Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on November 16, 2009, 12:53:07 pm
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers has tested the M9 in real life shooting and found a lot of issues, both on the sensor side but also with focusing ability.
The page is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html)
The "DAP" part of Lloyd Chambers site is a pay-site, but his writing is generally a good read and very careful in his analysis. So the 30USD the DAP costs is a great investment for anyone planning to spend like 10k on a camera/lens combo.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers has tested the M9 in real life shooting and found a lot of issues, both on the sensor side but also with focusing ability.
The page is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html)
I wouldn't buy a M9 before having read this.
The sensor issues were a surprise, but the difficulty to focus accurately should have been obvious to anyone having trying to optimize sharpness with recent DSLR equiped with live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A follow-up question to Lloyd´s review: Any comments/solutions to the documented color cast problem with Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon?
Best,
helge
-
It is amazing that a company so dedicated to optical excellence makes cameras that cannot be focussed precisely , while the technique is already there.
-
It is amazing that a company so dedicated to optical excellence makes cameras that cannot be focussed precisely , while the technique is already there.
Not so surprising looking at their history with digital.
-
Hi,
Let's be a bit more positive. Issues are found and most will probably sorted out.
The other problem that Lloyd found is that focusing accuracy is an issue with the longer lenses and that the range finder framing is not accurate enough. He also lack Live View. These problems are probably more like inherent in the concept and will not be fixed.
Best regards
Erik
Not so surprising looking at their history with digital.
-
Funny, the first M8 I used had focusing issues. The one I bought two years later focuses very nicely. I'll wait another year or so before I pick one up.
-
The other problem that Lloyd found is that focusing accuracy is an issue with the longer lenses and that the range finder framing is not accurate enough. He also lack Live View. These problems are probably more like inherent in the concept and will not be fixed.
But those are pretty big issues for a lot of people. What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.
If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. Some might disagree but to me the benefits of CMOS outweigh the benefits of FF-CCD at this point in time. The image quality gap is getting smaller and smaller with each new generation of CMOS, but FF-CCD isn't getting any better at addressing its weaknesses.
-
Hi,
Yes, the focusing accuracy issue is serious also in my opinion. Now, Lloyd Chambers is very careful with focusing, much more than most of us, I guess.
Erwin Puts, who seems to be a kind of Leica Guru says that there is a viewfinder loupe which is an absolute necessity for accurate focusing with longer lenses.
The problem is simply that it is a part of the concept, it seems that the mechanical precision may be good enough, but viewfinder magnification is to small for exact focus. Leica could increase viewfinder magnification but viewfinder would not work some of the shorter lenses.
I guess that the Leica is a very enjoyable camera but perhaps not the ultimate picture taking equipment it could have been with a more modern concept.
All this points deserve good consideration before parting from like 10k $
Best regards
Erik
But those are pretty big issues for a lot of people. What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.
If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. Some might disagree but to me the benefits of CMOS outweigh the benefits of FF-CCD at this point in time. The image quality gap is getting smaller and smaller with each new generation of CMOS, but FF-CCD isn't getting any better at addressing its weaknesses.
-
... What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.
If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. ...
Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.
Note that such a system would allow tilting the sensor to achieve better focus control with the entire M lens mount line.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Hi,
It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.
Best regards
Erik
Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.
Note that such a system would allow tilting the sensor to achieve better focus control with the entire M lens mount line.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Hi,
It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.
They can also be mounted on Nikon bodies thanks to this adapter (http://www.leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html) of which I have just purchased a copy (not used yet though).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This also isn't helped by the fact that many of the lenses front and back focus
-
Leica implemented a new calibration system in 2007 - calibration issues have become rare since then and most likely are a side effect of transport (you never know what happened to it until it reached the dealer).
Never had any of these issues with my 2006 M8 (one of the very first 2000) in the past 3 years or with any other M-body.
I don't know what digiloyd wrote in this review but focus precision can be calculated and compared to some degree to SLR-systems. The effective base length of the M8/9 makes it more precise than a SLR with lenses below 75mm focal length. It also absolutely no problem to focus a f1.4 50mm - but you have to get used to the rangefinder-principle.
The sensor delivers pristine quality at ISO160 and 320, comparable to most DSLRs up to 1000-1250ASA - I don't know if I would trade this quality in favor of usable 2500-6400ASA.
There are some rumors that Leica works on an EVIL-system to offer the combination of the M & R-system - but live-view would have been great with the M9 for sure, tripod-work is a pain in the a**.
-
A follow-up question to Lloyd´s review: Any comments/solutions to the documented color cast problem with Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon?
Best,
helge
It's a well known problem with not just Zeiss lenses but also some of Leica's lenses e.g., the 18mm, and has been discussed on the LUF extensively. Till Leica come up with a fix, CornerFix (http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix/) can correct the problem if you don't mind the extra step in post.
Sandy
-
It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.
The optics of interest to me are the rangefinder wide angles. Leica R wide angles are retrofocus and subject to the same difficulties of design as any other make's retrofocus lenses. The Photodo.com tests show them to be, on average, good but not spectacular lenses. There are other SLR wide angles that test out as just as good as the Leica R wides.
The advantage of rangefinder cameras is that they get away from the mirror and allow symmetrical wide angles. These are easier to correct and make for simpler, smaller, lighter lenses that are better. A TTL (live view) M mount would allow both these wide angles and accurate telephoto focusing on a full frame sensor. (Then there is the tilt possibility to really make things interesting.) The parts are in the bin for Consina-Zeiss or someone else to do this, and it could be a spectacular platform.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.
To add the Erik's reply, M mont lenses can also be used on m4/3 bodies ... but with a heavy crop that kills the wide options.
Hopefully the forthcoming Samsung NX ("Micro DX format") will likewise have a short enough registration distance to allow M mount adaptors: the side view images of NX prototypes show a quite shallow body. So you gain a little more wide angle coverage, but still ...
Maybe the question is if and when a company that truly understands the digital side of cameras (e.g. Canon or Nikon, not Leica) will launch an E.V.I.L. (mirrorless) full 35mm format system with registration distance compatible with an M mount adaptor.
Or maybe the time will come for someone like Zeiss or Cosina or even (swallowing its pride as a formerly very important camera maker) Leica to make high quality third party prime lenses for EVIL systems, in the Four Thirds to APS-C format sizes which I expect to dominate that type of camera. I agree with your guess above, as Zeiss has been far quicker at swallowing its pride and offering lenses in Nikon and Canon mounts.
-
unfortunately i don't think it's quite that easy
in order to use rangefinder-type lenses, the senso must have tilted microlenses like the M9 or something equivalent and to get the most out of lenses of Leica quality, it would be nice to have a full-frame 25-30 mp sensor. right now only Sony-Nikon and Canon have both technology and resources to do this (some others like Dalsa may have the technology but not the resources). Sony, Nikon, and Canon are not going to make bodies for Leica lenses, and they're probably not going to introduce a new system format with family of top quality lenses in the near future - or probably at a price much different from Leica
i'm afraid we may have to wait for the M10 and hope that Leica stays healthy
there are a lot of good reasons why rangefinder cameras are a niche product for a limited range of conditions and subjects compared to SLRs - a really high quality mirrorless camera would put Leica back in the main stream
-
It's too bad the new Samsung will use Optrontec lenses - an unknown Korean manufacturer that lacks an English website. The camera itself looks interesting, but I would assume that, at best, this is the lens manufacturer who does Phoenix and store-brand lenses - hardly as reassuring as if the lens partner had been Pentax or Schneider (or Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, even Tamron, Sigma or Tokina, etc...). Some speculation says that they also do the low-end Samsung compact lenses (the better ones are Schneider). It may adapt to take M lenses (although they are tricky, because they have shallow back focus themselves), but more likely is that it will take just about any SLR lens as a manual lens, but not an M lens, due to back focus issues.
-Dan
-
in order to use rangefinder-type lenses, the senso must have tilted microlenses like the M9 or something equivalent ...
True at least for getting good wide angle coverage with current microlenses ... though some of the newer CMOS sensors such as Panasonic's LiveMOS are apparently fairly good at accepting off-perpendicular light, and Dalsa says that its new microlens design essentially eliminates the off-perpendicular problem without needing the off-set fanciness. Makers of EVIL camera systems might follow Dalsa by refining sensor and microlens designs to accept highly off-perpendicular light, to allow greater flexibility and compactness in EVIL wide-angle lens designs. Already, the Panasonic 20/1.7 m4/3 lens is far more compact than its 25/1.4 SLR lens despite being only slightly slower and significantly wider, but that is only slightly wide.
My money is still on a middle way: EVIL wide angle lens designs that do not need to be as severely retro-focal as for SLRs, but with exit pupil high enough for the sensors to handle off-perpendicular light adequately, so maybe not the simplest, smallest classic rangefinder designs.
Given the enthusiasm for using all kinds of 35mm format legacy lenses on m4/3 bodies, despite the heavy FOV crop, I see a market for high quality third-party prime lenses here.
-
It's too bad the new Samsung will use Optrontec lenses ...
This does not surprise me, but where did you read this? Well, that could improve the market for my imagined high quality third party EVIL lenses!
P.S. Optrontec might well be the manufacturer of some of those Schneider-branded lenses too; Pentax seemed to make some of them for Samsung DSLRs, and I doubt that Schneider actually manufactures any such lenses, any more than Leica manufacturers lenses for Panasonic, or Zeiss manufactures lenses for Sony. (Design, maybe, but not always even that.) For lenses that I can afford, particularly ones that zoom or auto-focus, I have a prejudice for ones that carry a reputable Japanese brand like Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Pentax, rather than a prestigious German brand, because there is far more chance that it is actually the brand of the maker!
-
This does not surprise me, but where did you read this? Well, that could improve the market for my imagined high quality third party EVIL lenses!
P.S. Optrontec might well be the manufacturer of some of those Schneider-branded lenses too; Pentax seemed to make some of them for Samsung DSLRs, and I doubt that Schneider actually manufactures any such lenses, any more than Leica manufacturers lenses for Panasonic, or Zeiss manufactures lenses for Sony. (Design, maybe, but not always even that.) For lenses that I can afford, particularly ones that zoom or auto-focus, I have a prejudice for ones that carry a reputable Japanese brand like Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Pentax, rather than a prestigious German brand, because there is far more chance that it is actually the brand of the maker!
Optrontec actually put out a press release! As reported on k-rumors.com (July 9). The Sony "Zeiss" lenses are made in Japan (a country with its own very fine optical heritage) on Zeiss supplied equipment, supposedly with Zeiss quality control, and almost certainly by former Minolta (themselves highly reputable) lens technicians who now work for Sony (or by technicians who have been making well-regarded Sony video and cine lenses). I don't know the situation with the Panasonic "Leica" lenses as well, but it seems similar. I think the Samsung Schneider lenses are really Pentax lenses (they seemed to show up around the same time as the Samsung/Pentax partnership, with suspiciously similar specs)... I would assume that the "Schneiders" on compact cameras are probably also made by Pentax or someone else pretty good (they seem to be a real differentiator of the better Samsung compacts, just as only better Sony compacts have "Zeiss" lenses, and they do seem to be a cut above the lenses on their cheaper cameras).
Optrontec, on the other hand, is a company nobody's ever heard of as a lens maker, whose previous experience seems to be in cell phone camera lenses (I don't read Korean, so I can't confirm this from Optrontec's own website, but that showed up in some forum comments) and non-optical work. Additionally, they're located in a country where not a lot of lens manufacture takes place (very good and increasingly sophisticated electronics, yes -lenses, no), so skilled lens technicians may be harder to find. I don't have a prejudice one way or another between Japanese-made lenses with German names or Japanese ones, because optical gems like the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor are completely Japanese, but the 35mm f2 Zeiss Biogon is a German/Japanese collaboration - both are wonderful lenses. I just don't believe that a company that has never made high quality lenses under their own name is especially likely to step up and play with the big names (whether German or Japanese) who have been making great lenses for 40 to 100 years. Cell phone and low end compact camera lenses don't strike me as a resume that qualifies a firm to make great lenses for a DX sensor - I bet Samsung was planing to have Pentax make the lenses, probably with a Schneider label, then got caught when their partnership with Pentax ended, leaving them with nobody to use besides Optrontec.
-Dan
-
Yes, Diglloyds review is very interesting. The Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH vs Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon T on the M9 was also interesting in regard to the focusing issues with the M9.
He has also complete a review on the 50 f0.95 Noctulix on the M9. I could never afford one of there but still one can dream
-
My money is still on a middle way: EVIL...
Who would have thought even just a few years ago that evil could have been so good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Who would have thought even just a few years ago that evil could have been so good.
A funny thing: the acronym EVIL was invented about three years before any company announced any such product ... but when several companies were already secretly working on it. So this EVIL idea has been bubbling away underground and mostly out of sight for a while, and has only recently started revealing itself.
-
My money is still on a middle way: EVIL wide angle lens designs that do not need to be as severely retro-focal as for SLRs, but with exit pupil high enough for the sensors to handle off-perpendicular light adequately, so maybe not the simplest, smallest classic rangefinder designs.
This describes most of the current Leica M wide-angle lenses.
-
This describes most of the current Leica M wide-angle lenses.
Those lenses lose the "wide-angle" virtue when used with a 4/3" or APS-C format sensor. How wide-angle coverage will be restored was a main point of my original comment.
Also, at least some current RF wide-angle lenses do not fit my description when it comes to "exit pupil high enough for the sensors to handle off-perpendicular light adequately": that is why Leica and Kodak have hard to work hard on special micro-lens designs to handle the highly off-perpendicular incident light from some RF wide-angle lenses. Remember that a few years ago Leica sad that this was difficult to do, in explaining why the M8 had a 1.3x crop sensor.
-
It is amazing that a company so dedicated to optical excellence makes cameras that cannot be focussed precisely , while the technique is already there.
It is know that rangefinder lenses have to be accuratly calibrated to focus correctly.
The fact that the lenses of a camera tester were not properly calibrated (=faulty) doesnt say much about thecapability of the camera system itself.
Avoid the few lenses which are known for focus shift, test your lenses when you get them and make sure they are fine, get them calibrated if they are not fine, and then just use the smallest full frame sensor camera with a full range of excellent primes.