Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 148 of 148

Thread: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

  1. #101
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    M mount lenses on the G1

    Here's my try at this. I shot the same scene with an M8 and a 50 Lux asp, and a G1 (red if it matters to you) with a 28 chron ASP on a Camerquest adapter. I selected the 28 chron (as opposed to something wider) on the theory that it doesn't require heavy lifting by the G1 in terms of the angle of incident light in the corners.

    I also shot the G1 with a 25mm Lux (a native 4/3rds lens) on the Panasonic 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter, as well as with the kit lens. For fun I shot the same scene with an LX3 with maximum zoom.

    All exposures were at ISO 100 (160 in the case of the M8) and f5.6 to give all the components a break in terms of critical focus. I used infinity focus to avoid backfocus and other issues. The two Leica lenses produce sensational results in daily use (on the M8), have recently been CLAd and have no issues whatsoever. They really are the gold standard. I removed filters for purposes of the test.

    I set up on a Gitzo GT 3530 tripod and used the self timer delay for all shots. I developed all images in LR applying capture sharpening (generally 85 or so with an r of .8)

    Here is the big picture (crops, which are in the next post, are from the upper right corner):

    Attachment 12417

  2. #102
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    M mount lenses on the G1

    So here are the crops

    G1 Plus Kit lens
    Attachment 12421

    G1 Plus 25 mm Lux:
    Attachment 12419

    The G1 plus M-mount 28mm chron
    Attachment 12420

    M8 plus 50mm Lux:
    Attachment 12418

    LX3
    Attachment 12422
    Last edited by Woody Campbell; 17th February 2009 at 10:35.

  3. #103
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    M mount lenses on the G1

    Some observations on this tough brick wall test:

    1. The images that come off of the Leica's 10.3 m sensor amaze me daily.

    2. Even at these low ISOs the Leica has a noise advantage (perhaps a stop or two) over the G1 - this is clearly evident in the windows on the right. Sensor size matters - I'm really looking forward to an M9 with a "full sized" CCD sensor.

    3. I would rate corner resolution of the lenses on the G1 as follows: the 25 'lux is best, but this is a large, expensive lens so that should be expected; kit lens is second best but very close behind the 25 'lux; 28 'chron asp is a distant last. On the M8 the corners of 28 chron look just like the corner crop from 50 lux - the problem is not with the lens but with how it interacts with the camera. Note that contrast on the bricks is very low and taken as a whole the image looks like it moved slightly during exposure (which it didn't) in a radial direction.

    4. The little bittie LX3 puts up a plausible showing - again sensor size tells and noise overwhelms the resolution that the lens is delivering.
    Last edited by Woody Campbell; 17th February 2009 at 10:30.

  4. #104
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Woody,
    Thank you for the very thoughtful test. Your comment "the image looks like it moved slightly during exposure (which it didn't) in a radial direction." is exactly what I thought when I looked at Jonas's bookshelf shot with the CV 28/2.
    What Raw developer did you use?

    You said that you focused at infinity. Are you sure that your adapter allows the 28 summicron to reach infinity? I'm not quite there with my adapter on any of my M-mount lenses. (I tried photographing the moon._

    The M8 sure delivered, didn't it?

  5. #105
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    Very interesting data, Per. What vintage 35 R?
    Itīs the old model, with rectangular hood (pre -76, Canada made). When I used it regularly with film (on SLīs and a R6), I considered it one of my better lenses; better than my R 50.

    Might just as well describe the others, too. The R 50 is a pre -76 one, too, with separate, reversible hood (Wetzlar made), and the R 90 has Series VII filter mount, with retaining ring (Canada made).

    The M 35 is a beat-up oldie, from 1968 according to Rogliatti. When used on my M2, I considered it rather low in contrast, but OK resolution-wise. The M 50 is even older (1962), but far better optically; I then considered it my sharpest lens. The M 90 (Tele-Elmarit; all the others are Summicrons) is the "slimmed" one, (post -74, Canada made).

    So the relevance of my impressions for those using more recent glass is probably limited; still, I never found any of them lacking in corner performance when I used them regularly.

