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 with the Leica SL (digital)

Godfrey

Well-known member
Well, if it were mine, I'd do the service, get the big wheels and new tires, leave the top down and not worry about the stereo system, since it's a bit hard to hear that on an open windy road. Like Highway 1 all the way to Santa Barbara.

BTW, I saw in one of your other posts that Keeble and Shuchat is closing. That's really sad. I've always stopped in when I have any free time in the west bay. What will happen to the collection of classic cameras that ran all the way around the top of the display cases?

scott
Service done (three minor things to go, just not quite enough time on the first shop visit), 17" wheels and tires ordered (hopefully installed on Friday). I've been checking out the existing sound and navigation system: radio works fine, CD changer works fine, GPS works fine. It's surprisingly easy to hear music and audiobooks even with the top down, a testament to well-thought-out aerodynamics. Improved over the prior SLK series too. Exactly how to update the system to Bluetooth streaming remains a bit of a question; there are several possible options, haven't decided which is best yet. It works well enough while I figure out what I want to do.

Took my first joy ride around the peninsula the other night. A lovely machine to drive, in every way. :)

Yes, KSP is closing. :-(

The owners' classic camera collection could fill an entire museum; what's there is just a part of it. I said hello to Terry yesterday and thanked him for his years of service to the photographic community, then asked what would become of the collection. He just smiled and said he had plans.

It's very sad to see the only remaining decent brick&mortar*camera shop in the area closing down. A casualty of the modern era in business..

G
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Hi Scott- could you please use a smaller size photo to link to from Flickr - your photos take forever to download and makes looking at this thread a real pain.

Thanks Pete
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Hi Scott- could you please use a smaller size photo to link to from Flickr - your photos take forever to download and makes looking at this thread a real pain.

Thanks Pete
I render them at 50% (which means 3000 x 2000) and those are my only copies. When Flickr is behaving itself, I see them downloading into this site and into the LUF in about 1-4 sec each. I'm about to post some higher resolution studies to compare two lenses -- I'll put the big version in as a link only or maybe shrink it to 25%.

scott
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Comparing the Vario-Elmar 21-35 R with SX 28-M

The Vario-Elmar-R Asph was only made from 2002 to 2009. It is smaller and less expensive than the new SL zooms (and reaches 21 mm focal length, which the SL set doesn't offer until late next year), and I've liked the results I am getting with it. So I set up some tough distant scenes to compare it with one of the best M lenses in its range, my Summilux 28-M. They both do extremely well, but the newer lens is a bit contrastier and pulls out a bit more of the near pixel-level detail. I think even the nicest of the R lenses are hitting their limits at 24 MPx. First the entire scene, rendered at 25% reduction:

S1020964 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

taken on the SX-28@f/5.6

Then a 100% crop from the top of the frame, focused on the Hollywood-style sign, which translates into something like "Agriculture Roolz:"

S1020964 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

with the SX-28 M, and next the same section with the R lens:

S1020962 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Vario-Elmar-R Asph @ f/8
The R lens renders a little warmer, and in a web-scale rendering like 1800x1200 there is no detail lost. Both files seem robust.

scott
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Service done (three minor things to go, just not quite enough time on the first shop visit), 17" wheels and tires ordered (hopefully installed on Friday). I've been checking out the existing sound and navigation system: radio works fine, CD changer works fine, GPS works fine. It's surprisingly easy to hear music and audiobooks even with the top down, a testament to well-thought-out aerodynamics. Improved over the prior SLK series too. Exactly how to update the system to Bluetooth streaming remains a bit of a question; there are several possible options, haven't decided which is best yet. It works well enough while I figure out what I want to do.

Took my first joy ride around the peninsula the other night. A lovely machine to drive, in every way. :)
Pardon my returning to current obsession for a moment:

  • All the mechanical niceties are now sorted.
  • New 17" wheels and tires to be fitted tomorrow.
  • A good bit of listening and experimenting with the existing audio system lead me to an inescapable conclusion: it works, but the sound quality actually does suck, big time. :-( This is an expensive conclusion, it has to at least 'not suck.'

Aside from the sound system, the car is brilliant. Fixing the sound system will cost a few thousand dollars. I'd rather have that right now than another lens ... priorities.

Sorry for the intrusion.
My left leg is almost healed from the knee surgery, I'll be picking up my camera again shortly. :)

onwards,
G
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I render them at 50% (which means 3000 x 2000) and those are my only copies. When Flickr is behaving itself, I see them downloading into this site and into the LUF in about 1-4 sec each. I'm about to post some higher resolution studies to compare two lenses -- I'll put the big version in as a link only or maybe shrink it to 25%.

scott
You can choose what size from FLickR mate.

- - - Updated - - -

 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Does the SL recapture the fun of the SWC?

Godfrey occasionally posts shots taken in a way that reminds him of shooting with the Hasselblad SWC Superwide, the world's coolest "point n shoot" film camera, whose distortion-free symmetric 38mm Zeiss Biogon when applied to the 85mm diagonal of 6x6 cm film is like a 19 mm lens applied to the 43 mm diagonal of 35 mm film. Of course the SL, with its very precise viewfinder and capable focus and exposure tools, has moved a long way from the days of the SWC.

A good subject for wide angle shots is this sunshade/rain collector/architect's folly that is spread above a new archeological institute in Jerusalem:

S1020588 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

SL 21/35 Vario-Elmar-asph @ 21 mm

And for fun I went back to look at it with an SWC, with the M9 of digital backs attached. The chip diagonal on my P45+ is 61.4 mm, so the field of view is comparable to a 26.6 mm in full frame.

