p.5 #1 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
In my experience of testing an M8 on two occasions, a 5D2 and a D700 will give better results at iso 12800 than an M8 gives at 2500, or perhaps even 1250. That's more than two stops, perhaps three. The M8 might be able to use a Noctilux, but a full-frame sensor brings home the shadows with every lens you buy..
You are probably correct on the one or two stop advantage. My agument hasn't been that the M8 has good high iso performance, but that the Leica M lenses are two stops sharper than the Canon or Nikon equivalent lens.
p.5 #2 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
You have got to be kidding. Leica has publicly admitted that in-camera noise reduction is applied to M8 files, with no way to switch this feature off. When you look at M8 files you can see where detail has been wiped. Here's an example, M8, then 5D: http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/images/brollycrop.jpg
See how the brolly spokes have been mysteriously disappeared. That is Fourier transform noise reduction if ever I saw it, and that kind of NR is not taking place in Canon's bodies unless you switch it on. This crop also illustrates how problematic the lack of AA filter is: look at the false colour moire around the black text....Show more →
Was that the raw or the jpeg? Which Leica lens? Remember my argument is about Leica lenses. I never shoot jpeg, even with my Canon 1 Series.
p.5 #3 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Brainiac - could you start posting some different examples of 12800? I think most of us have seen those a million different times
I also think the original poster did say he'd never stray over 640 too. Not that that might not change, but still. Many photographers get by just fine at 100, 200, or 400, never straying higher than that.
I was shooting a concert once in a very dimly lit club. My exposures were in the ballpark of 1/12s-1/30s, f/1.4, at 6400. Nothing really came out that well. I'm sure a D700/D3/5D/1DS3 etc would have done a better job then what I got, at the very least pushing the shutter up closer to 1/60s and letting me stop more motion. At the same time, looking through the images I got, 'proper' exposure would have been at least 3 or 4 stops more exposed, which just isn't happening with the current technology yet.
It was dark in the club, for photography or just for watching. Dark enough that pictures from any camera probably wouldn't be interesting because there was just no contrast in the scene.
Jan 13, 2009 at 01:17 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #4 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
You are probably correct on the one or two stop advantage. My agument hasn't been that the M8 has good high iso performance, but that the Leica M lenses are two stops sharper than the Canon or Nikon equivalent lens.
It's two to three stops, and Canon and Nikon bodies can be used with Zeiss, and other alternative lenses.
Jan 13, 2009 at 01:25 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #5 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
kidtexas wrote:
Brainiac - could you start posting some different examples of 12800? I think most of us have seen those a million different times
Sorry - I have thousands more, but not uploaded...
>I was shooting a concert once in a very dimly lit club. My exposures were in the ballpark of 1/12s-1/30s, f/1.4, at 6400. Nothing really came out that well.
If you use a monopod, and watch carefully for a human subject to pause, you can often get a few keepers at very slow speeds. Combine iso 12800 with an f1.2 lens and you are in business. Of course, performance at high isos will never be good enough, but we are getting into the realm where cameras seem to gather light as well, if not better, than the human eye.
p.5 #6 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
It's two to three stops, and Canon and Nikon bodies can be used with Zeiss, and other alternative lenses.
There are only a couple Zeiss or other lenses that can compete with the Leica M glass. Even then, the Zeiss glass tends to need stopping down to get best results.
Is there any fast modern Zeiss glass that performs?
p.5 #7 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
You force me to enumerate them:
Honestly, about 95% of the stuff on the list is a total non-issue. I have to rotate the camera sometimes! OMG! It's a manual focus camera - there are some niceties you give up. It's going to be slower in many situations. Only center point focusing? Just like how I use my 1V - its faster and more accurate that way. No preview of DOF? Maybe I'm alone in this, but does anyone actually use that?
Whatever, the point is that many of these shortcomings are not perceived as shortcomings to everyone. Maybe they are to you. Maybe they aren't. I don't know.
There are several advantages to RF's. Yes, there is no mirror to slap. I don't know if that really makes a difference though with the pro level SLRs - things are damped pretty well.
More importantly, there's no mirror black out and shutter lag is small (I've read 12ms). Also, you can see outside the frame lines. This can be nice in some situations. Maybe those two things are important for your shooting, maybe not. This all has to do with just the viewfinder.
There are several other advantages as well - the biggest one for me is size. I can pack my camera with lens, a spare lens, batteries, and about 6-8 rolls of film in a bag that measures 7"x7"x4". I've travelled with a DSLR system with a zoom and another lens. I've also travelled with 2 Ms, 3 lenses, and a crapload of film. That latter was by far a more enjoyable trip with regards to lugging equipment around AND quality output.
