Tariq Gibran wrote:
Darkening that image with levels, I see the dust spot and what I guess is the flaw you are referring to. That to me does look like it might be able to be cleaned off (seems like it would be more defined if it were a physical defect like a crack). You could try or have the shop owner try.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm glad to hear it's a lens I could actually afford to own. I was afraid it was some $5K Leica glass!
The ZM + GXR (or M9) combination is the sharpest I have ever seen from any digital system. I wonder if the 5K$ Leica glass can exceed it, and would that even be necessary.
The ZM + GXR (or M9) combination is the sharpest I have ever seen from any digital system. I wonder if the 5K$ Leica glass can exceed it, and would that even be necessary.
I would think once at this level of detail - a level where its easy to see the color artifacts from the lack of the AA filter and the lens is clearly out-resolving the sensor - everything else is about lens drawing style preference.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm sure the shop owner will try that anyway. They will contact me again if it's only dirt, but from the face of the shop clerk, I somehow noticed he wasn't very surprised when I mentioned the scratch.
But definitely, that's the longest scratch I have ever seen
I wonder if it's not the infamous cracked sensor.
It's not a crack, but could be a scratch.
This is what a cracked sensor typically looks like (one of my 1DIII bodies):
You'll notice the line is very smooth. Your example looks like something was wiped across the sensor and scratched it.
I'll see if I have any actual photos shot with it online... Canon quoted me $1500 to replace the sensor. The camera isn't worth that much so I decided to just live with it, and still use it from time to time...
But for that M9 Edward, I think you did the right thing to return it because that line will show up more often than not, unless you shot everything wide open all the time. You said it was mint, so was it used? I suspect you'll have many more chances to find another one... There was one posted very recently on GetDPI for about $4400, I think...
Edit: here's an image shot with the 16-35 at 16mm, f/10. You can see the line start at the bottom center and arc up to the right.
rscheffler wrote:
According to Luka, in the Leica M image thread, the ZM 35/2 is the sharpest 35mm rangefinder lens on the market... at infinity.
Do u also know what lenses he tested it against? Not that I wanna argue against it, but I was always stunned with the results the ZM 35/2.8 c-biogon gave me.
Edward, I find it quite amazing u thought they seller already knew of the line when u returned it. Or expected u to come back. If its true I would not buy from them again.
He meant as a landscape lens, so generally distant scenes. I believe his personal point of experience is against the 35 Lux ASPH v.1. There was some discussion a while ago in that thread about the Lux's mid-zone sharpness dip, with actual sample images to illustrate what is seen in Leica's MTFs.
The ZM35 f/2.8, which I have, is very good, but the Zeiss MTF indicate the f/2 is a slightly better performer stopped down a couple stops. It also has virtually no distortion. I don't think either is a bad choice for general uses.
rscheffler wrote:
He meant as a landscape lens, so generally distant scenes. I believe his personal point of experience is against the 35 Lux ASPH v.1. There was some discussion a while ago in that thread about the Lux's mid-zone sharpness dip, with actual sample images to illustrate what is seen in Leica's MTFs.
The ZM35 f/2.8, which I have, is very good, but the Zeiss MTF indicate the f/2 is a slightly better performer stopped down a couple stops. It also has virtually no distortion. I don't think either is a bad choice for general uses.
I recall that it was reported that 35/2 had better overall sharpness at infinity with f=8.0.
Thank you Ron. Indeed the crack seems to be very clean, while the problem on mine is probably a scratch.
Robert, you're right. But if you want to stop dealing with everyone who tries to cheat you, you better stay at home and lock the door
Kidding aside, the shop had a 3 day return policy and 3 months warranty, so probably they thought if I was ignorant enough not to see the scratch in 3 days, then I deserve it.
As for the ZM 35/2, it is very sharp at all distances. It exhibits some veiling haze wide open, but interestingly only at the image periphery. The center does not show the haze like other lenses. In fact it is not really haze. I would rather describe it as glow.
I remember Luka was mostly criticizing the ugly bokeh of the lens, and to be honest, none of the ZM I own produces nice bokeh, if I want to compare with the ZA for instance, where bokeh played an important role in the lens design.
Bijltje wrote:
Welcome to the M9 family, oh and don't get to used to the frame line lever
Thank you Robert! I really loved that frame line lever on my M6 and Ikons. I could select which lens would be appropriate without swiping lenses. Well, maybe in the future the frames will be electronic
I was thinking about the removal of the frame line lever on the M and it occurred to me that, since the projected frame lines are not mechanical anymore (it uses an lcd), it seems like it would have been even easier to have a method of showing any frame line desired. Can anyone explain why that's not the case?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I was thinking about the removal of the frame line lever on the M and it occurred to me that, since the projected frame lines are not mechanical anymore (it uses an lcd), it seems like it would have been even easier to have a method of showing any frame line desired. Can anyone explain why that's not the case?
The frame lines in the M are just as mechanical as the ones in the M9 or any other M body. The lens mount selects the right one.
Difference is they are not illuminated any more with daylight but by a LED light build in the camera. So thats why there is a window less at the front.
No LCD is used for the lines.
Reading the RED dot website, because the frame lever was expensive to build in, and because not many people seems to use it (?) they left it out.