  6. #106
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by Cindy Flood View Post
    Woody,
    Thank you for the very thoughtful test. Your comment "the image looks like it moved slightly during exposure (which it didn't) in a radial direction." is exactly what I thought when I looked at Jonas's bookshelf shot with the CV 28/2.
    What Raw developer did you use?

    You said that you focused at infinity. Are you sure that your adapter allows the 28 summicron to reach infinity? I'm not quite there with my adapter on any of my M-mount lenses. (I tried photographing the moon._

    The M8 sure delivered, didn't it?
    Cindy - Thanks for your response.

    Images were developed in Lightroom (in other words ACR) - I exported the jpegs to upload directly from Lightroom. Silkypix gives excellent results but I don't have time to master another large and complex software package - particularly given the limited use that I give the G!.

    By the way, I meant "windows on the left" in my note above. I have a serious problem with my "right" and "left".

    Here is a center crop from the G1 plus 28 Chron file, demonstrating that center resolution and thus probably focus, are fine - and also demonstrating that the camera in fact did not move. Nonetheless there is an odd quality to the way the image renders that I don't understand. All four corners exhibit similar problems to the upper left.

    Attachment 12423
    Last edited by Woody Campbell; 17th February 2009 at 12:03.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Campbell View Post
    ... Nonetheless there is an odd quality to the way the image renders that I don't understand.....
    Looks slightly psychedelic, indeed. Could it possibly be our old friend from another thread: air turbulence from temperature differences (these can occur any time of the year in cities, not just hot summer days)?

  8. #108
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by Per Ofverbeck View Post
    Looks slightly psychedelic, indeed. Could it possibly be our old friend from another thread: air turbulence from temperature differences (these can occur any time of the year in cities, not just hot summer days)?
    Plausible suggestion. Here's the center crop from the M8 plus 50 'lux asp file:

    Attachment 12426

    For comparison here is the G1+ 28 chron file scaled the same way (part of weirdness that we saw above could be the greater than 100% enlargement):

    Attachment 12427

  9. #109
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    That was my first thought as well, regarding the psychedelia. Perhaps at test closer than infinity would be in order...

    All in all, I'm very happy with my G1. I don't own any M glass except for a mint Summarit-M 50/1.5, which performs in rather unique, pleasing ways, I would say. It's not something I would use if I wanted super resolution, in any case.

    For all the floggings that the M8 has taken over the past couple of years, it is clear that it is a superb performer and the engineering that went into it was not trivial.

    I must say I'm extremely pleased with my choice of a few select Olympus Pen lenses, they have proven to be stellar. It probably helps (with regards to the G1) that they were designed for a smaller format. Also, there is no other digital platform with which to compare them, unlike M-mount lenses.

  10. #110
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    would have been interesting to see the G1 plus 50 lux to compare to the stunning M8 plus 50 lux.

    also the M8m and 28 cron
    thanks woody; going blind yet?

    jm

  11. #111
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    would have been interesting to see the G1 plus 50 lux to compare to the stunning M8 plus 50 lux.

    also the M8m and 28 cron
    thanks woody; going blind yet?

    jm
    This issue is the crop factor on the G1, which is half the size of the M8 sensor-wise. The 25mm on the G1 produces roughly the same field of view as the 50 on the M8. That's why I selected these lenses.

    In the end I've made the point to my satisfaction - I can actually go back to real shooting.

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Thanks for posting these testshots Woody. I recognise the 28 Cron corners on the G1. This is the distortion I was talking about. And still, this is at f5,6... The tests I did at f2.0 look far worse even.

    BTW the 25 Lux D has peak performance at f2,8-f4,0 so this lens could come out a little better than in this test.

  13. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by Per Ofverbeck View Post
    Looks slightly psychedelic, indeed. Could it possibly be our old friend from another thread: air turbulence from temperature differences (these can occur any time of the year in cities, not just hot summer days)?
    Interesting you should mention that. Could be air turbulence indeed. But I still wonder if it's something else. I've seen it in pictures posted on flickr too. The edges of the crane's cables are fringed, but the more diagonal ones are the worst in a regular pattern. Isn't turbulance more 'random'?

  14. #114
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by peterv View Post
    Thanks for posting these testshots Woody. I recognise the 28 Cron corners on the G1. This is the distortion I was talking about. And still, this is at f5,6... The tests I did at f2.0 look far worse even.