CF001080 2 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

SWC/P45+ ISO 50@f/5.6 (the last CCD generation of Phase One's backs)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Does the SL recapture the fun of the SWC?

Godfrey occasionally posts shots taken in a way that reminds him of shooting with the Hasselblad SWC Superwide, the world's coolest "point n shoot" film camera, whose distortion-free symmetric 38mm Zeiss Biogon when applied to the 85mm diagonal of 6x6 cm film is like a 19 mm lens applied to the 43 mm diagonal of 35 mm film. Of course the SL, with its very precise viewfinder and capable focus and exposure tools, has moved a long way from the days of the SWC.
...
Well yes, but ...

It's the SWC's wide FoV on the square format that piques my imagination. For that equivalence, the SL format must be cropped square for a 24x24mm capture of 16 MPixels, and the lens producing equivalent FoV on that setup is about 16mm.

Depending upon how you use the SWC, you have the same precision. A sturdy tripod, the ground glass back for focusing and framing, and you have the same precision in focus and framing as the SL. A good hand-held meter gives you all the exposure tools you need as well.

What you don't have, compared to the SL, is the mobility of being able to see it all and move around quickly from one framing to another. As such, it's easier to make photographs like this 'off the cuff' on a walk with the SL than the SWC:


Leica SL + Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5
ISO 100 @ f/6.8 @ 1/30

enjoy!
G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Re: Does the SL recapture the fun of the SWC?

Well yes, but ...

It's the SWC's wide FoV on the square format that piques my imagination. For that equivalence, the SL format must be cropped square for a 24x24mm capture of 16 MPixels, and the lens producing equivalent FoV on that setup is about 16mm.

Depending upon how you use the SWC, you have the same precision. A sturdy tripod, the ground glass back for focusing and framing, and you have the same precision in focus and framing as the SL. A good hand-held meter gives you all the exposure tools you need as well.

What you don't have, compared to the SL, is the mobility of being able to see it all and move around quickly from one framing to another. As such, it's easier to make photographs like this 'off the cuff' on a walk with the SL than the SWC:

G
I like squares, too, but it's the freedom to just shoot with an optical finder that appeals to me about the SWC. My 8 year old digital back is the same size as a Hassy film back, but seems to be solidly filled with metal, so the whole setup is about the same weight and volume as the SL with a typical R lens mounted, and a bit smaller than the SL with my Super-Elmarit-R 15 mounted. I have the ground glass back for the SWC, but haven't used it. I set exposures by the "sunny 16" rule, then modify it after a few test shots, reviewing the histogram. To get the sharpest focus, I use scale focus with slight corrections (all distances are off by about half the width of the infinity symbol). Review on the P45+ back with magnification isn't good enough to do better than that. To frame with a normal Hassy and a digital back you install a mask under the viewscreen, but with the SWC's optical finder you just have to learn that there's a little missing on both sides and a lot at the top and the bottom. So compared to the SL, it's not quite as bad as going back to Timothy O'Sullivan's mule-drawn wagon darkroom, maybe more like shooting with a Brownie Hawkeye, but it's fun, and the uncertainty is part of the fun. I will try setting the SL for square format one of these days, probably with my 15-R.

CF001124 1 Panorama by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

SWC/M with P45+ back f/11@1/125, ISO 50 two-shot panorama, roughly square.

scott

PS: Here's the size comparison I was trying to make:

DSCF2494 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

I've used the SWC with scanned B/W and color negative film. Found B/W appealing, color disappointing. There's no question that digital is an improvement, even when kludgy like the SWC/P45+ with its synch cord and uncertain framing.
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Does the SL recapture the fun of the SWC?

I like squares, too, but it's the freedom to just shoot with an optical finder that appeals to me about the SWC. ...
In which case, what appeals to you about using the SWC has extremely little, if anything, to do with my reasons for shooting with the SWC, or the SL with a 15-16mm lens and square format. Which was the point I was trying to make: If you're using my interest in the SL with ultra wide to motivate your use of similar equipment, the relationship has to be that the intent of what I'm doing is similar to yours. Or you're trying to contrast what you are doing vs what I am doing. Otherwise, why mention me?

I see nothing wrong with what you like about the SWC or SL with ultra wide lens. I just don't see what the relationship to my interests is. When I mention someone else's work or technique in a post, it is to point out either the similarities or differences between their effort and mine ...

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Hmmm. Didn't mean to offend, but your posts got me to thinking about what I liked about things I have seen done with that camera, as well as in the styles that it facilitates. (Lee Friedlander's "Desert Seen" is another of my SWC favorites, but quite different -- he uses depth in some unique ways.) So I charged up mine and went out to see what it would come up with. Stitching two shots vertically recovered the square format.

scott
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hmmm. Didn't mean to offend, but your posts got me to thinking about what I liked about things I have seen done with that camera, as well as in the styles that it facilitates. (Lee Friedlander's "Desert Seen" is another of my SWC favorites, but quite different -- he uses depth in some unique ways.) So I charged up mine and went out to see what it would come up with. Stitching two shots vertically recovered the square format.

scott
No offense taken. I just couldn't see why my name was mentioned since your imaging ideas had nothing to do with my thoughts about the SWC and SL/UW/etc.

I have to get a couple of Lee Friedlander's books. His eye is quite distinct.

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I think her unusual appearance reflects a rich and varied ancestry. A streaky layer of black over yellow stripes, and here and there patches of white. She makes up for it in personality.

scott
 
Top