thrice wrote:
I laughed at your first two sentences. You say you disagree here, then completely agree with my statement and then compare two lenses I didn't even mention?
mawz, are you a reid reviews subscriber? Are you saying his copy of the 35/1.4 nokton was a dud? The 35 lux ASPH (the only one I would consider) absolutely destroys it, as does every (someone correct me if there is a worse 35) other 35 he reviews. The 50/1.5 nokton is ok, but it's not the 50 asph, I'm using a 50/1.1 nokton and love it, but it's not as good as my 50 lux-R at equivalent apertures (nor would I have expected it to be).
The 50 sonnars are too soft for my liking, the old nikkors are alright, but are you using them on the M system? The rendering qualities are a matter of taste, from a technical perspective the 50 asph is the best 135 50mm lens ever....Show more →
You said:
thrice wrote:
Kit, sadly a couple of important lenses are still only produced to a high enough standard by Leica.
and went on to specify the 50 and 35 Summilux.
This is the part I strongly disagreed with. I'm not saying there that the Summiluxen aren't best, just that there are other lenses produced to a high enough standard. Frankly any of the current RF 50mm lenses will perform to similar levels of all but the absolute best SLR 50's and the same goes for the 35's. I've seen nothing which indicates the Nokton 35/1.4 is anything but an excellent performer and plenty of samples over at RFF which indicate that it is a superb lens which is why I brought it up.
And no, I'm not a Reid Reviews subscriber, nor will I ever be.
Yes, I'm using the 50 Nikkor on a RF body in addition to the G1 (I've got a Bessa R, so it's LTM rather than M) and I'm very happy with the results. I'd take it over the 50 ASPH even at equivalent prices, the 50 ASPH has got to be the least interesting 50mm I've ever seen. It's sharp as all hell, but completely boring and I don't shoot brick walls.
thrice wrote:
At equivalent apertures the E60 50 lux 1.4 is superior to the 50 summicron on the R system, I had both. A 50/1.4 is much harder to make than a 50/2.0, however the makro planar is probably the best f/2.0 50mm lens for the SLR system, I strongly considered it but went for speed. The 90 apo-summicron was what I was referring to in the 90 range, the 100/2.8 apo-macro is superior to the 100/2 planar and macro planar in all respects except brightness. If we're comparing the apo-summicron to the 100/2 planar I'd say it's very similar in rendering, but smaller, sharper and with better colours, ymmv. ...Show more →
The 90 is close enough in FoV to a 100 that I'd be putting it up against the 100/2 Planars in my buying decision, and I'd come down in favour of the Zeiss every time. And the 90 Summicrons are one of the few Leica lenses which I really like the results from.
Even against the E60 50 Lux, I'd take the 50 Makro-Planar. But I prefer the Zeiss rendering as I generally find most modern Leica lenses rendering to be uninteresting and fairly flat (the 'printed poster' look vs the Zeiss 3D look). And at f1.4, the Sigma is probably better.
mawz wrote:
Frankly, I'll take my 50 year old Nikkor 5cm f1.4 over an ASPH Summilux any day. It's damn good at f2 and smaller and delivers enough at f1.4 for my needs. And the rendering qualities beat the Summilux ASPH silly. I can live with some CA if it nets me Sonnar bokeh.
Man, I love my 50 ASPH. The Nikkor is cool and I use it from time to time - it's a great lens for 50+ years old and $200ish. But the 50 ASPH is just fantastic. In my mind.
The M9 looks like a great camera. ISO 2500 is fast enough for me, and it looks clean enough up there to be useable. But man is that a lot of money. Maybe in 2 or 3 years
I tested the M9 some today, it is _slow_ when it comes to write to card, review images etc. _REALLY_ slow, other than that I have not had time to upload images to my computer and look them over, will post samples vs. a d700 later tonight (shot the d700 24 2.0 ai-s vs M9 + 24 2.8, both at f/4, iso 800-2500/3200)
kidtexas wrote:
Man, I love my 50 ASPH. The Nikkor is cool and I use it from time to time - it's a great lens for 50+ years old and $200ish. But the 50 ASPH is just fantastic. In my mind.
The M9 looks like a great camera. ISO 2500 is fast enough for me, and it looks clean enough up there to be useable. But man is that a lot of money. Maybe in 2 or 3 years
I have to say that unlike the M8, the M9 is interesting as all heck. It's not the sensor I really want (which would be something akin to Nikon's 12MP part) but the results are stunning and ISO 2500 would suffice for much of my work and I could live with a second camera for when it doesn't.
