•Hands-On• Leica M8

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 72 73 74 … 90 91 end

Archive 2006 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

ClubShooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #1 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

fish_shooter wrote:
OK, Try it with a lightmeter, does the exposure increase with two #25 filters as opposed to just one? The eye may be too accommodating to see the difference.

What would this accomplish? If it looks the same to the eye, the same to a digital camera, and the same to film, then a light meter that gives different readings would clearly be substandard. One of the #1 aspects of a good meter is that it has a flat spectral response, so different colored light doesn't produce different exposures. The R8/R9 is excellent in this respect, and permits shooting with cut filters using auto exposure. Very few meters permit this. I haven't checked, but would suspect the M7/M8 meters permit it as well.

By the way, with a 486 on the lens the two reds (#25 and #29) separate much better and the orange deepens. The paper goes neutral as well. Green looks the same. A Hoya R72 goes from dark very to nearly black. So for B&W use a 486 is still needed to get the right effects out of cut filters. Haven't tested a blue (minus yellow) yet though, which is great in outdoor photography for reducing the tonal difference between open-sky shadows and sunlight. (I only have KB blues, which block a lot of light for little gain.)

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:20 PM

shirozina
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #2 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

robsteve wrote:
brainiac wrote:
Shoot your 21mm and post some results.

I maintain the 5D is mushy in the corners with extreme wide angles because of the design of the sensor.

Unproven as the angle of incidence of light rays hitting the sensor never gets very shallow with a DSLR due to the distance between the last element and the sensor being much greater than that of an RF. While it can be demonstrated that ultra wides on DSLR's don't do well in the corners and there are a number of reasons for this ( retro focus design for one) it's not sensor related IMO.

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:25 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #3 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

shirozina, although you may be technically right, I think if anyone can go out and buy a $399 lens for the M8 and take pictures which compare in quality with those taken with perhaps the highest regarded lens of similar focal length for full-frame SLRs, then we are on to something significant here. We can debate the meaning of this for a long time, I suspect, but there is definitely something interesting going on here.

When my M8 comes back (tomorrow?), I will take comparison pictures with the M8+CV15 and 5D+17-40L, two lenses of similar price. That is yet another data-point. Sure, it is not a strong enough point or comparison to make conclusive remarks on, but it is certainly food for thought.

Btw, as someone who has loudly criticised you earlier, when you first joined, I would like to state that by now I really look forward to your posts. I find your comments informative and well stated.

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:32 PM

ClubShooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #4 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

brainiac wrote:
A front mounted filter on a lens focussed on infinity won't affect focus distance because light from infinity is effectively collimated,

I would expect the degree of collimation to depend on field of view and aperture, not focal distance. Clearly if you have a wide field of view, a lot of light isn't going to pass straight through the filter, only the central portion of the view will. At a narrow aperture.

In brief, the effect that makes rear mounted filters shift focus is the same effect that limits sensor filter thickness in the M8, since reflection within the filter also increases tangentially with angle of incidence.

This is rather cryptic and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Clearly what limits the thickness is either how far back the imaging surface or how far forward the shutter and mount can be moved to accomodate it. Those in turn aren't physical limits but a matter of product design and market acceptance.

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:36 PM

robsteve
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #5 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

shirozina wrote:
robsteve wrote:
brainiac wrote:
Shoot your 21mm and post some results.

I maintain the 5D is mushy in the corners with extreme wide angles because of the design of the sensor.

Unproven as the angle of incidence of light rays hitting the sensor never gets very shallow with a DSLR due to the distance between the last element and the sensor being much greater than that of an RF. While it can be demonstrated that ultra wides on DSLR's don't do well in the corners and there are a number of reasons for this ( retro focus design for one) it's not sensor related IMO.
.

I will retract my statement. My revised statement is: "The 5D is musy in the corners with extreme wide angles."

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:42 PM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #6 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Guy Mancuso wrote:
Tom been there done that and was not worth keeping the 5D except for high ISO work ... it did not match my DMR at all, Did not have the tone, color , saturation and certainly not the exposure range and at least 2 stops difference .

I am not specifically replying to Guy. I have heard this many times.

Regarding the colors, here is my genuinely geek question. ( no offense intended, apologize in advance if anyone takes negatively )

When properly profiled and/or calibrated, a camera should generate identically matching values for standard color patches, for instance, like Macbeth chart. Be it 5D or DMR, it should yield the same Target RGB values for all 24 color patches. If NOT, it is producing wrong colors.

From this perspective, How one camera can generate better tone, color and saturation than the other ? Once properly calibrated, every camera should generate the same tone, color or saturation. What am I missing here ?

Dec 19, 2006 at 07:58 PM

rebel300
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #7 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Guy Mancuso wrote:
Tom been there done that and was not worth keeping the 5D except for high ISO work and if I needed a 15 tobe a 15 otherwise it did not match my DMR at all, Did not have the tone, color , saturation and certainly not the exposure range and at least 2 stops difference . I did the test and dumped it not worth comparing after what i saw.

No Shirozina which BTW i have seen no facts from you either. I posted tons of images and offered DNG's which no one else has done and he asks for opinions and it is given and than don't trust those opinions which in turn does not trust my evalution and my experience and after you think i am giving wrong information than i am supposed to go along with this pompous attitude , screw that i don't do this crap for money or anything else . So why am i on the hook to proof it. He wants the info he did the test and there not conclusive either and faulty so that is supposed to be my fault he can't get his answers. That's Bull shit and you know it. So if my opinion is not worth salt along with people that ACTUALLY used it than screw him. It's not my problem. It's his problem that has gone on for over 200 pages buy the stinking Canon and get it over with . I don't ask anyone for a opinion when i buy anything. What a shit thread this is . Done with this crap

Have a nice Holiday Season Guy...Thanks for the entertainment.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:04 PM

shirozina
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #8 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

I used to have the CV 15mm on my M6 but I was never bowled over by it's resolution performance (maybe a bad sample?) and it's vignieting was seriously bad. My point though is that if any camera system should suffer from the effects of low incidence light rays being uduly effected by refractance through a filter near a sensor then it is going to be an RF like the CV15/M8 combo where the rear element is probably ( from my memory ) about 10mm away from it. My 5D/16-35 combo puts the rear element about 4x that far away and hence why I concluded that the sensor has no effect on edge performance. Clearly we can see a minty 15mm CV on a first rate sensor like the M8 can delivering the goods and my money is on the fact that the 15mm is a non retrofocus lens design. Additionaly I use a similar setup with MF digital. I have 40mm CFE retrofocus on my 500c/m and a Rodenstock 35mm non retrofocus on the ARC body. Both take the same Sinar 22mp back and the 35mm has much better corner resolution than the 40. It even shifts quite well and with the back off it's easy to see first hand how ludicrously low the light rays are hitting the sensor in a shifted position. The ARC does suffer from colour shifts ( fixable with camera/lens calibration) and resolution falls off at very large movements but it gets you out of tight spots. If you test the M8/CV15 against the 5D/17-40 I predict the M8 will win. BTW thanks for your kind comments and be assured I have learnt from the error of my previous ways. Guy - no one has done more than you to demonstrate and explain the virtues of what leica can do but an old saying comes to mind - "you can lead a horse to water - but you can't make it drink" - please enjoy your festive break in the comfort that there are many more people benefiting from your presence, input and knowledge than those who raise voices you don't like the sound of.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:14 PM

shirozina
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #9 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Pondria - it's not just about representing block colours on a chart - the ability of a sensor to seperate out subtle differences in colour is what makes one better than another. The Gretag Macbeth colour charts will get your basic colours in the right place but it's what happens in between and they don't represent this.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:27 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #10 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

pdmphoto wrote:Corner resolution on the M8 is excellent with most samples I have seen posted. Sure it's a crop camera, but try getting the same performance with even a 1D MKII and Canon lenses on the wide end.

If I had to be stuck with Canon lenses on a Canon DSLR I would never have considered a Canon DSLR. Being able to put Zeiss, Leica, Pentax and Nikon lenses on it makes it more attractive. Limiting a 1DsII or a 5D to just Canon lenses would be a comparison that would probably be of little use to many in this forum and would certainly limit what the body/sensor is actually capabable of. There is no doubt in my mind that an important strength of the M8 is the Leica M lens collection. It was important strength for film Leica's, and I suspect it is for digital Leica's as well.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:28 PM

gogopix
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #11 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Seems the limitations of the 5D are in WA since canon lenses not great and you have to shave the Leica's ( R)
If the Zeiss 21mm doesn't produce sharp images, I am REALLY glad I dropped the Zeiss/canon mount route. The Kodak/c was not focusing properly and I was very tempted by some of the 5D images I saw (and some of Jack's were quite impressive. However, Leica needing the shaving is a it of a turn off.

Now, although M8 to 5D might be of SOME interest, I hardly see how so much room needs to be taken here.
It is a ' FF, SLR, Canon ' vs 'Cropped, RF, Leica'. Why are we discussing? I would assume for me at least a much more interesting discussion would be the M8 performance with M lenses vs film!

I am tempted to buy an older M3 as I do like to shootfilm.

(And yes, I can see the difference - not better, just different)

regards
Victor

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:45 PM

jph1
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #12 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Pondria wrote:
[
From this perspective, How one camera can generate better tone, color and saturation than the other ? Once properly calibrated, every camera should generate the same tone, color or saturation. What am I missing here ?

The Luminous Landscape review shows the M8 with a wider color gamut. Could that have something to do with it? Also, how about gradation? Could smoother transition between the colors give a better perceived tone?

I don't know myself, just throwing things out there.
Jim

Edited by jph1 on Dec 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM GMT

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:47 PM

Mike Hatam
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #13 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

robsteve wrote:

I maintain the 5D is mushy in the corners with extreme wide angles because of the design of the sensor.

Sorry Robert, but I don't agree with you on this one...

Both the 5D and 1DsII maintain equal sharpness in the corners of the sensor as they do in the middle. I've tested this for myself, under rigorously controlled conditions, to prove this to myself.

Here's the key... in order to do a valid test, you need to eliminate the main variable - which is the lens. We all know that lenses have significantly more aberations / softness in the corners than they do in the center.

So I got a lens with a huge image circle - much larger than a FF sensor. In my case, I chose the Mamiya 50mm f4 Shift lens, because it has a full 16mm of shift range on each side of the sensor. You could probably also use something like a Zeiss 35PC for this test, although the image circle is not quite as big.

By putting the lens in the "neutral" position (unshifted), and taking a controlled shot on the 1DsII or 5D, you can then compare the corner of the sensor to the middle of the sensor, since they are both within the "middle area" of the large image circle of the lens.

I did this. Multiple times. There is no distinguishable sharpness fall-off in the sensor itself. What you see is produced by lenses that don't hold sharpness at the edges.

By the way, I have seen very sharp images, all the way to the corners, on the 5D and 1DsII, with wide-angle lenses. Not with Canon lenses (in fact never with Canon lenses), but with some other lenses it is quite possible:

- Oly Zuiko 18/3.5 (which is actually wider than your 15mm on your M8)
- Leica 19/2.8 (looses sharpness only in the very extreme last few pixels of each corner)
- Zeiss 21 (which is about equal to your 15mm on your M8)

The image you showed as an example of Z21 on 5D - well, we don't know where it was focused, or if it was tripod mounted, etc. Don't draw conclusions from that one image.

Mike

Edited by Mike Hatam on Dec 19, 2006 at 12:56 PM GMT

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:48 PM

ClubShooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #14 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Guy Mancuso wrote:
I'm just flat out tried of this stuff , want to enjoy my holiday with my family and it is all nonsense to me anymore. That all .have a great Holiday

Just not interested in this debate.
Oh Guy, you just need a mental ignore list.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:51 PM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #15 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

shirozina wrote:
Pondria - it's not just about representing block colours on a chart - the ability of a sensor to seperate out subtle differences in colour is what makes one better than another. The Gretag Macbeth colour charts will get your basic colours in the right place but it's what happens in between and they don't represent this.

The color patches in the Macbeth chart are collection of common colors. Most of them are subtle except the 3rd row. I cannot easily imagine the situation where a camera get the 24 colors right while failing to distingusih the subtle differences.

Well, but OK, I'll take your words. You're right.
But my original question was how can a camera can create more saturated or better tone, colors while producing the accurate colors ?

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:52 PM

braindeadmac
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #16 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

ClubShooter wrote:
brainiac wrote:
A front mounted filter on a lens focussed on infinity won't affect focus distance because light from infinity is effectively collimated,

I would expect the degree of collimation to depend on field of view and aperture, not focal distance. Clearly if you have a wide field of view, a lot of light isn't going to pass straight through the filter, only the central portion of the view will. At a narrow aperture.

In brief, the effect that makes rear mounted filters shift focus is the same effect that limits sensor filter thickness in the M8, since reflection within the filter also increases tangentially with angle of incidence.

This is rather cryptic and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Clearly what limits the thickness is either how far back the imaging surface or how far forward the shutter and mount can be moved to accomodate it. Those in turn aren't physical limits but a matter of product design and market acceptance.

Brainiac is correct on both points. Aperture has no affect on light collimation, and angle of view has little (negligible) affect. For practical purposes, the light hitting the front lens element is collimated fairly well. All hell breaks lose after that with internal reflections and so forth, but everything is pretty simple right up until the light hits the front element

.

With regards to rear mount filters, these will shift the focus point just as any lens element will because behind the lens, the light is no longer collimated. Whether or not it is actually significant, I have no idea, however.

I suspect Richard has had more optical physics than either of us judging from his college degree. I might be able to ace him on X-ray physics or physical chemistry, but unfortunately those are even less useful here.

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:54 PM

fish_shooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #17 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

ClubShooter wrote:
fish_shooter wrote:
OK, Try it with a lightmeter, does the exposure increase with two #25 filters as opposed to just one? The eye may be too accommodating to see the difference.

What would this accomplish? If it looks the same to the eye, the same to a digital camera, and the same to film, then a light meter that gives different readings would clearly be substandard. One of the #1 aspects of a good meter is that it has a flat spectral response, so different colored light doesn't produce different exposures. The R8/R9 is excellent in this respect, and permits shooting with cut filters using auto exposure. Very few meters permit this. I haven't checked, but would suspect the M7/M8 meters permit it as well.

By the way, with a 486 on the lens the two reds (#25 and #29) separate much better and the orange deepens. The paper goes neutral as well. Green looks the same. A Hoya R72 goes from dark very to nearly black. So for B&W use a 486 is still needed to get the right effects out of cut filters. Haven't tested a blue (minus yellow) yet though, which is great in outdoor photography for reducing the tonal difference between open-sky shadows and sunlight. (I only have KB blues, which block a lot of light for little gain.)

You missed the point, which is the additive effect of light attenuation. Maybe combining two ND filters might have been a better example. It is well-known that one can combine two ND’s to increase attenuation - it works with my Zeiss microscope since one wants to use ND's to reduce light output, one uses more than one ND for more attenuation.
Tom

Dec 19, 2006 at 08:59 PM

ClubShooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #18 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

shirozina wrote:
My 5D/16-35 combo puts the rear element about 4x that far away and hence why I concluded that the sensor has no effect on edge performance.

But it's not the distance to the lens that determines the angle of incidence, but the position of the rear nodal point. That's where the light cones cross. The further back the rear nodal point is, the steeper the angle of incidence. How this relates to the position of the exit pupil is simply a matter of design. Your 16-35 is a retrofocus, meaning the rear nodal point is behind the exit pupil, this is how it can clear the mirror. It may still have an angle of incidence as steep as, or even steeper, than a CV 15, which has its rear nodal point either at the exit pupil or inside the lens.

Dec 19, 2006 at 09:01 PM

fish_shooter
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.73 #19 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

Dec 19, 2006 at 09:01 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.73 #20 · •Hands-On• Leica M8

shirozina, I think you may be right about the retro-focus issue, but the fun thing is that in the end it doesn't matter what technical choices were made or forced in the design of camera or lens, only the results are important. If a €4000 M8 with a €400 lens outperform a €6000 camera with a €3000 lens, then it is clear which you want to buy, for that job.

The same won't hold for every job, and maybe, as for Richard's wedding panoramas, 10MP simply isn't enough, even if those 10 million pixels make for pictures which are beautiful and charming, and upscale with characteristics which make them preferable, at least in print, but I suspect that there are few for whom outright resolution is actually more important than picture quality.

I am certain that the Voigtländer 15mm lens is no match on FF, but it doesn't have to go there. It is wide enough to compete directly with the CZ 21mm Distagon, legendary that it is, on an even footing. Unless you need the f/2.8 of the CZ

Dec 19, 2006 at 09:06 PM

1 2 3 … 72 73 74 … 90 91 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 72 73 74 … 90 91 end