Poll

Why do you own a digital M Leica?

Because I prefer shooting with a rangefinder.
- 9 (45%)
Because I want to use Leica and other M lenses.
- 11 (55%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Voting closed: October 30, 2011, 08:03:58 AM


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?  (Read 146022 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14649
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #100 on: April 16, 2012, 04:17:26 AM »

Rob - get some Tri-X! Seeing this book of Jean Loup Sief made pretty clear we don't need no stupid megapixels ...



Yes, he's an inspiration. But then, I worked through much of the same period and already know all any practical photographer needs to know about 35mm films and what they can do; the problem today is that analogue stuff has become the new luxury. I'm retired, money no longer hangs for the plucking from the tree of life and the sweet fruits of my labours are dying, rotting from lack of interest as they lie in the bank. I hope they still lie in the bank.

I share Slobodan's predicament and understand too well the anxieties therefrom, to which I can add: will I outlive my bank statement? Will my eyes deteriorate until I can no longer drive? Will governments screw my kids? Those are the real worries, not friggin' megapixels dancing on the nose of an invisible fantasy at 100%!

As with so much, we gain some and lose a hell of a lot more.

I envy you that Mamiya 67 ll!

Rob C
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 04:30:44 AM by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14649
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #101 on: April 16, 2012, 04:28:33 AM »

Well I'd be very eager to order a 24MP Leica M with a CMOS sensor and live view. Add a cheap built in digital viewfinder, like the Sony Nex7, and they can dump their complex focusing system and hopefully lower the price too.

The two biggest things holding me back from buying into the M system is the weight of the M9 body and the rangefinder optical system with no live view as an option.



Well, I can confidently say that the single thing holding me back is the price of the damned thing. It's sad to read people feeling turned off because a camera, designed to follow in the path of its very successful forebears is castigated for doing just that. A pox on new viewing systems; people made beautiful pictures with the cameras exactly as they were. It smells of standard excuses for less than great visions. If I had this, then I could do that, blah, blah, blah. IMO. Heysoos! the majority of the world's greates images was made long before digital (and its marketing games) was even a wet nightmare in Kodak's lap.

Rob C
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 04:32:16 AM by Rob C »
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #102 on: April 16, 2012, 08:10:57 AM »

Yes, he's an inspiration. But then, I worked through much of the same period and already know all any practical photographer needs to know about 35mm films and what they can do; the problem today is that analogue stuff has become the new luxury. I'm retired, money no longer hangs for the plucking from the tree of life and the sweet fruits of my labours are dying, rotting from lack of interest as they lie in the bank. I hope they still lie in the bank.

I share Slobodan's predicament and understand too well the anxieties therefrom, to which I can add: will I outlive my bank statement? Will my eyes deteriorate until I can no longer drive? Will governments screw my kids? Those are the real worries, not friggin' megapixels dancing on the nose of an invisible fantasy at 100%!

As with so much, we gain some and lose a hell of a lot more.

I envy you that Mamiya 67 ll!

Rob C

Honestly - I'm considering doing some street photography with Tri-X (for the look of it) with the old Minolta SRT 101b I inherited from my late stepfather. Some might call it retro - I just wouldn''t care ...

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14649
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #103 on: April 16, 2012, 09:31:46 AM »

Honestly - I'm considering doing some street photography with Tri-X (for the look of it) with the old Minolta SRT 101b I inherited from my late stepfather. Some might call it retro - I just wouldn''t care ...


Hey, retro is chic!

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14649
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #104 on: April 16, 2012, 01:44:45 PM »

Keith -

Now this is retro: shot on the 'phone whilst coveting Christoph's Mamiload of Velvia a couple of days ago.

In my own best Velvia simulation, and with Eats Shoots And Leaves in mind.

Rob C

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #105 on: April 16, 2012, 02:55:53 PM »

The M9 is almost perfect, save the (over) price of the body and lenses.  I've had a raft of M cameras, the M6 being the best of the bunch.  What I eventually realized is that the Fuji X100 suits me just fine, and the extra features, which I never thought I'd use, are really welcome.  It has roughly 90% of the IQ of an M8, but with a (much) broader DR, and quality ISO up to, really, 3200 with a bit of work.  The in camera JPEGS are really very good, as is the color and auto WB.  Really amazing.  I've never used JPEGS straight from the camera, but the little Fuji makes that possible.  I use the Fuji just like I used my M8 and M9:  as B camera on editorial shoots and for street shooting, as well as shots of the kids etc. 