    BTW the 25 Lux D has peak performance at f2,8-f4,0 so this lens could come out a little better than in this test.
    Thanks for the tip - I've been very impressed by the 25 Lux - the only issue I've had with it is that it seems somewhat prone to flare, which you can work around if you recognize the issue. Of course its size somewhat vitiates the G1's small form factor. But it pretty much lives on my G1 - which I bought to have a camera that autofocuses in poor available light.
    Last edited by Woody Campbell; 17th February 2009 at 14:13.

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sort of group reply, nothing important

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    If you looked at Sean's test of the CV28/2 you would see that even on the M8 it is soft in the corners at f2. It is softer focused even in the center at f2 compared to the f1.9 nockton and the 28 cron. It isn't until f5.6 that it is getting close and at f8 it looks pretty good.
    Maybe I should pay the few dollars he is asking for. OTOH I'm not that worried about the resolution. "Sharpness" is overrated and I'm more interested in overall pleasing rendering. The Summicron is interesting of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    Jonas, I think you're just confirming for yourself what we already know from Sean's review.

    Maybe this is why the 20mm f1.7 won't arrive for some months... The 25mm f2.8 pancake for 4/3rds was quite an achievement. And that's for Olympus.

    At this short FL you can have slow or big, pick one

    For street shooting, maybe the lumix 14-45mm kit lens is the optimum choice for now?
    Then Sean must be right.

    I have expressed my concerns on the 20/1.7 earlier. It will be very interesting to see how it performs!

    Slow or big - or both. yuk!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Sorry if i confused the issue with the focus shift. Here is a thought and not sure it applies though. Does the G1 with the Raws in ACR and other programs correcting for distortion and such even if it does not know the lens on it. From these examples there certainly is falloff of sharpness but i wonder if the G1 is making general corrections in the raw on any lens if this could be the issue. Just a thought. Seems the wider the lens the worse the issue
    No problem about the moments of confusion around the focus shift. I should have listed my shooting method when posting the crops.
    I can't imagine the G1 does any corrections to the raw files, not with the Panny G lenses, not with any other lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Per Ofverbeck View Post
    (...)
    I use those lenses that give me good pics in practice (and I use them for people, not bookshelves....). But Iīll follow the discussions from ringside...
    But you are looking close to other people's bookshelf... haha. Some testing is of interest - but only with regards to real shooting. Isn't that a given?

    best regards to all, /Jonas

  16. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Zeiss C/Y 35/1.4 result

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    What is needed is for some easy testing of as many lenses as possible, to determine which ones exhibit the problem, and to what degree.
    Here is a monster lens, made for 24x36mm film cameras, great resolution, good reputation, decent bokeh and a high price, up for test on the G1. Mounted to the camera using a cheapo C/Y-->4/3 adapter and then the Panny 4/3 to micro4/3 adapter.



    Hmm. No jaws dropped here. It's decent but the smearing is there (and quite some CA). Now this lens isn't of interest anyway. Size, weight and price make it a no-no in my book.

  17. #117
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Taking a different tack on corner smearing



    Kamera Kat, my faithful wooden companion in my exploration of the corner-smearing conundrum. The Kat is almost exactly as high as my own face, from top of head to chin, so provides me with an infinitely patient headshot proxy.


    I've been following this discussion with some trepidation. After my initial experience with the G1, I actually had made up my mind to return it.

    But then I started second-guessing myself: my test conditions were unusually awful even by my standards, and a surprising number of "civilians" who looked at the pictures liked them. I had the G1 all boxed up and ready to go back to the store, but kept putting it off, struggling to make a decision about it... and eventually the time limit for returning it had passed, and I still had it, and I had made up my mind to be pleased about that.

    Then this corner-smearing thing came up, courtesy of Sean Reid and his pay-to-play website. This was a big deal to me, since my main justification for the G1 was as an alternative platform to my Epson R-D 1 for my odd collection of M-mount lenses.

    I dropped my Reid subscription after the first year, but since he seems to have a more-than-just-good-friends relationship with Leica, I had to assume he has more experience with Leica optics than I do (having sold my last Leica lens about 20 years ago.) And some of the photos in this thread seemed to show issues very clearly.





