The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun w/Digital M Images

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lloyd

Active member
Thanks guys, always appreciate your comments.

Is it me, or is quiet in here lately? Is everyone out shooting with the Nex7? :ROTFL:

Mike

(I'm waiting for more detail on the OM-D, but the Nex7 and new Fuji are interesting :))
I'm thinking the same, Mike. I'm very interested in the new Fuji myself. Interesting time for Leica shooters for sure.
 
W

Wozza604

Guest
Godfrey and Wozza, very nice images, with lenses that each have intrigued me for some time.
Thanks Lloyd! the Triplet is a finicky lens that I think lacks the character of the Zeiss Biogon 35mm. Even the Voigtlander 1.4/35 has more character, but the Super Triplet is MUCH sharper than that lens. In fact, it may be even sharper than the Zeiss. It does have good contrast and sharpness, but gets weird flares at times. I haven't shot with it enough to have a true sense of it's image properties, but it's operation is frustrating at best. There's nothing quite like trying to adjust your aperture and accidentally collapsing your lens instead.

So far I really can't recommend it, unless you truly need the most compact solution available.
 

Lloyd

Active member
Thanks Lloyd! the Triplet is a finicky lens that I think lacks the character of the Zeiss Biogon 35mm. Even the Voigtlander 1.4/35 has more character, but the Super Triplet is MUCH sharper than that lens. In fact, it may be even sharper than the Zeiss. It does have good contrast and sharpness, but gets weird flares at times. I haven't shot with it enough to have a true sense of it's image properties, but it's operation is frustrating at best. There's nothing quite like trying to adjust your aperture and accidentally collapsing your lens instead.

So far I really can't recommend it, unless you truly need the most compact solution available.
Hmm, good to know. I don't think it's worth the frustration to me. Thanks for taking the time to provide that info.
 
W

Wozza604

Guest
I'm thinking the same, Mike. I'm very interested in the new Fuji myself. Interesting time for Leica shooters for sure.
I'm interested in the Fuji as well, but I'm also still tempted by the GRX with the A12 M module after seeing some of the amazing shots Ashwin has taken with it. I still wish someone would come up with at Full-Frame alternative to the M9 as a backup though.

These days I've been wondering how much of the Leica look comes from the sensor and not just the lens because Leica glass on my NEX-5 just does not have the same magic.
 

Jerry_R

New member
wish someone would come up with at Full-Frame alternative to the M9 as a backup though [...]
how much of the Leica look comes from the sensor and not just the lens because Leica glass on my NEX-5 just does not have the same magic.
That is the point, and you are going in good direction, which is... full frame.
Yes, APS-C kills character of M lenses.

You can read more here in this thread:
Sony NEX-C3 first impressions - FM Forums

Especially starting from post p.6 #3 and thread author words: " The flip side is that the crop sensor makes it essentially impossible to get that special look" and through further discussion.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey and Wozza, very nice images, with lenses that each have intrigued me for some time.
Thank you!

Mine is an M-Rokkor 40/2 second generation, shipped with the Minolta CLE.

My understanding is that the Summicron-C 40/2 and M-Rokkor 40/2 first gen were identical designs, but built in Germany and Japan respectively, where the second gen M-Rokkor 40mm was updated with multi-coating and otherwise almost identical. I know the focusing tab and ring are a little different from the first gen too.

The first gen and its Summicron-C sibling are pretty much identical in performance, the second gen has less tendency to flare. I went for the M-Rokkor rather than the Summicron-C because it's a lot easier to get 40.5mm filters for it.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
That is the point, and you are going in good direction, which is... full frame.
Yes, APS-C kills character of M lenses.

You can read more here in this thread:
Sony NEX-C3 first impressions - FM Forums

Especially starting from post p.6 #3 and thread author words: " The flip side is that the crop sensor makes it essentially impossible to get that special look" and through further discussion.
I disagree. I have the Ricoh GXR-M mount setup as well as the M9 now. The GXR-M produces rendering qualities very similar to the same lens used on the M9, moreso than I see with the Sony NEX 5n.

I think the sensor is key here in that the sensors of both these cameras lack an AA filter and have sufficient pixel resolution which enables the lens drawing to be more accurately rendered. There is the consideration of the FoV to DoF coupling as well influencing how the images look, but when I compare an image made by the M9 to the same image made with the GXR-M, just cropped to the FoV of the GXR format, they look very close to identical.

The Sonys all have AA filters, even though the one in the 5n body is lighter than in other NEX cameras.
 
W

Wozza604

Guest
I disagree. I have the Ricoh GXR-M mount setup as well as the M9 now. The GXR-M produces rendering qualities very similar to the same lens used on the M9, moreso than I see with the Sony NEX 5n.

I think the sensor is key here in that the sensors of both these cameras lack an AA filter and have sufficient pixel resolution which enables the lens drawing to be more accurately rendered. There is the consideration of the FoV to DoF coupling as well influencing how the images look, but when I compare an image made by the M9 to the same image made with the GXR-M, just cropped to the FoV of the GXR format, they look very close to identical.