But I'm no going to have that sort of money anytime soon.
And your take on the 50ASPH vs the Nikkor just shows how much preferred rendering qualities are personal, something that's often forgotten.
Yeah I know, tell me about it. I'd be happy with that camera but it's too dang much. Maybe I'll start slowly saving and hopefully the price will drop. Maybe those two processes will converge in a couple years at a point where I can rationalize.
For now, film will have to suffice. I barely even touch my SLR stuff anymore - I'd sell it but film gear isn't worth that much, so what's the point?
kidtexas wrote:
Yeah I know, tell me about it. I'd be happy with that camera but it's too dang much. Maybe I'll start slowly saving and hopefully the price will drop. Maybe those two processes will converge in a couple years at a point where I can rationalize.
For now, film will have to suffice. I barely even touch my SLR stuff anymore - I'd sell it but film gear isn't worth that much, so what's the point?
Indeed,
Right now all I'm using for small format are my G1, my Bessa R and occasionally my E-30, I haven't touched most of my SLR kit in over a month.
A month? I've only used my SLR like once in the last year, and thats because I needed 200-300mm and 10 fps. Haha. And before that, only sparingly in the last couple years. But thats just me.
ulrikft wrote:
I tested the M9 some today, it is _slow_ when it comes to write to card, review images etc. _REALLY_ slow, other than that I have not had time to upload images to my computer and look them over, will post samples vs. a d700 later tonight (shot the d700 24 2.0 ai-s vs M9 + 24 2.8, both at f/4, iso 800-2500/3200)
Really? I handled 3 different M9's tonight and all were plenty quick enough, reviewing images down to 100% even when nearly full. Perhaps the firmware on the M9 you handled was earlier than 1.002? Which card were you using? EDIT: were you shooting RAW+JPEG or JPEG? I recall people saying a while ago that unless you shoot only .DNG's the cameras (M8's) are a little sluggish this might also be the case for the M9.
Incidentally there were a few fondlers there tonight, not that many shooters. Myself and one other guy were the only ones who brought cameras with us!? I got to see a glass of water poured over an operational S2 as well AF on that thing is very fast! If somewhat noisy. really just a tad bigger than a 5D Mark II which is astounding.
Even though high ISO is pretty good, I don't think it will come very close to the d700, if that's all you're comparing I think you'll be disappointed. However I was shooting in dim shop lighting tonight at ISO100 1/60s and my meter told me I was spot on with my 1.1 Nokton. The ISO160 quality on the M9 is truly outstanding and noiseless, unlike my 5D-II. I found the menus very intuitive and the ISO menu very usable (moreso than the button press followed by wheel on top of the 5D). Altogether an enjoyable experience. I'll have pics OF (not taken with) the M9, S2 and X1, when I get this roll developed. Incidentally I'm also paying for my M9 on Friday, getting the 3rd one into Western Australia.
The guest speaker and "Leica ambassador for Australia" is John Laham, great work he does.
thrice wrote:
I'll have pics OF (not taken with) the M9, S2 and X1, when I get this roll developed. Incidentally I'm also paying for my M9 on Friday, getting the 3rd one into Western Australia.
The guest speaker and "Leica ambassador for Australia" is John Laham, great work he does.
So, what was your impression of the X1 in person? Were you able to handle and shoot with it?
Was able to handle it but it was a non-working sample the pop up flash is cool (spring mounted so you just press that circle). It's considerably lighter than an M, but still nice metal build. Got confirmation it is a sony made CMOS sensor, ie. D300 sensor.
The lens was surprisingly small. It is a jean pocket size camera! And I don't wear baggy jeans.
i'll stick to the oh-so-pedestrian 1DsIII and L primes.
You must be frustrated that your pedestrian system is more expensive (at least in Aus). Be gone troll!
Oh and Ulrik in a followup to what you noticed about speed, Stephan Daniel (product manager @ Leica for the M series) has said in an interview I just watched, that he's very frustrated with the current speed, and that much more will be eked out in future firmware. Seemed ok to me oh and only write speed is affected by DNG+JPEG, not review speed unlike I previously implied.
kidtexas wrote:
A month? I've only used my SLR like once in the last year, and thats because I needed 200-300mm and 10 fps. Haha. And before that, only sparingly in the last couple years. But thats just me.
the pop up flash is cool (spring mounted so you just press that circle). It's considerably lighter than an M, but still nice metal build. Got confirmation it is a sony made CMOS sensor, ie. D300 sensor.
oh and only write speed is affected by DNG+JPEG, not review speed unlike I previously implied.