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 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?  (Read 146173 times)

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #140 on: August 20, 2012, 07:54:04 AM »

Looks like there may soon be another full-frame camera to attach Leica lenses to.  Rumor has it that Sony is developing a full-frame camera with an 18mm flange to sensor dimension (e-mount).  From all the buzz on the various Sony sites there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm.  Of course it's just a rumor, but stranger things have happened.  This would be a direct way of polling how many people want Leica just for their lenses.
if Sony does that FF  for 2000  I shall never buy a Leica for 8000
it's a good answer to the question I guess :-)
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #141 on: August 20, 2012, 09:54:56 AM »

because for A2  you don't need so many pixels, it's heavy and un-necessary, and diffraction will be worst than it is now

Diffraction is always the same, with lesser systems you just can not see it. Sharper sensor will always make pictures sharper than a less sharp (less resolving) sensor, diffraction or no diffraction.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #142 on: August 20, 2012, 09:58:13 AM »

Diffraction is always the same, with lesser systems you just can not see it. Sharper sensor will always make pictures sharper than a less sharp (less resolving) sensor, diffraction or no diffraction.
no diffraction is not always the same
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #143 on: August 20, 2012, 11:49:08 AM »

no diffraction is not always the same

Diffraction is only dependent of the f-stop. Not sensor size, sensor resolution, image circle, lens quality. It can be calculated from a simple physical formula. That way it is always the same for the same f-stop. If the sensor and lens resolution* is better than the diffraction limit, it shows. If the sensor and lens resolution is less, it does not show (as much**). As the tests and common sense has proved, a sensor with better resolution than the diffraction limit makes sharper pictures even with diffraction coming into play than a sensor which falls short of the diffraction limit.

* meaning that the lens is diffraction limited, not optical quality limited.
** all quality constrictions affect the final output to some extent. It is like a chain of quality damaging factors (=>1) where the product of all the factors determines the final quality. If one of them approaches 1 its effect becomes negligible. With a truly good lens diffraction "factor" is practically 1 when using large apertures below the diffraction limit of the system.
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #144 on: August 20, 2012, 03:16:36 PM »

Diffraction is only dependent of the f-stop. Not sensor size, sensor resolution, image circle, lens quality. It can be calculated from a simple physical formula. That way it is always the same for the same f-stop. If the sensor and lens resolution* is better than the diffraction limit, it shows. If the sensor and lens resolution is less, it does not show (as much**). As the tests and common sense has proved, a sensor with better resolution than the diffraction limit makes sharper pictures even with diffraction coming into play than a sensor which falls short of the diffraction limit.

* meaning that the lens is diffraction limited, not optical quality limited.
** all quality constrictions affect the final output to some extent. It is like a chain of quality damaging factors (=>1) where the product of all the factors determines the final quality. If one of them approaches 1 its effect becomes negligible. With a truly good lens diffraction "factor" is practically 1 when using large apertures below the diffraction limit of the system.
diffraction depends on the pitch,  the distance between 2 pixels
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #145 on: August 20, 2012, 03:35:02 PM »

diffraction depends on the pitch,  the distance between 2 pixels

True, maybe I was not precise enough. I meant sensor resolution measured as pixel pitch, not number of pixels in the image. To nitpick: diffraction LIMIT depends on the pitch, diffraction itself is just dependent of f-stop, even if the lens was not attached to anything...

Diffraction limits can of course be calculated for different pitch resolutions for each sensor size just as easily. See the local chart for diffraction limits for each sensor size: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml , end of the article.

In any case the diffraction limit is the same for all (pitch) resolutions irregardless of sensor size. If we have different size sensors with different pixel pitch we get different diffraction limits. See the chart at the end of the linked article.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 03:37:24 PM by Petrus »
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #146 on: August 20, 2012, 04:06:36 PM »

Thanks Petrus
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Quentin on Facebook
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #147 on: September 08, 2012, 11:45:20 AM »

Basically we should just use bigger sensors. Cramming ever more pixels on to a redundant format that was not even ideal for still photography when it was first introduced is becaming increasingly ridiculous.
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14669
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #148 on: September 11, 2012, 11:10:13 AM »

Basically we should just use bigger sensors. Cramming ever more pixels on to a redundant format that was not even ideal for still photography when it was first introduced is becaming increasingly ridiculous.