The problem with Leica, in my mind, is that the cameras and lenses are too expensive for their limited usability in either a professional or personal context.  They are ideal for street shooting and any situation where their small size and low key presence is needed, but other cameras can do this as well, for far less capital.  And in a JPEG digital world, the M9 files are overkill in most situations. 

The major technical issue, to me, are the fixed, inaccurate framelines.  I'm sure this was an issue with the film cameras, but with digital and instant review, the issue is immediatly brought to your attention, causing you to reshoot and reshoot and reshoot until what you saw through teh VF shows up on the screen.  I think I never noticed this with film because the lag time between pressing the buton and seeing the contacts made fuzzy the memory of what you were trying to shoot.  Otherwise, the VF of the M cameras is fine with me. 

I hope they keep making them, and I hope they don't fool around too much with the VF.  Maybe make the frame lines truly variable, and cut the cost of them to something that a professional would really use, not just a novelty or fetish item.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #106 on: April 17, 2012, 02:16:01 AM »

I live in hope that the M10 has the means to check critical framing and focus pre-capture but I won't be holding my breath.
if not I could at once sell all my Leica M gear , I don't like the M9 but I'd like to keep on using the lenses
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #107 on: April 17, 2012, 08:14:56 PM »

I hope the M10 has a CMOS-based sensor with live view, with at least 36MP, maybe even 54MP, like a scaled-up NEX-7 (some rumours say it will use a Sony sensor, so that's not out of the question).

The Leica lenses are spectacular, as are some of the other M-mount-compatible lenses (Zeiss Distagon 15mm, Voigtlander 12mm). But, when shooting UWAs, you are often very close to foreground subjects and parallax error becomes significant in the absence of through-the-lens composition and focusing.

If the M10 has a high-resolution sensor and live view, I'll be buying one as my 'daytime' kit for hiking/trekking/climbing (with the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21, Distagon 15 and Voigtlander 12mm, and maybe a telephoto), leaving my heavy gear with the porters, mules or camels for shooting in the 'golden hours' and at night around camp.

Also, I wouldn't mind a Leica 14mm lens or tilt-shift...
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #108 on: April 17, 2012, 10:39:34 PM »

I wouldn't mind a Leica 14mm lens or tilt-shift...
I need a TS lens too, if a Leica is M and R mount it will be possible  a 28mm shift Super Angulon
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #109 on: April 17, 2012, 10:55:13 PM »

I need a TS lens too, if a Leica is M and R mount it will be possible  a 28mm shift Super Angulon

A tilt-shift lens would only make sense if the M10 has live view. Without live view or another kind of TTL focusing and composition tool, you couldn't focus a tilt-shift lens.

I'd like to see 14mm, 24mm and 100mm versions.

I also wouldn't mind a version with a tiltable sensor (similar technology to the rotating sensors seen on the current Olympus models) to allow us to control the plane of focus with current lenses. With increasing megapixel counts and diffraction becoming an issue at wider and wider f-stops, this is something which all manufacturers should consider - with a dense enough sensor, diffraction may kick in at f/5.6, but, by tilting the sensor, f/5.6 could cover everything from close-up all the way to infinity.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #110 on: April 17, 2012, 10:59:39 PM »

without liveview or evf or any of this kind I'll sell all, for me the M9 sucks


I hope the M10 ...., with at least 36MP, maybe even 54MP
18 mp are enough   and 36 mp  is a no way on 24x36  for 99% of M users   
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #111 on: April 17, 2012, 11:16:37 PM »

without liveview or evf or any of this kind I'll sell all, for me the M9 sucks

18 mp are enough   and 36 mp  is a no way on 24x36  for 99% of M users   

But 54MP doesn't hurt (particularly with the ultra-sharp Leica and Zeiss lenses which can take advantage of the resolution), and they can always implement a sRAW format for those who don't want huge files.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #112 on: April 17, 2012, 11:33:57 PM »

But 54MP doesn't hurt
with any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
why do you need 54mp ?   do you plan to print 3 meters posters ?
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #113 on: April 18, 2012, 12:25:16 AM »

with any of the bests lenses in the world you will get diffraction at f/8
why do you need 54mp ?   do you plan to print 3 meters posters ?


