Thanks again for the insights. I follow the M9 image thread on this board and the outstanding images posted by many of you continue to peak my interest in the m9. Thank you for taking the time to post you insights. Greatly appreciated. Thank you
Jack
allstarimaging wrote:
Thanks again for the insights. I follow the M9 image thread on this board and the outstanding images posted by many of you continue to peak my interest in the m9. Thank you for taking the time to post you insights. Greatly appreciated. Thank you
Jack
To be honest, the image quality of most mirrorless cameras is pretty phenomenal these days, especially at the web sizes you're looking at. I'd pick the camera the you enjoy working with the most and just go with it.
mawz wrote:
The main difference is that RF's have issues focusing longer lenses, LV-based cameras do not. Both stomp all over what can be reliably achieved with a DSLR without using LV in terms of accurate focus of wide or ultra-wide lenses.
I used to have the same idea as 50 was my longest focal length.
But in the last weeks I was able to try the 50/0,95, 75/2 APO, 90/2 APO and 90/4 macro, said to be the harder to focus lenses, and I did not had any problem at all.
All the shots were spot on, exactly where I wanted the focus. The 90/2 even with a moving object (biker) trough a window.
The only problem was movement from myself with to slow shutterspeeds. But thats my fault.
The issues I think really are dependent on the person using the lens. And if the combo is well adjusted.
douglasf13 wrote:
To be honest, the image quality of most mirrorless cameras is pretty phenomenal these days, especially at the web sizes you're looking at. I'd pick the camera the you enjoy working with the most and just go with it.
I disagree. I've not had an M9 (yet), but a D700 with ZF glass, an M8 and an NEX-5N with Leica glass, and now an OM-D with Panasonic 20/1.7. Each of these smaller sensor sizes represent a visible degradiation of image quality, just as expected. The largest step downwards is the OM-D, but I think it's more about the inferior lens.
That said, you can get phenomenal image quality with small sensors. But don't expect to find lenses that fit your needs, and remember that they have to be sharper, the smaller the sensor is. The only lens that I've tried on APS-C that comes close to average glass on FF, is the Summicron 28/2.
If you want the possibility to get short DOF and great IQ at the same time, there is no alternative to FF. But you should also remember that a 5D MkII or MkIII with a small 35/2 or so, isn't that much larger than the M9. For me the difference is significant, but I'm very picky.
Bijltje wrote:
I used to have the same idea as 50 was my longest focal length.
But in the last weeks I was able to try the 50/0,95, 75/2 APO, 90/2 APO and 90/4 macro, said to be the harder to focus lenses, and I did not had any problem at all.
All the shots were spot on, exactly where I wanted the focus. The 90/2 even with a moving object (biker) trough a window.
Rangefinder focusing systems have a limited ability to focus long/fast lenses which is controlled by the effective RF baseline (which is the viewfinder magnification times the physical RF baseline). This is a pretty hard limit, go beyond it and you simply cannot focus accurately. None of those lenses are beyond the capability of a Leica M or a Zeiss Ikon, but most of those (not counting the 90/4) are beyond the capability of a Bessa R2 body. This is why you don't see lenses like a 135/1.8 on rangefinders, an RF simply cannot focus it accurately wide open. Even an 85/1.4 is beyond the capability (Leica's 75 Summilux was riding the ragged edge of what an M can focus, an 85 or 90 at f1.4 is beyond it), let alone an 85/1.2.
This is actually the reason I sold be well-loved Jupiter-9 85/2 LTM, my Bessa R simply could not accurately focus it wide open due to the short effective RF baseline and I wasn't in a position to change bodies.
The only problem was movement from myself with to slow shutterspeeds. But thats my fault.
The issues I think really are dependent on the person using the lens. And if the combo is well adjusted.
I think you're speaking of the second issue with longer lenses, which is small framelines. They're a PITA, but you can work with them in a reasonable manner. The RF baseline issue on the other hand is an actual physical limitation of the focusing system (equivalent to the inverse issue which degrades wide-angle focus accuracy on SLR's).
I think it may be worth it for you to try out an M8 to see if you like the RF experience and performance. They retain their resale value well so you would not lose much if anything on a resale. You will never know for sure unless you try it out...
ricardovaste wrote:
Just. Quick question about the m8 - do you have to menu dive to change iso ?
Yes, and no. Two clicks on the "set" button and use the wheel to set your preferred ISO. You need to look at the screen to see the values but it takes a fraction of a second to get to that menu.
Another method is to ignore the ISO setting in camera, underexpose and compensate it in post processing. According to Makten this method does even produces less noise (!). Not always a workable solution though.
Thank you. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with the underexposure method, simply as I've always changed iso, so I'm not sure how my brain would compute that so well :-).
crazeazn wrote:
don't be deceived! the images on the leica thread are phenomenal because the photographer's skill level is high!
