Fred Miranda Offline Admin Upload & Sell: On
|
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Thank you Fred!
It’s a good question that I would have a hard time answering, I would have to look back at my samples and maybe test the lens with that question in mind.
The fact is that my leica M is an M9 and it sets things apart just as is. That’s an old and odd camera, I think that have I owned a more recent model I could have had a more precise idea.
I think I have shot the Heliar quite differently on the Z and M camera, the M9 gives me no live view and poor low light capabilities(not that I do mind that much, I often love the lack of dynamic range, it gives me some large areas of low details zones of shadows with some juicy grain, so filmic.)
There are the limitations of the shutter also in terms of speed, the fact is that I used the Heliar often at f2.8 or f4 without being able to live view the effects peculiar to the lens while with the Nikon Z, I shot everything wide open with a total control of what effects I wanted in frame.
I bought the M9 to put the most odd lenses I could find to have the most extreme film like camera digital could give me and bought some better lenses for the Z and ended up inverting all because I could control it more on the Z and the M9 needed some more capable optics to counter its own oddity.
All that put aside, if I consider my impressions, I would believe that I haven’t noticed much differences in rendering while wide open til 2.8(the lens despite the loss of glow at f2 still exhibits a unique character at 2.8 to 4 I would say), the lens produces its effects similarly on both systems for what I can tell, maybe the glow can differ but I would have to double check on that.
I noticed a difference of rendering more at smaller apertures, at f4 I don’t like the results much on the Nikon and on the M9 I find them quite pleasing but I think it’s where the CCD sensor magic kicks in. The colors of the M9 are something else and I don’t believe it’s a myth, maybe the Kodak legend of it but not the CCD tech.
Overall, I believe the lens behaves quite well on Nikon Z series, I had an A7S and a Sony A7S II before for stills and even though I miss those sensors, the Z series maybe better suited for adapted lenses.
I might make some tests to compare the rendering between my M and my Z with the Heliar, you got me curious.
Sorry for the all over the place answer.
One last thought is that character lenses do benefit from the live view, big time....Show more →
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I really enjoy shooting with the M9! Besides the variations in colors and noise levels, I believe the Heliar design complements both thin and thick sensors effectively. I can't recall testing the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Heliar on the Sony, but I'll make sure to do so for confirmation. The primary concern with rendering is that on thick sensors, the rendering might become uneven, causing out-of-focus corners to appear sharp due to induced field curvature.
I came across gallery samples from @Juha Kannisto, who adapts M lenses to Sony, and they look impressive:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1719880/1#15717080
|