we all have the option of auto in-camera focus-stacking?
I use focus stacking pretty often and in some cases you just have too. This is a IQ 180 5 shot focus stack done in Helicon Focus..
On the M9 i did a review on it many moons ago here http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10265 . I also tested it against my P30+ at the time. Too me it is the closet you will get to MF in 35mm. It is not there in resolution and DR but it is damn good and if it fit in my work I would have one again but the Sony 850 really is the versatile tool here for me along with my Phase P40+ which I love. Is it close the M9 yea but I would shoot the Phase kit over it any day when it counts. M9 for travel and street type work , can't be beat.
-
BTW that is with a prototype IQ 180 with the new 35D lens but I had a hood on it that vignetters slightly ( off brand metal hood). I liked it so kept it in there
-
I use focus stacking pretty often and in some cases you just have too. This is a IQ 180 5 shot focus stack done in Helicon Focus..
Looks like Heilcon didn't get the boundary between mountain and floor right on the horizon in your image. That's still a problem with stacking - its not perfect.
-
Looks like Heilcon didn't get the boundary between mountain and floor right on the horizon in your image. That's still a problem with stacking - its not perfect.
I actually had to replace the sky since i got ghosting. Perfect no but close. I think I worked on it more too. Sometimes it can be a real pain to work with and with wide angles even harder seems to do better with longer lenses which i have done with better results. I handheld this one too laying down on the ground so it could very well be me for sure.
-
I see what your saying on the horizon . I will go fix the final for sure. Thanks
-
Keith and Guy
Yes, what you say is true as well, but that's taking the argument(?) a little way out of the simpler question that was posed, which I take to mean the image as a straight shot. Otherwise, we may as well intruduce tilts and shifts etc. but they, too, suffer from the same fact that only one plane is ever critically crisp.
Your focus stacking example is certainly impressive and far more detailed, fore and aft, than I ever managed stopping down a 50mm Distagon on the 500 cameras!
Rob C
-
Problem is Rob we can never get that from fore to aft with any amount of stopping down with MF and even a lot with smaller formats at least with a shot like this even at F22 which we all know will cause diffraction. Honestly your hung out to dry here without some tricks. Sure tilt/shift lenses would certainly help and you are correct there will be a area that is critically sharp and the rest will just fall into place. Even a M9 here with say there Tri-Elmar at say F16 most likely will run into the same issue. This image posted is really pushing the technique a lot. I'm maybe the very minimum focus all the way out to infinity. Like 2 feet, hell that is bending things around pretty hard. I certainly would have been better on a small tripod than handholding for sure. This one is extreme and it really is better with a little more focal length to start with. But here I am after the wide angle effect or look so we need to find some type of workarounds. I love MF but it certainly has its challenges and DOF is the biggest IMHO. Now we need to remember to this is the monster rig out there also a FF 80mpx behemoth so maybe the absolute worst case scenario on DOF. There is a price to pay ( no pun intended ) on full frame sensors and DOF is it. On another note it is a blast shooting this damn back. It is a serious amount of detail that is just frightening. Honestly my eye cannot see anywhere near what this back picks up. That is just scary. LOL
I'm most likely just doing a lateral to a IQ 140 as it is plenty for me but I would love having the bad boy and I am even thinking of just getting a P65+ and holding off on the IQ which is a sweetheart on the tech side. I'm honestly torn on what to do.
-
This is interesting because I focus with my left eye too and I don't find it any different or more difficult on DSLRs. Could you briefly explain why it would be more difficult for "left eye focusers" to focus on the Leica rangefinder?
It's quite hard to get your left eye close enough to the viewfinder to see well. You have to smash your nose into the LCD. Cropping with a wide angle is really hard because it's difficult to actually see the crop guides with your left eye.
I've finally gave up and forced myself to use my right eye. I'm finally getting a used to it and getting much better at composing with the camera, but focusing is still challenging because often it is hard to find something on the exact plane of focus that lends itself to the rangefinder/split image thing. Often I focus by estimating measuring the distance and setting the lens.