If you refer to 35mm cameras (135 format) then I have to say you are mistaken; I made most of my career out of 35mm and Kodachrome, despite owning two 500 Series 'blads at the same time as the Nikons. What 35mm did for me, it did very well and better than I could do by going larger; it's seldom all about one factor.

Rob C

lowep

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
    • http://sites.google.com/site/peterlowefoto/
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #149 on: September 18, 2012, 03:33:00 AM »

How about "Texas Leica" MF digital rangefinder cameras like this one???
Logged

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • http://
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #150 on: September 21, 2012, 05:12:31 AM »

now both are perfect  and my M9 for sale in february  :P
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 05:17:01 AM by erickb »
Logged

John Gellings

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #151 on: November 29, 2012, 09:59:42 AM »

The only reason I use a M8/M9 is because of the rangefinder.  
Logged

IWC Doppel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #152 on: December 08, 2012, 02:08:59 PM »

The answer for me is both. I LOVE the look of older Leica glass and have no interest in a large DSLR. I moveforgot M8 to M9-P and have managed to accumulate 8 Leica lenses, I seem to settle on between 6 and 10 lenses. I have a few more to try before settling on a target of 6 lenses.

Logged

Shrev94412

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
  • Nikon, Hasselblad and Phase One Shooter
    • Robert Shreve Photography
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #153 on: January 21, 2013, 03:19:39 PM »

Michael,

Like others have said, I appreciate what you do here with this site. I have shot with many cameras including back in film days. The past five years has been a great camera rotation, buying and selling in hopes to find the ultimate image quality. I currently have a Nikon D3X, Nikon D800E, Many Nikon High End Lenses, Hasselblad H4D-40 with three lenses, Fuji GX617 Film Camera with three lenses and print to my Epson 4880 and 9900. In other words I use and try alot of equipment whether its mine or a loaner from a dealer.

I am currently looking at buying a Leica M system and lenses. Why? because the images from the camera and lenses look so dramatically different from anything else I have seen. But the main reason is because I just turned 50 and some of the places I have been hiking in and out of are just wearing me out carrying a Hassy or a DSLR and heavy glass. I can do it now, barely and I am in really great shape, but will I be able to do it in 10 more years.

So two main reasons, Image Quality and Portability. Headed back to Europe this spring and I am thinking that the rangefinder solution would be way more fun to carry around than a Nikon with a couple of heavy lenses. I think there is a future for lightweight, high quality camera gear, rangefinder or not. Sorry I cannot offer a "Technical Reason", I think the look of the images speaks for itself.


PS: Got the chance to meet Jeff Schewe at an Alain Briot seminar last November. What a great guy! Alain as welL. Both fantastic guys!
Logged
Check out my work at www.robertshrevephotography.com

Remember "Nobody want picture of monkey with tail cut off!"

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
DxO tests the Leica M
« Reply #154 on: March 13, 2013, 04:11:04 AM »

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Leica-M9-M9-P-and-M-E-Type-220-Ahead-of-the-new-Leica-M-we-round-up-the-DxOMark-Scores-of-its-predecessors/Conclusion

"In fact, with a DxOMark Overall Score of 68, or 69 for the Leica M9, M9-P and ME Type 220, these cameras offer the worst image quality DxOMark have tested on a full frame sensor, with the exception of the 10-year-old Canon EOS 1Ds."
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #155 on: March 13, 2013, 04:35:03 AM »

I am thinking that the rangefinder solution would be way more fun to carry around than a Nikon with a couple of heavy lenses.

My Nikon kit (D4 & D800E) weights 12 kg, while Fujifilm X-Pro1 & X-E1 kit is 2.5 kg (both with bag & rechargers). Guess which one I am taking to Nepal for 4 weeks of trekking?

Here are some samples from the Fujis:

https://picasaweb.google.com/109958612223411682295/Jerusalem2012?authuser=0&feat=directlink
http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/kuvat/kuvakertomukset/hyvaa-huomenta-burma

I did not even consider Leicas for both price, weight and image quality reasons. A lot of travel reportage happens in high ISO situations where Fujis excel.
Logged

MartinDahl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #156 on: March 15, 2013, 02:02:54 PM »

Hi all

Since Leica started shipping the much anticipated M240 a couple of weeks ago I would like to hear from real users of this gem.... are you happy now ? :-)
I will get mine in june  :-[

br
Martin
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14669
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #157 on: March 19, 2013, 01:51:31 PM »

Let's hope for your sake that in the reality it proves a bit more than a gem: Leica has already made plenty of them.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 10:52:03 AM by Rob C »
Logged

sinwen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: M Leica – Camera or Lenses?
« Reply #158 on: March 27, 2013, 04:26:14 PM »

I would answer the question first : lenses.

Long ago I was wondering what could be that little plus Leica could have that a Japanese brand was lacking for the enormous price difference.
Until the Nikon FA hit the shelves, the F…k All we used to call it, because it was really flawed ! I already had a very bad experience with the EL, destroying ten rolls of Kodachrome.

From that point on I knew the trend would be going all electronic. So I stepped into Leica.
Then I discovered deep detailed shadows in my slides, sharpness right into the corners, unctuous greys in the prints…. and as the equipment can last a life or two, I switched to Leica entirely.

Then digital arised and there Leica was lost. They shine in optical and micromechanical, they are specialists, but electronics is a complete different world, far less demanding with programmed obsolescence policy. This is a consumer industry, high turnover and low reliability. Two opposite worlds that tatooed Leica cannot grasp, they still identify Leica with abosolute quality, they throw 7000 $ into a piece of electronic that Leica doesn’t produce, believing they are buying the long famous high quality product.

The lenses remain what they have always been (at least until Leica get into AF) excellent, but the cameras have nothing to see with what they used to be, it is electronics into a Leica box, their value should be around 800, period.

Now if the question was about Leica film M cameras vs lenses, my answer wouldn’t be so straight. Range finder shines for candid shoots, but I manage as well with reflex. Where RF is best suited for is low light situations…..if you have a Leica lens together with. So I would keep my first answer : lenses.

Going a bit further, as I said earlier, the day Leica get into AF, then just forget about the brand altogether. They are thirty years late on this, they will have to switch to plastic components and again electronic and they will ask you 4000 for a lens…. then the answer to the question would be : neither.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1734
RF Cameras
« Reply #159 on: March 31, 2013, 06:14:31 PM »

I know the poll is long closed (been offline for nearly four years due to nasty nerve compression issues, now thankfully resolved), but what the hey, I'll chime in anyway.

The camera where photography really clicked (sorry) for me was my dad's M2. Lucky for me, he actually preferred his Kodak Retina IIc 'cuz he could tuck it away in a jacket pocket whenever my mom wanted him to pay attention to more "important" stuff.  ;) Lining up those two images in the viewfinder just made such intuitive sense...I took to it immediately and before long the M2 was effectively mine (and later on became officially mine as part of a birthday present).

So for me the RF camera is the thing. Doesn't matter much who makes it. Leicas, Contaxes, Kievs, Voigtlanders, Epson (the RD-1...actually an Epson/Cosina collaboration, of course), whomever. Now I certainly don't object to a great lens, and I own my share. But give me a Voigt Bessa (the original LTM version) and an uncoated Leitz 50mm Summar, with its weird way of interpreting light, and I'll still have a great time seeing interesting, pleasing compositions and pushing the shutter button. I'll take an M240 too, of course, and imagine I'll end up getting one. Imagine the Summar on *that* camera!

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Up