    So finally this evening I decided to do my own evaluation, but with my own methodology -- one a bit different from what Reid seems to have used and what others have used here. It's going to sound odd and unscientific to some of you, but it's based closely on how I, personally, take pictures and evaluate them. Here's what I did:

    1) I almost never take pictures of brick walls or bookcases, but I do want the freedom to position my subject where I want it in the frame. Whether I decide to put the subject dead-center or off in some corner, I want to have it look reasonably detailed, not smeary. So instead of shooting single pictures and cropping out centers and corners, I shot pairs of pictures of the same subject: once in the center of the frame, and again recomposed so it's off in one corner.

    2) I'm not interested in evaluating absolute image quality. What I want to find out is whether pictures taken with the G1 are going to be significantly worse than ones taken with my Epson R-D 1. The R-D 1 may not be the ultimate in image quality, but I know exactly what to expect from it and always use it with confidence -- so, I also shot pairs of pictures with the R-D 1 so I could use it as a baseline for comparison.

    3) I shot all my test pictures from the same distance, because that's how I generally work: I'm in a fixed position, and choose different lenses to get different angles of view. The lenses I used were a 21mm f/2.8 Avenon and 28/1.9, 35/1.2, and 50/1.5 Cosina-Voigtlanders.

    4) Most of my shooting is divided into two conditions: in poor light at wide apertures, or with studio flash at moderate apertures. So I shot each lens at its full aperture, whatever that was, and again at f/8.

    5) I cropped the images down to the same subject area. This means different images have different numbers of pixels... but right or wrong, it's the way I evaluate images: I look at something, usually a person's face, and decide whether it has enough detail or not, whether it's filling most of the frame or is just a tiny section. Again, since all I was trying to do was compare the G1's performance to the R-D 1's, I felt this was a valid way to do it.

    So now that you've waded through my rationalizations for my goofy-sounding but pragmatic test method, you may want to know: where are the pictures: Okay...

    This set shows all of them scaled to a constant size, because I usually print to fixed sizes rather than enlarging images by a constant percentage. If you stretch your browser window wide enough, you'll be able to compare them four-across -- each row shows either a middle (M) or peripheral (P) version, shot with both cameras at full aperture and f/8.

    This set shows the sections at their original sizes, for your pixel-peeping pleasure. You can click on any small image to see the full-frontal-pixel version.





    And for extra controversial fun, I've deliberately made it slightly difficult to tell which camera shot which picture! The letter immediately after the aperture indicates it, but not obviously. (Hint: If you know the parent companies' names, it should be easy.)

    Spoiler -- My takeaway: The full-aperture images are softer than the f/8 ones, and the corner images are smearier than the center ones, as you'd expect. But I couldn't find any clear-cut case where the R-D 1 produced a usable image, while the G1 produced an unusable one.

    So, after all that, I've decided: at least with the particular cameras and lenses I have, and with my admittedly lax attitude toward Ultimate Image Quality, I'm not going to worry about corner smearing, no matter what Reid says. But remember: Your mileage may vary!

    Oops, nearly forgot... for reference, here's an uncropped view of the whole setting. This was with the G1 and the 21mm lens, which means it's almost exactly the same as the R-D 1 with the 28mm lens:

    Last edited by Ranger 9; 17th February 2009 at 18:06.

  18. #118
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    First I must say, an impressive amount of effort, thanks for that. And some very revealing, surprising results!

    Some extremely useful data here, comparing wide open to f/8. Kudos.

  19. #119
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Ranger,
    Excellent! Thank you for the work that you did and the nicely written review.

  20. #120
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Ok, I give up, what does the f second letter stand for? For the first letter S Seiko and M for Matsu****o were not hard. But it says corner and center yet when you click on the images to get the full size image it always shows a corner.
    V/r John

  21. #121
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    I am [email protected] to Xperience verigo...these tests might indicate a peripheral vestibular disorder...

    Thank you Ranger...Y.B...

  22. #122
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    I shot test targets using the kit lens and the Nikon lens. When I looked in LR the corner targets were soft and blurry but when I used Raw developer they nearly matched the center for resolution and sharpness. The kit lens showed huge barrel distortion in Raw developer but looked very good in LR. I think someone else hit on the issue. LR, PS and Silkypix are all doing lens correction even when they lack good data and thus distorting the corners. Raw Developer is not.
    V/r John

  23. #123
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    I can't see any difference. Looking at a shot taken with a Nikkor 24/2.8, I can open the raw file directly in Raw Developer, and put it side by side on the screen with the DNG version of the same image, and the corners look identical, assuming all sharpening is turned off in PS as well as RD.

