My Canon Sure Shot Ace croaked a few days ago - it rewound the film about half way through shooting a 36 exp roll, and got worse from there on.
I loaded the roll of Lomo 800 that was in the Canon into my Leica M7. Fired off blank capped shots until I had passed the number of shots that were from the Canon, then was good to finish the rest of the film
Which I did the very next day, and about the same time of day. Taking very similar shots as I was curious as to the difference.
The high serial # (and thus more desirable) M7 with CV 35 1.4 II Nokton in total cost around $4000 used.
The Canon Sure Shot Ace cost $13 used/ebay.
So, same roll of film (so no differences in developing/chemical/temps), same time of day, same subject, 1 day apart:
100% crop:
The most noticeable difference is the difference in exposure, as well as the difference in warmth/saturation. But that could also be a result of exposure difference. I have noticed that the Sure Shot Ace really does saturate colors in an almost Lomo-esque Minitar 32mm fashion.
Then when you pixel peep, the obvious difference in sharpness.
I assume the first slightly sharper crops in each set are the Leica/CV combo. It's a useful reminder of how much one can pay in the photographic world to get very minor improvements.
Much to be said that the key to a great photo is f8 and be there.
Assuming both photos were taken each time with the same/similar aperture, the CV 35/1.4 II lens might be a bit off regarding focusing - maybe some back/front focusing issue? I would examine this lens attached to a digital M camera to make sure. Beautiful photos nevertheless!
retrofocus wrote:
Assuming both photos were taken each time with the same/similar aperture, the CV 35/1.4 II lens might be a bit off regarding focusing - maybe some back/front focusing issue? I would examine this lens attached to a digital M camera to make sure. Beautiful photos nevertheless!
Hmm, I don't see the focus off at all. Sharp at the point of focus when I pixel peep in LR. And has been like that on my 10r as well.
Desmolicious wrote:
Hmm, I don't see the focus off at all. Sharp at the point of focus when I pixel peep in LR. And has been like that on my 10r as well.
Other failure option is rangefinder focus calibration might be a bit off. But it shouldn't matter if you used f/5.6 and smaller aperture here.
panos.v wrote:
Yeah but which one made you feel like a "true artist".
I bet if you adjust the vignetting a bit and print on a matte paper nobody will tell the difference.
It's funny but there is more satisfaction getting a nice image from a 'crappy' camera, as you expect works of art every time you push the shutter on a Leica. Because, why else pay that much?
P&S are a lot of fun, but this Canon is limited to ideal conditions - eg when the sun is still out! Or things aren't moving fast. The shutter speed range is something like 1/15 to 1/125... and the flash turns on whenever it d@mn pleases.
The M7 is IMO the funnest Leica M to use, as the AE really helps with that. It makes it such a quick shooter, while with an MP/M6 etc you pay far more attention to setting the exposure. And on the 7, if you want manual, just switch it to manual.
Of note, the Canon SureShot Ace (RIP) has the worst lens out of my p&s collection. If I had used my Samsung AF Slim (non zoom) I most probably would not see any difference optically - at least at these apertures (f8-f11)
retrofocus wrote:
Other failure option is rangefinder focus calibration might be a bit off. But it shouldn't matter if you used f/5.6 and smaller aperture here.
But I don't see any missed focus!
From a previous image - M7 w the CV 35 1.4 II at 1.4
This image seems it was taken close to MFD - lenses can act differently with focus at MFD and infinity. Not sure if this helps to expalin it - but from the earlier photos there seems some little misfocus apparent (visible in the magnified crops).
yeah, I don't see any mis-focus at all. Those pics were taken either at infinity, or very close too and at F11 as it was ISO 800 film. There is no way at that aperture and distance any mis-focus can be demonstrated due to distance/dof etc.
All the M7 shots are the first shots in the series.
Desmolicious wrote:
yeah, I don't see any mis-focus at all. Those pics were taken either at infinity, or very close too and at F11 as it was ISO 800 film. There is no way at that aperture and distance any mis-focus can be demonstrated due to distance/dof etc.
All the M7 shots are the first shots in the series.
Here was my error - I assumed wrongly the first shots derived from the Canon camera! Then all is good - this is within expectation!
lol. I prefer the Leica images, but I really think that the exposure is better - and of course I could control it. With the Canon it does what it does. Anyway this was just for fun as the Canon broke but it still had 10 images left on the film to use, so I put it in the Leica.
I need to put another roll through my Sure Shot Ace. All I remember was being really surprised as how the shots turned out. I have another P&S the Ricoh FF-3 where my results were the exact opposite.(Bad) But those were earlier days during the pandemic and trying to discover film.
I have to say even experimenting with Leica, my favorite film bodies are the Olympus OM series so far.
Desmolicious wrote:
lol. I prefer the Leica images, but I really think that the exposure is better - and of course I could control it. With the Canon it does what it does. Anyway this was just for fun as the Canon broke but it still had 10 images left on the film to use, so I put it in the Leica.
Huss,
You might want to adapt the very affordable Nikkor 55mm f3.5 ai micro, or an ai'd Nikkor-P, or ai'd Nikkor-P.C to your Leica M. There are tributes online, stories about uses in famous movies etc. However, it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. My first cost $40, and my third was the most expensive cost $78 - add an AI to M adapter for about $25. As a macro it is great, but landscapes are where it shines resolving fine details better than most lenses I have tried. Great image quality from 9 inches to beyond infinity (all three of mine focus past infinity)
It doesn't spoil it - use it on the F2 when you are done. However, you seem particular interested in deal hardware in comparison to the best. Like 4K vs $13 on the same roll of film. How about a Leica M lens on the same body with less than $50 dollar MF Nikkor lens? What would that look like? I'd like to know.
Desmolicious wrote:
James - why would I want to do that and spoil a lovely lens when I can use it as nature intended on one of my beautiful F2 bodies?
James Markus wrote:
It doesn't spoil it - use it on the F2 when you are done. However, you seem particular interested in deal hardware in comparison to the best. Like 4K vs $13 on the same roll of film. How about a Leica M lens on the same body with less than $50 dollar MF Nikkor lens? What would that look like? I'd like to know.
I can top that. Here is a pic taken with a plastic lens recycled from a Fuji Quiksnap disposable camera - mounted on one of my Ms.