I find the images on Leica thread very technically and artistically inferior to those on the ZE/ZF image thread and other image threads as well. IMHO, and at the exception of very few talented photographers such as Ron Scheffler, most posters are millionaires showing off their gear. Not the fault of the equipment, mind you.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I find the images on Leica thread very technically and artistically inferior to those on the ZE/ZF image thread and other image threads as well. IMHO, and at the exception of very few talented photographers such as Ron Scheffler, most posters are millionaires showing off their gear. Not the fault of the equipment, mind you.
it can't possibly be as bad as me cluttering up the film thread with pictures of my pets lol.
many of which, I might add, are taken with a Leica.
edwardkaraa wrote: I find the images on Leica thread very technically and artistically inferior to those on the ZE/ZF image thread and other image threads as well. IMHO, and at the exception of very few talented photographers such as Ron Scheffler, most posters are millionaires showing off their gear. Not the fault of the equipment, mind you.
You know one problem with these forums is I can never tell if comments are laced with sarcasm or if they actually reflect the posters thoughts. Don't want this thread to turn into a Canon vs. Nikon or Primes vs Zoom type discussion. When I started the thread it was to gain insight into a camera that interests me and one which I would enjoy shooting with. My attraction to Leica is on several levels, 1) Size and a full frame sensor 2) Leica lens lineup 3) Simplicity 4) Design much like Apple products there is a certain attraction to gear that is pleasing to handle and is pleasing to the eye. 5) I don't like any of the other mirrorless offerings at this time 6) I'm tired of lugging around a brick and 3 lenses everywhere I go.
Thanks again,
Jack
allstarimaging wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote: I find the images on Leica thread very technically and artistically inferior to those on the ZE/ZF image thread and other image threads as well. IMHO, and at the exception of very few talented photographers such as Ron Scheffler, most posters are millionaires showing off their gear. Not the fault of the equipment, mind you.
You know one problem with these forums is I can never tell if comments are laced with sarcasm or if they actually reflect the posters thoughts. Don't want this thread to turn into a Canon vs. Nikon or Primes vs Zoom type discussion. When I started the thread it was to gain insight into a camera that interests me and one which I would enjoy shooting with. My attraction to Leica is on several levels, 1) Size and a full frame sensor 2) Leica lens lineup 3) Simplicity 4) Design much like Apple products there is a certain attraction to gear that is pleasing to handle and is pleasing to the eye. 5) I don't like any of the other mirrorless offerings at this time 6) I'm tired of lugging around a brick and 3 lenses everywhere I go.
Thanks again,
Jack...Show more →
I was actually serious. Many of the "fantastic" photos in that thread are taking by photographers who know the ins and outs of their equipment + how to post process those photos to maximize that benefit
Sorry guys, I should have added a smiley or a sarcasm warning. I myself am planning to get the M10 next year. But the true statement in my post, and that I really believe, is the better quality photos from the DSLR + Zeiss thread. The truth remains if you are willing to lug around 10 kilos of gear, you will get at the least better focused and better framed photos
edwardkaraa wrote:
Sorry guys, I should have added a smiley or a sarcasm warning. I myself am planning to get the M10 next year. But the true statement in my post, and that I really believe, is the better quality photos from the DSLR + Zeiss thread. The truth remains if you are willing to lug around 10 kilos of gear, you will get at the least better focused and better framed photos
Then again, how many of those great images on the ZE/ZF/ZM thread came from an M9 with ZM lenses. More than a few in my experience.
Frankly, the overall skill level in the Alt Forum is pretty darn high. All of our regular image threads feature a very high quotient of superb shots and the ZE/ZF/ZM thread, which is pretty much the showpiece of this forum, is even better than the rest.
allstarimaging wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote: I find the images on Leica thread very technically and artistically inferior to those on the ZE/ZF image thread and other image threads as well. IMHO, and at the exception of very few talented photographers such as Ron Scheffler, most posters are millionaires showing off their gear. Not the fault of the equipment, mind you.
You know one problem with these forums is I can never tell if comments are laced with sarcasm or if they actually reflect the posters thoughts. Don't want this thread to turn into a Canon vs. Nikon or Primes vs Zoom type discussion. When I started the thread it was to gain insight into a camera that interests me and one which I would enjoy shooting with. My attraction to Leica is on several levels, 1) Size and a full frame sensor 2) Leica lens lineup 3) Simplicity 4) Design much like Apple products there is a certain attraction to gear that is pleasing to handle and is pleasing to the eye. 5) I don't like any of the other mirrorless offerings at this time 6) I'm tired of lugging around a brick and 3 lenses everywhere I go.
Thanks again,
Jack...Show more →
Gee thanks Edward! I think... haha... It's tough 'competing' agains the multitude of talents contributing to the Zeiss thread... would be great to see more posting to the Leica thread! Seems like we're down to a handful of regulars.
Jack - agree with all your points, which were also considerations in addition to the points I noted earlier.
Regarding accuracy of focus with longer than 50mm lenses on Leica rangefinders: my rather limited experience so far indicates the speed of focus throw is a significant contributor. With my 90 Summarit, or the ZM85 f/4, I find the throw is much too fast. Having had the chance to try the ZM85 f/2 a while ago, I was surprised at how consistently and accurately I could focus it, both near and far. But it has a much longer focus throw and is supposedly optimized for this. Also spent some time with the Nikkor 10.5cm f/2.5 LTM and it has an extremely long throw, nearly 360 degrees! Also very consistently easy to focus...
edwardkaraa wrote:
The truth remains if you are willing to lug around 10 kilos of gear, you will get at the least better focused and better framed photos