  24. #124
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    I can't see any difference. Looking at a shot taken with a Nikkor 24/2.8, I can open the raw file directly in Raw Developer, and put it side by side on the screen with the DNG version of the same image, and the corners look identical, assuming all sharpening is turned off in PS as well as RD.
    When you talk about the DNG version, what are you doing with the original raw file? Just not sure I understand the workflow.

  25. #125
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    To open in PS I first convert to DNG, as I have CS3, not CS4. The raw file is unaltered, so I open that with Raw Developer which can read G1 RAW files directly.

  26. #126
    nei1
    Guest

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    I realise the work gone into this and it is even to me mildly interesting,however not labeling things in a logical way does appear to be slightly sadistic.Guess Im just not sufficiently interested.Well done anyway...........Neil

  27. #127
    Super Moderator Cindy Flood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    118

    Please help me understand

    Please help me understand.

    I went back and found a nothing photo from last week. I downloaded a trial of Raw developer. I didn't put any sharpening or other adjustments. I only tweaked the exposure a tad. I then re-sized it for the web in CS3. This was shot with g1 and a CV28 f/1.9 using a JM original M adapter. Please tell me where it is smeared, because I am not seeing it in my photos.

    Please understand, this would be a trash shot and I have in no way run my usual workflow on it. I am only looking for help understanding this problem.

  28. #128
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    Ok, I give up, what does the f second letter stand for? For the first letter S Seiko and M for Matsu****o were not hard. But it says corner and center yet when you click on the images to get the full size image it always shows a corner.
    The second letter designates whether it's a center or corner cut: "M" for medial (center) and "P" for peripheral (corner.) Yeah, I know, "medial" and "peripheral" are kind of pretentious -- but if I had just abbreviated "center" and "corner," they both would have come out "C", wouldn't they?


    Apologies to all who were bored or frustrated by my "guessing game" labels. But often when looking at online lens-test images, I suspect that viewers' reactions are conditioned by their knowledge of what camera/lens was used for each photo: "I could see plainly that the ZeiNiLeiCan images have that ineffable inner isness of the whatness that only ZeiNiLeiCan can produce." So I thought it might be more interesting to make this a "blindfold" test... although a lot of that interest turned out to be negated by the fact that so many of the images were darn near identical.

  29. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Hi Cindy, I don't see any corner distortion / smear in your shot. But than again, it is quite difficult of not impossible to see on a small image posted on the net. At a 100% if it's there, I'm sure you'll see it. And besides, at what aperture did you take this shot?
    Wide open it's much more noticeable than stopped down to f5,6
    Hope this helps, Peter

  30. #130
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    If I may make a comment...how much of an issue is this, if it can't be seen except in 100% crops? I know I don't print anything at 100%. If I did, I would not be using a G1 anyway...and even then, it's unlikely to cause a problem on the vast majority of the types of shots I take.

  31. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Hi monza, you're right, if you don't make full size prints and shoot at smaller apertures, why bother if you don't see any artifacts.

  32. #132
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Well, I tend to shoot like Ranger...it's either pretty much wide open, or stopped down with flash in a studio.

    If it's wide open, the vast majority of the time, the only thing that will be 'smeared' a bit is the bokeh. So no issue there.

  33. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Good for you if you don't see a problem. Which lenses have you been using wide open?

  34. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    If I may make a comment...how much of an issue is this, if it can't be seen except in 100% crops? (...)
    I think it is about versatility. In the best of worlds I would like to be able to use my camera and my lens for everything. That's impossible. But I would like to be able to have just one 25-28mm lens. A fast one for my snaps and dark places. Then it should work as well as possible also for my building documentation project.

    Well, that was my starting point.

    I now realize that I can't use the G1 for this. The base ISO noise is too high and I'm having problems getting shallow DOF. So, I'm right now thinking of keeping the CV28/2 Ultron. I like the way it draws and it is good enough for daily snaps and more.