The Sonys all have AA filters, even though the one in the 5n body is lighter than in other NEX cameras.
I'm with you on this one, but I'd like to add that I think it goes beyond the AA filter issue. I think the M9 and M8 look very similar, aside from the M8 have a narrow field of view. What they have in common is they both have a Kodak CCD sensor which is similar in design to the ones used in medium format digital backs. I think the way CCDs gather light give images a slightly different quality to the way CMOS sensors do. So I believe it goes beyond AA filters and sensor size, but I agree, a lot of GXR-M images do seem to look like Leica images but I don't have one myself, so it's hard for me to compare.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Godfrey,
it seems you have different definition of drawing or look at something different. By drawing I rather not mean AA or pixel detail, but overall look of the picture made with fast Leica lens wide open. Fast, as someone said that at f/5.6 all lenses look the same. No character at such apertures, allowing to differentiate them from eachother.

So, to come back to the sensor. Using NEX or RICOH or maybe soon Fuji - is not simply able to get me that 3D, that I see in for example in 35mm Summilux on FF wide open. It simply cuts off edges drawing. And these drawing is mostly visible when wide open.

If you attach 35mm Lux to APS-C sensor - you get picture as taken with ~50mm at f/2 on FF - what again - differs from what you get with 50mm Lux on FF.
Even if you attach big and heavy 24mm Lux - you will get picture as taken with 35mm Summicron, not Lux.

If a person makes most photos closed down, then there is no such difference in results, in fact latest APS-C may bring better pixel quality than older generation FF, especially if it is without AA filter.
 

Jerry_R

New member
CCDs gather light give images a slightly different quality to the way CMOS sensors do
Maybe some old CMOS generations. Today? I don't think so.

When I for the first time compared NEX-5 with 35mm Lux vs M9 with 50mm Lux - I saw poor, pale colors from NEX. Increasing saturation did not solve it.

Later - I compared NEX-5N. The colors and white balance, when alligned in LR (I used color checker) - were not leading to conclusion, that one sensor returns colors better than another one.
 
W

Wozza604

Guest
Maybe some old CMOS generations. Today? I don't think so.

When I for the first time compared NEX-5 with 35mm Lux vs M9 with 50mm Lux - I saw poor, pale colors from NEX. Increasing saturation did not solve it.

Later - I compared NEX-5N. The colors and white balance, when alligned in LR (I used color checker) - were not leading to conclusion, that one sensor returns colors better than another one.
I did not say "better" I said different.
 
W

Wozza604

Guest
Indeed, right.

In few months, there is big chance - we will see M10 using CMOS of latest generation.
We will see what the future brings... I for one would welcome better high iso performance but as we've seen with the X1, Leica's previous CMOS endeavour, the look of the files will likely be different than the M9, which is a shame.
 

edtan

Member
Here's a shot with the MS Optical Super Triplet Perar II 3.5/35... gawd that's a mouthful! The sky went all blotchy on me, another reminder of how important proper exposure is on the M9.

Bloedel Conservatory at the QE Park?
One of my favorite parks.
Nice to see the fountains working again.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey,
it seems you have different definition of drawing or look at something different. By drawing I rather not mean AA or pixel detail, but overall look of the picture made with fast Leica lens wide open. Fast, as someone said that at f/5.6 all lenses look the same. No character at such apertures, allowing to differentiate them from eachother.

So, to come back to the sensor. Using NEX or RICOH or maybe soon Fuji - is not simply able to get me that 3D, that I see in for example in 35mm Summilux on FF wide open. It simply cuts off edges drawing. And these drawing is mostly visible when wide open.

If you attach 35mm Lux to APS-C sensor - you get picture as taken with ~50mm at f/2 on FF - what again - differs from what you get with 50mm Lux on FF.
Even if you attach big and heavy 24mm Lux - you will get picture as taken with 35mm Summicron, not Lux.

If a person makes most photos closed down, then there is no such difference in results, in fact latest APS-C may bring better pixel quality than older generation FF, especially if it is without AA filter.
An f/1.4 lens is an f/1.4 lens no matter what format it is projecting the image onto, and if the sensor can image the lens' drawing qualities accurately, the image will look the same modulo the difference in imaged area. A 'Lux looks like a 'Lux if I make an exposure at f/1.4 on either GXR or M9 and overlay the two images.

What's different is the specific coupling of FoV and DoF that you will get when you enlarge the image to fill the same destination print or screen sizing. That's when the coupling of FoV and DoF is expressed and has nothing to do with the lens' drawing qualities.
 

CharlesK

New member
Patrick, thank you:)
Bart, amazing shot! Love the detail and composition.
Mike, love that street shot of the couple:thumbup:
Ed, very nice shots from the festival.
Rayyan, excellent shot of the old car! Very nice PP'ing.
Robert, beautiful portrait of your father in law!
SYGTAFOTO, nice shots with the 75 Lux!!
Cenek, classic shot of couple leaving:thumbup:
Lloyd, stunning panorama of a shot!!!
Mike, beautiful landscapes! Love the last shot:)

Shots from Melbourne streets late in the evening. 35 Lux FLE and M9:)



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top