As far as cropping I find myself sometimes doing what I do with my Alpa if I'm on a tripod... shoot/adjust/delete to fine tune cropping. I guess you could call this "liveview" about 1 frame per 5 seconds :)
If you manage to crop it well and get it focused, the resulting file is outstanding ... I would agree with a previous post its the closest thing I've seen to MFDB from this size of sensor. Certainly very high quality.
-
I'm not trying to be funny here, but is there any possibility that the M9 can be used upsde down to allow the best eye to do the focussing and then, once you've done that, swap back to the normal holding position? Okay, maybe useless for moving targets, but not everything runs, and if you don't shift your own stance...
Rob C
-
I am left-eyed and have a few M6's (I'm not sure how big a difference the form factor is compared to an M9). I actually enjoy focusing with the RF, especially the big bright view in the RF window. The only drawback with being left-eyed and using an M6 is that I have to move the camera away from my face to wind the film. It's just part of my process with the camera now, but obviously not a consideration with an M8/9.
Depending on the situation I either zone focus with smaller apertures, or if shooting wide open (which is most of the time) I focus then recompose if necessary. When forced to focus/recompose I try to focus on something that's close to the plane of focus as my subject, always aware that this involves compromises. Instead of shooting a burst like with a (D)SLR, I just keep the camera to my eye, focusing/refocusing, composing/recomposing until I think something good is happening or going to happen and click.
Missing focus is generally due to pretty obvious reasons: I didn't focus on the right spot, either me or the subject shifted, or due to recomposing. But then again, I miss focus using a DSLR with AF too. Nothing and no-one is infallible, especially when you're rushing or careless. You just have to learn the quirks of the system you're using. In fact, I would say the M is a camera you should use to the exclusion of everything else for a while to truly become comfortable with it. Not because it's "harder", but simply because it's different.
Everyone seems to want to get perfect sharpness out of the M lenses, but my opinion is that the M rewards wide open shooting with minimal light (bright RF, "gentle" shutter), so you are most likely trading off optimal sharpness in these situations anyway.
There is so much BS surrounding the Leica M. In my experience, yes, it's slower and it does make you think and work differently. This is all part of the mystique/quirkiness/joy/frustration with the camera. Whether it shows in the final result or not is up to debate. Whether anyone finds it more "rewarding" to use is up to personal preference. Personally speaking, I love shooting with the M, but contrary to all the Leica fondlers and haters, having a red dot doesn't make the camera or it's lenses automatically magically better or worse than anything else.
-
the screen surely is shite, one learns to interpret it. It doesn't help either, that the screen shows the RAW (DNG) and not a jpg rendering. the good thing is, it doesn't beautify the capture. if it looks crap on the screen, it usually is crap.
with my Canons it happens quite often that I presume a beautiful picture by looking at the back of the camera, only to realise later on my computer that it doen't hold up.
that is not an excuse for Leica to use such a bad screen. it seems there is no high rez screen in 2,5" available.
-
Hi,
The sensor use by both MFDBs and the Leica are very similar, except that most MFDBs don't have microlenses. Another factor may be that both MFDBs and the Leica are more often used with high quality primes while DSLRs are usually armed by zooms. In addition the Leica lenses are supposed to be very sharp.
I guess there is no way around MFDBs having more pixels than the Leica but I'd assume that at actual pixels the MFDBs and the Leica look quite similar.
I got the impression that exact focusing with the Leica is quite a challenge. Would be nice if Leica made a fully electronic package. Electronic viewfinder, live view. Not everybody's dream but may be the best way to extract optimum performance from the package.
Best regards
Erik
If you manage to crop it well and get it focused, the resulting file is outstanding ... I would agree with a previous post its the closest thing I've seen to MFDB from this size of sensor. Certainly very high quality.