  35. #135
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    I use all my lenses wide open...from a Nokton 40, Summarit-M (my only two M mount lenses) to all my Nikkors (especially my favorite the 24/2.8 which has great bokeh) to the Canon 1.2 to the Pen F Zuikos from 20 to 250. And I have some fast c mount lenses on the way for testing...

    Does 'base noise' mean ISO 100?

  36. #136
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: fast c mount lenses on the way for testing...

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    And I have some fast c mount lenses on the way for testing...
    Do please keep us posted on this one - not only on the testing but on the when/where/how much of purchasing if possible.

  37. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    I use all my lenses wide open...(...)And I have some fast c mount lenses on the way for testing...(...)Does 'base noise' mean ISO 100?
    I use the aperture opening that suits the image the best (if I have the time and the eye). Often that is the same as wide open, sometimes the bokeh is considerably improved by stopping down a notch or two, sometimes I need wide (large?) DOF.

    With a larger sensor camera I get more picky about the aperture value.

    Base ISO = ISO100 on the G1, yes. I come from a 5D and when cropping the G1 images I find them noisy.

    It will be very interesting to see images from the c-mount lenses you have on your way. The Pentax you mentioned looks interesting. In the other thread (What is a good manual normal now?) I mentioned something about the Pentax not being a so called High MP lens - and thought that to be good.

    Now I'm not as sure about that. I can't find any MTF curves or anything alike that for the Pentax lens and after having read more about CCTV lenses I understand high resolution usually isn't their forte. Well, I guess we'll know in a couple of days.

  38. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: fast c mount lenses on the way for testing...

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    Do please keep us posted on this one - not only on the testing but on the when/where/how much of purchasing if possible.
    I'm not monza but jump to this post and you are there:
    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...1_C_Mount.html

    This one has a 30mm rear diameter which should work on the Taiwan c-mount adapters.

  39. #139
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    R Lenses seem less or not at all concerned:


    Attachment 12524

    The whole picture - Vario Elmarit Asph. 21-35mm/3.5-4 @ 21mm /f=3.5 ISO = 100 - RAW Therapee


    Attachment 12525

    100% Center Crop

    Attachment 12526

    100% Top Rigt Corner
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  40. #140
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Peter do you have results from other R lenses?

  41. #141
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    Peter do you have results from other R lenses?
    The 100mm/2.8 APO macro is fine, but no surprise for long lenses. I have published an example picture some time ago in a thread on this forum.

    As far as wide angles are concerned, I only have an old 28mm and the 35mm Schneider shift lens, of which I already published examples here. This one too has no problem. Otherwise the 21-35 zoom covers all my WA needs. I could try the 35-70/2.8 and 35-70/4, I do not think there is much point in testing longer lenses, they should most probably work; the problem is really with wide angles.
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  42. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Hey just wondering is it possible that the Leica m lens have soft corners, as the G1 does not have angular microlens? I know that the Leica M8 although having a smaller crop factor, does sport angular microlens.

    Mazor

  43. #143
    marknorton
    Guest

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by mazor View Post
    Hey just wondering is it possible that the Leica m lens have soft corners, as the G1 does not have angular microlens? I know that the Leica M8 although having a smaller crop factor, does sport angular microlens.

    Mazor
    It's not the lens, it's that the G1 sensor was not designed with M lenses in mind and what Leica has been telling us for years - that M wide-angles are a problem - is true. It would be interesting to know whether the latest wide-angles are any better than the 28m Summicron which was designed pre-M8.

    Thanks to everyone for these tests, a lot of work and Kamera Kat is certainly patient!

  44. #144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    thx marknorton for that info. I think with M lens, this soft corner effect is more extreme due to the close distance of the lens to the film plane meaning low angle non parallel light hitting the sensor. this was not a problem in the past with film, but with digital, parallel light hitting the sensor is important, hence why M8 has angular microlens on the sensor that allow the catching low low angle light and re angle it to hit the sensor correctly

    Mazor

  45. #145
    vanhulsenbeek
    Guest

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by mazor View Post
    .............this soft corner effect is more extreme due to the close distance of the lens to the film plane meaning low angle non parallel light hitting the sensor......................
    Mazor
    Mazor,
    Could you explain why that phenomenon causes a soft effect, or smearing and not only vignetting?