Yes. For viewing at 10cm as well as appreciating from afar.

Sure, you'll get some decreased contrast at f/8 at the pixel level, but you will still continue to gain overall resolution. And, even regarding a circle of confusion of 0.008 as being sharp (as opposed to the usual 0.03, which isn't really all that sharp) you can still shoot most landscapes at f/6.3. At worst, you won't suffer a huge hit by stopping down to f/10 for more DOF - and, if tilt becomes available, all bets are off the table.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #114 on: April 18, 2012, 12:30:36 AM »

54mp on 24x36   is the worst that can happen in digital photography
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #115 on: April 18, 2012, 12:48:44 AM »

54mp on 24x36   is the worst that can happen in digital photography

It's the same pixel pitch as 24MP on the NEX-7 - and that camera has great IQ even at the pixel level. 54MP would make it two-and-a-quarter NEX-7s stuck together, with the advantage of a 14- or 16-bit A/D converter.

And, if it's depth of field you're worried about, then there's no point to 80MP on the IQ180 either - the larger photosites are cancelled out by the longer focal lengths used.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #116 on: April 18, 2012, 01:39:00 AM »

there is no reasons to get 54 mp , no needs and no reasons 99.99...% of photographers pro or not never print over A2
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 01:40:33 AM by erickb »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #117 on: April 18, 2012, 01:42:15 AM »

there is no reason to get 54 mp , no needs and no reasons

Why not, if the technology is there?

If the concern is pixel pitch, then there's no reason for the NEX-7 (same pixel pitch as 54MP full-frame), 7D (45MP full-frame) or D7000 (36MP full-frame) either.

If the concern is total megapixel count, then there's no reason for the IQ160, IQ180, P65+ and any number of other MF backs either, nor is there a reason for large-format film.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #118 on: April 18, 2012, 02:02:16 AM »

Why not, if the technology is there?

If the concern is pixel pitch, then there's no reason for the NEX-7 (same pixel pitch as 54MP full-frame), 7D (45MP full-frame) or D7000 (36MP full-frame) either.

If the concern is total megapixel count, then there's no reason for the IQ160, IQ180, P65+ and any number of other MF backs either, nor is there a reason for large-format film.
when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7

if there is no needs for so many pixels why do you want to buy it ?  me not
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1655
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #119 on: April 18, 2012, 02:25:00 AM »

when you buy a IQ 180 you need it for your job , I am not really sure it is the same situation for a Sony Nex 7

if there is no needs for so many pixels why do you want to buy it ?  me not


Because, with a high enough resolution and sharp enough lens, you'd be able to use a 35mm sensor for things you'd previously require a MF back to shoot - effectively, you'd be able to replace the MF back for all but the most specialised purposes. 54MP on a full-frame sensor equates to 150ppi on a 40x60" print - a fairly significant milestone. At 21MP, you're getting just 96ppi.

Theoretically, an 80MP MF sensor should have no advantage over an 80MP 35mm sensor, apart from high ISO capability. In practice, it doesn't have an ISO advantage either, because all current MF sensors use CCD rather than CMOS technology. The 35mm sensor will be diffraction-limited at a wider aperture, but this is offset exactly by the fact that the MF sensor needs to be shot at a narrower aperture to achieve the same depth of field. The 35mm sensor requires more precise lenses, but it's easier to build a precise lens to cover a 35mm sensor (plus movements) than to build one to cover a MF sensor (plus movements). The MF sensor, built using the same technology as the 35mm sensor, will have less per-pixel noise, but, owing to the narrower aperture, will need to be shot at a higher ISO to achieve the same depth of field at the same shutter speed. Therefore, the MF back will only have an advantage when shutter speed doesn't matter - if you can expose for as long as you like and have the cameras on a tripod, the MF sensor will give a cleaner image, at the expense of having a shutter speed 3 to 4 times as long (the difference in total sensor area between the two sensors).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Up