If you shoot film, the (essentially) total independence on batteries is nice. I can carry about 3 years of batteries in a film canister. On one hand, it sounds like a dumb point. On the other, when I take a trip for two weeks, I don't really have to worry if my batteries are charged. I can shoot heavy or shoot light, I know its more or less ready to go with a minimum amount of prep.
Which leads me to my last point - I shoot film as I already said. I like my Ms and my 1V over a DSLR for the major reason that they shoot Tri-X, Plus-X, and TMZ. I haven't quite figured out how to fit CR2's and DNGs into the enlarger yet...
I'm done after this. I promise. The point I'm trying to get across is that everyone has differenct needs, and for some RF's fit the bill (digital or not). I'm happy with what I shoot and it sounds like you are too.
PS - not that this was the original draw for me, but I do find my M-mount lenses out perform the Canon equivalents, but then again, I get maybe the equivalent of 2MP out of TMZ, so who cares...
p.5 #8 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
There are only a couple Zeiss or other lenses that can compete with the Leica M glass. Even then, the Zeiss glass tends to need stopping down to get best results.
Well, the Zeiss ZM lenses (Leica M mount) compete quite well with the Leica M glass and do it for a much more reasonable cost. But of course these don't fit Canon bodies either. Few SLR lenses really can compete with rangefinder lenses generally -- Leica, Zeiss, or otherwise (particularly at the shorter focal lengths). And generally speaking, virtually ALL lenses need stopping down to get best results, even Leica lenses.
p.5 #9 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
If you use a monopod, and watch carefully for a human subject to pause, you can often get a few keepers at very slow speeds. Combine iso 12800 with an f1.2 lens and you are in business. Of course, performance at high isos will never be good enough, but we are getting into the realm where cameras seem to gather light as well, if not better, than the human eye.
True, but the monopod would make more of a difference than ISO 12800
Mike Johnston had a picture on his website a month or so ago about the incredible ISO performance of the 5DII or the D700 (I think it was the D700). The picture was good illustration of it, but it was of a house at night. It would have been a better picture at a lower ISO and on a $40 tripod. Haha. Not that you always have a tripod, but if you make pictures of houses at night, get a tripod...
To the original poster - An M8 and two lenses is a buttload of money. I wouldn't do it. I'd get an M6/M3 and a CV or a Zeiss lens for $1000-1500 instead of $8k.
p.5 #10 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well, the Zeiss ZM lenses (Leica M mount) compete quite well with the Leica M glass and do it for a much more reasonable cost.
Except the Zeiss lenses that are about par with the Leica lenses, such as the 85mm, which costs as much or more than the equivalent 90mm Leica APO. The Zeiss 15mm is pretty good too, but very expensive and not focus coupled.
What about the Zeiss SLR lenses. What I have seen so far have not been stellar performers and I don't think there are any good f1.4 lenses.
p.5 #12 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
The Leica 50/1.4 ASPH BLOWS the Canon 50/1.4 out of the water. I've never shot the Canon 50/1.2, but I'm sure the Leica destroys that too. As it should. It's an expensive bugger...
The 28/2 is far better than the Canon 28/1.8. I'm sure the 35/1.4 is better than the 35L, but I've never shot either of those so I'll be quiet about those. I also have a feeling the new 21 and 24/1.4 lenses from Leica are probably a wee bit sharper wide open than whatever Canon/Nikon offer there, but at $6k/lens, they should be.
As far as the Leica lenses I've shot with, (50/2, 50/1.4A, and 28/2) they all have been fantastic performers, even wide open. Yes, things tighten up a bit a stop or two down, but there are absolutely no reservations about using them wide open.
From what I hear, Canon rocks harder in the longer focal lengths, but SLRs generally kick RF butt in that territory for a number of (above mentioned) reasons. I'm also sure Canon could do better on say, the 28/1.8 or 50/1.4 if they weren't $300-400 lenses. If they were sold for $3k, and not as 50/1.2, 50/1.0, 28/1.4, but 28/2 and 50/1.4, they would be much better lenses, even wide open. One of the things I don't like about Canon/Nikon is that you can't buy a no-holds-barred 50/1.4 or 50/2. You have to buy a 50/1.2 to get that, and any lens with an extreme aperture like that is going to make some big trade offs in the design stage which one must accept.
p.5 #13 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
the 35 1.4 L is no slouch in any way, neither are the ZF 35 2.0, zf 28 2.0 etc. I have a hard time believing that the 50 1.4 asph "destroys" the canon 50 1.2 at 1.4, or even the sigma 50 1.4 at 1.4...
I also suspect that ZE/ZF wides in general compete well with the leicas.
p.5 #14 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
robsteve wrote:
What about the Zeiss SLR lenses. What I have seen so far have not been stellar performers and I don't think there are any good f1.4 lenses.
Are we comparing the Zeiss SLR lens to rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses?
In terms of SLR lenses, and relative to SLR lenses, the Zeiss 50/1.4 is thought be a number of authorities to be the best 50mm available. The 50/1.2 Jahre is even better. The 85/1.4 Planar and the 35/1.4 Distagon are also very good lenses with lots of fans world-wide (lots of evidence in this forum alone). Clearly, large segments of the market think that the f1.4 lenses that Zeiss has made are very good. Your opinion on this matter is far universal, and quite contrary to the overwhelming consensus view. They debate-ably may or may not be the "best", but they are indeed, at the very least, "good" lenses.
p.5 #15 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
the 35 1.4 L is no slouch in any way, neither are the ZF 35 2.0, zf 28 2.0 etc. I have a hard time believing that the 50 1.4 asph "destroys" the canon 50 1.2 at 1.4, or even the sigma 50 1.4 at 1.4...
I also suspect that ZE/ZF wides in general compete well with the leicas.
From what (little) I've seen, the EF 50/1.4 is on par with the 50/1.2 at 1.4, if not a little better...
The 50 ASPH is better than the 50/1.2 in my mind for no other reason than it doesn't have focus shift.
I didn't say the 35/1.4L is a slouch. I was only saying that the 34/1.4 ASPH might be better
p.5 #16 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
"destroying" "might be better" :P
well well
I just think that claiming that you will get a 2 stop advantage with all leica lenses is a bit of a long shot if you like the leica-look, great! If you like the zeiss-look, well then the leica-look won't help you :P
p.5 #17 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Lotusm50 wrote:
Are we comparing the Zeiss SLR lens to rangefinder lenses or SLR lenses?
In terms of SLR lenses, and relative to SLR lenses, the Zeiss 50/1.4 is thought be a number of authorities to be the best 50mm available. The 50/1.2 Jahre is even better. The 85/1.4 Planar and the 35/1.4 Distagon are also very good lenses with lots of fans world-wide (lots of evidence in this forum alone). Clearly, large segments of the market think that the f1.4 lenses that Zeiss has made are very good. Your opinion on this matter is far universal, and quite contrary to the overwhelming consensus view. They debate-ably may or may not be the "best", but they are indeed, at the very least, "good" lenses.
I meant the Zeiss branded lenses currently being made, ZE, ZF.The 100mm macro doesn't compare to the Leica 100mm APO (which is now an almots twenty year old design) and the ZF 85mm f1.4 does not seem to perfom as was as the Nikon equivalent.
The whole point was the comparison of the M8 versus a Canon or Nikon, so it may be appropriate to compare a M lens to a Zeiss ZF or ZE. I didn't realize there was a ZF 50mm f1.4. How does it compare to the Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH. I would bet the Leica is better wide open.
In the rangefinder lenses, the top Zeiss ZM lenses compare well with the Leica M, though the Zeiss ZM lenses made in Germany are as expensive as the Leica M lenses.
p.5 #18 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
"destroying" "might be better" :P
well well
I just think that claiming that you will get a 2 stop advantage with all leica lenses is a bit of a long shot if you like the leica-look, great! If you like the zeiss-look, well then the leica-look won't help you :P
I didn't claim there was a two stop advantage.
I also didn't say the 35A would kill the 35L as I've never shot either of them. I did say my 50A kills my Canon 50/1.4. I also looked into buying the 50/1.2, but decided it didn't really add much to the 50/1.4 on Canon, and instead decided to divert the funds towards the Leica.
(new design) Leica lenses do tend to be very sharp wide open. The same is not always true with the Canon lenses I've shot with. The 50/1.4 is a prime example of that.
Jan 13, 2009 at 02:42 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #19 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
kidtexas wrote:
Brainiac - could you start posting some different examples of 12800? I think most of us have seen those a million different times
Here's a roughly 25600 iso shot from 1Ds3. It was sRaw, so probably could have been better. I gave it +2 in DPP, and also applied a fairly strong push curve, which I estimate to be about a stop. I have had to apply dust & scratches in varying degrees over different parts of the picture. It's just about usable - I think the bride and groom will like it and overlook the banding. Shooting this kind of shot with flash can kill it. I could barely see at all as it was pitch black except for the sparklers, but I used the viewfinder and very rapid focus bracketing to shoot as many shots as possible. Autofocus is out of the question in light this low. Contax 35 f1.4 (at f1.4, obviously). It isn't going to win awards, but it still worth getting these pictures rather than giving up: http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/robmary25600.jpg
p.5 #20 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
I grabbed the 50mm f1.4 MTF graphs off the Leica and Zeiss web sites. On the Leica graph, ignore the top line, as it is the 5lp/mm plot. The Leica chart plots 5,10,20,40. The Zeiss starts at 10 and plots 10,20,40.