    My WATE lens is just as far from the sensor as the kit lens is.

  46. #146
    Senior Member Per Ofverbeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    503
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by vanhulsenbeek View Post
    Mazor,
    Could you explain why that phenomenon causes a soft effect, or smearing and not only vignetting?

    My WATE lens is just as far from the sensor as the kit lens is.
    For the first part, I ask the same question. Even if the light hits the microlenses obliquely, each microlens serves one pixel only, and one pixel has no resolution, thus cannot be soft. Contrast loss through bleeding OK, vignetting surely, but not real loss of resolution.

    About the distance from the sensor, itīs not the rear glass surface thatīs important, but the exit pupil. Look through the kit lens (or any lens) from behind; youīll see a circle of light (often filled with a tiny upside-down view of the world in front of the lens). This is the exit pupil, and in the kit lens, it is situated quite some distance into the lens (it moves with zooming). Since it is a virtual image, its position cannot be measured directly, but a rough visual comparison is possible. Regrettably, I donīt own a WATE...

  47. #147
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    As far as wide angles are concerned, I only have an old 28mm and the 35mm Schneider shift lens, of which I already published examples here. This one too has no problem. Otherwise the 21-35 zoom covers all my WA needs. I could try the 35-70/2.8 and 35-70/4, I do not think there is much point in testing longer lenses, they should most probably work; the problem is really with wide angles.
    I am presuming that the nature of a wide angle lens designed for an SLR (i.e., retrofocus) makes for a more telecentric lens design. Not being any sort of expert in optics, I don't know if retrofocus by it's nature implies telecentric, or if that is just happenstance.

    I have a 20/3.5 Olympus Pen F lens, which of course was designed for an SLR, but does that mean it's a retrofocus design? The Pen F has a relatively short lens flange distance; it is more along the lines of a rangefinder in that regard. Being a half frame, everything is smaller, so maybe it is still retrofocus, just on a smaller scale.

    Leica M 27.95mm
    Canon screw 28.8
    Hexar RF 28.00
    Leica screw 28.8
    Olympus Pen F 28.95
    Contax G1 29

    All those cameras are rangefinders except for the Pen.

    By comparison, the flange distance for SLRs start at about 40mm and go up:

    Konica AR 40.5mm
    Canon R/FL/FD 42
    Minolta MD 43.72
    M42 screw 45.46
    Contax/Yashica 45.5
    Olympus OM 46
    Nikon F 46.5
    Leica R 47

    I'm curious if the longer flange distance of the Leica R by its nature 'helps' R lenses when used on the G1. Although Carl's test seems to show excellent performance of the Canon 24mm which has a 5mm shorter flange distance, so maybe this has nothing at all to do with flange distance and everything to do with lens design.

    Perhaps the ultimate test is to try one of the newly designed Leica optics such as the 21/1.4, which were designed for digital. Although I can't see many people using such a lens on a G1 in the real world.

  48. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's observations on M mount lenses on the G1

    Quote Originally Posted by vanhulsenbeek View Post
    Mazor,
    Could you explain why that phenomenon causes a soft effect, or smearing and not only vignetting?

    My WATE lens is just as far from the sensor as the kit lens is.
    basically this smearing can indeed be caused by non angular microlens found in the M8. Basically when the light hits at the sharper angle thanks to a closer to film plane design of range finders, the light hits more than one microlens at one time instead of a single one. Ideally if the light is hitting the sensor perpendicular there will be no stray light going hitting the other parts of the sensor, hence why the center of the frame when using M lens would not exhibit this smearing.

    A possible solution I can think of to correct for this phenomena on the G1 would be to use a corrective lens in the adapter, that would essentially correct the extents of the lens to hit the G1 sensor parallel. Negatives of such a solution would possibly reduce light passing though to the sensor, hence loss of possible 1 stop of light, and obviously with any addition of optics, can affect the quality of the overall image, and the worst case is that there would be possibly a multiplier factor addition to the already 2x crop factor.

    Obviously the ultimate solution would be to get an M8.2 which we know optimise's light hitting the sensor with the aid of angular microlens, and for those that put on the 6 bit encoding strips, the M8.2 will correct for vignetting and other issues with wide angle lens seamlessly.

    Mazor

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •