Just spoke with leica. My x1 was in fact faulty..they are replacing the lens assembly and I should have it back a week today. Finally! Now I hope it's as sharp as many other copies.
Joakim, that last shot is great. Amazing separation in all those whites.
Luka wrote:
Again, not bad. Nice DOF falloff. Somewhat too smudged corners relative to the out of foucs blur, but nothing too dramatic. No weird field curvature or anything like that and zero distortion.
Are you sure about that? What I see is that the plane of sharp focus is at the car's distance in almost the whole image. The bottom two corners get suddenly wildly soft, but the top right corner, waaaay in the distance, suddenly snaps into focus again. It looks like this lens might have a very flat field over perhaps 90-95% of the image, and then snap violently back in the corners... Didn't the 50 Sonnar have something similar?
We had another film user in this thread some pages ago and he move to a general film thread instead, you should look that up I guess.
Gregory, I am one of the "other film users." I love my M6 but recently, and by recently I mean 1-2 weeks, I just bought a M8.2 again. So, I will be contributing a little bit of both.
Now, my problem is that I am in Ohio, a territory that is foreign to me and I am freezing cold! I am used to warm weather. Horrible.
Oh, this M8.2...It is amazing that you can take a shot and look at it. haha I feel like digital photography has just been invented again. The only thing I don't like...the finder compared to my M6. I really hope I don't look through a M9. I would imagine this is not the case.
denoir wrote:
35 Biogon on the left, 50 Sonnar on the right, 35 Lux ASPH II bottom.
I selected the Lux @ 2.8 since the field curvature is most evident there in the MTF. There is less at f/1.4.
I am afraid you will have to be a bit more blunt. I don't know what you are trying to say.
I wasn't saying anything about which lens is better than what, but the ZM35/2 shot you posted does look to have a really nasty field curvature, if the top right corner's sharpness is not somehow a different phenomenon. Are you disagreeing?
Umm, well, perhaps as a substitute for taking psychadelic drugs. The only thing done to the image apart from resize is an increase in contrast.
i kind a like it, though i admit i wouldn't like bokeh like that for every shot. that looks like quite the contrast boost incidentally.
i also agree with carstenw about the car shot. that definitely looks like field curvature in the corners. the sagital and tangential curves don't have to diverge on the MTF to create field curvature, they can both have the same field curvature.
Carsten, the point was to show how field curvature looks in an MTF chart (at least at infinity focus).
Sebboh, no, but there should be a discontinuity in the curves. You can always (according to Zeiss anyway) see field curvature at infinity on an MTF chart.
Anyway, I don't think it is field curvature. It could be just an optical illusion after the resize & sharpen. This is a larger crop of the offending corner:
Is the upper right corner sharper? Maybe. But I could equally interpret it as simply being an impression one gets because of the change in texture and colors. So I'm not convinced it is actually more blurry. A more simple scene would be better.
So, here is a shot of our friend, the brick wall :
And one more car shot with corners as expected:
I'm not sure what caused the look of the previous image. Possibly motion blur or an optical illusion following the resize, but I don't know. It is not something that I've seen in general. As field curvature can vary by focal plane I can't really rule it out without systematic testing but again, it's nothing that I've seen in general.
denoir wrote:
Sebboh, no, but there should be a discontinuity in the curves. You can always (according to Zeiss anyway) see field curvature at infinity on an MTF chart.
in the case of no astigmatism there will be no discontinuity of the curves - but this does not imply an uncurved plane of focus. in this case the field curvature will be manifested as a simultaneous drop of both curves at the edge. the only way i am aware of to disambiguate this from a simple drop in sharpness at the edges is to take pictures where the point of focus is in the corner (only really possible with liveview ).
could you show a crop from the top left of that first car shot? because the roof looked like it was in focus if i remember correctly.
Sebboh, if you have field curvature then per definition given a focal point there will be a change in sharpness. The field curvature affects where the focus will be. If a part of the frame is suddenly misfocused then it will show on the MTF chart. If there is a gradual transition at the edges of the frame then yes, it may be difficult to differentiate from just a drop in sharpness.
sebboh wrote:
could you show a crop from the top left of that first car shot? because the roof looked like it was in focus if i remember correctly.
denoir wrote:
Sebboh, if you have field curvature then per definition given a focal point there will be a change in sharpness.
yes, but the tangential and saggital curves do not have to diverge from each other. i got the impression you were implying that there was no field curvature because the tangential and saggital curves were similar.
denoir wrote:
The field curvature affects where the focus will be. If a part of the frame is suddenly misfocused then it will show on the MTF chart.
there is obviously such a drop off in the corners of the zm 35/2 MTF graph. it could be non-astigmatic field curvature or could simply be a drop in lens sharpness in the corners. this is difficult to test with a rangefinder and ultimately not of great utility to test anyway since the result is the same - unsharp corners. if it is field curvature there is the advantage that one might be able to focus between the center and the corner to get better average sharpness but a less sharp central portion.
No, what I meant was simply that there should be a drop in sharpness. It is typically visible as a discontinuity but as I said, if it is gradual and at the edges it may be difficult to say what it is.
I've found another shot that seems to show field curvature towards the edges:
I have however many more samples that show no such thing so it must basically depend on the focus plane. For instance:
Ryan, great shots! I am really liking the rendering with CV 75/1.8
Ron, the 75 Lux is an extraordinary lens, in that it is very different from other medium tele lenses. At f/1.4 is has the leica glow, but still very sharp in detail, but changes in character from about 2.8 to 4 upwards, to virtually behaving like the 75 AA, but a more fully rendering version. I usually pay more attention to the feel of the lens, without getting caught in the tech details now.
Luka, very nice review of the ZM 35. That bokeh is wild. I did notice similar results with the ZE 35/2 at MFD, until certain conditions too.
Ohnchoe, congrats on the Nocti! I think you have left a lot of us drooling Very nice shots!
Gregory, great shots! You would not guess that it is film. In fact the colours are richer! Another one with the Nocti!!! Very nice shots
Joakim, truly beautiful shots!!! I think this is the look that originally drew me to the M series. I still believe the 35 Cron IV is an amazing lens.
Charles, great set of portraits with the 75Lux and 50Lux, also beautiful subject. The color shots with the 75Lux and the B&W with the 50Lux are my favorites. The waterfall shot is also very nice. Thanks also for your comments on my pic the previous page )
Gregory, welcome to the thread and hope you hang around here more often. Nor planning to move to digital yet? Very nice film shots with the Noct 1.0 and 12mm Heliar. Which film are you using? Love the colors. I just shot a few rolls of Fuji Superia Xrta 400, not sure if they can compare with the Portra range, but the Xtra is 1/2 the price of Portra here.
Ryan, nice series of shots, I like the composition and B&W tones on the 75 Heliar gate shot very much. The 75 Heliar seems like a decent lens for the price, did you have to bump up contrast in post for the wide open shots? The CA doesn't really bother me but that bokeh shot at f/2 is giving me a headache. I'm probably going to stay away from this lens, for a little more $$, the 75 Sumarit looks like a much better buy, especially if you consider used ones.
Joakim, you are giving me second thoughts about giving up my 35CronIV for a 28Cron, very nice B&W shots, the 2nd and 4th shots are my favorites. I'm surprised you picked the Ver IV rather than the ASPH?
Luka, thanks for sharing the comparisons of the 35mm lenses... they all look good to me but the ZM35/2 seems to have an edge on IQ and detail but this could be due to combination of lens and Kodak CCD sensor? BTW, that one Biogon 35/2 shot at MFD is giving me a double dose of dizziness
----------------------------
I don't know if a dedicated Leica film thread will attract many since there is already an excellent film thread with some Leica shooters there. I certainly don't mind including film M as part of this thread as I also shoot film. It will make an interesting comparison of old vs new and how the M mount lens renders on film or digital. What do the rest of you think? ..maybe someone can ask Paul to change this to the Leica M8/M9/ film M & X1 picture thread?
From Gregory's post, the Noct 1.0 renders beautifully on film but when I see a lot of shots from this lens on M8/M9, the pics seem to be missing some depth (my personal opinion).
Oh, this M8.2...It is amazing that you can take a shot and look at it. haha I feel like digital photography has just been invented again. The only thing I don't like...the finder compared to my M6. I really hope I don't look through a M9. I would imagine this is not the case.
Guys, amazing stuff on here!
I actually prefer the M9 finder to the M6. The M6 finder flares too much and is really difficult for me to focus when there is a strong light source. Are you sure your M6 does not have an upgraded MP finder?
Since we are somewhat on the topic of the Noctilux.
I originally wanted the f/1, and I was on the verge of buying it, even though it was priced a bit higher then I wanted to pay. In my moment of indecision I decided to look up images that would push me over the edge to buy. What happened was, I found a whole lot of .95 images that I hadn't previously seen. I realized that the .95 has the swirly bokeh I was after, and not only that, but the swirly bokeh seemed to be in almost every photo I gazed upon. What I also noticed is that in these swirly bokeh photos, the focus point was still sharp (webviewing sharp anyway). That really just turn me off wanting the f/1, and now I'm in love with the .95
Denoir - I was only kidding about my infinity focus comment. I was more referring to your classic building shots, since the RF style of focusing wouldn't interfere with the composition of those shots.
A lot of the shots you take that I like have an element of the foreground in focus, that complements the background. Besides, you wouldn't shoot ducks at infinity
About the 35ZM do you think something's misaligned with your copy?
And what I've noticed about Zeiss M in general, the bokeh isn't really ideal at the mid range of the focus.. I've noticed this on several of your images, especially with the 50 1.5, but it's not limited to that lens, the 35 shows it and some 28 21 and even 50/2 shots I've seen it in. It's like bokeh that someone tried to sharpen up using photoshop. Though again this doesn't always happen, so I'm wondering what conditions bring on this look.
charles - I was wondering, do you still have the 1.1? If so, do you have any comments on the difference between the 1.1 at 1.4 and the asphlux at 1.4.... Because on two reviews I've seen, I can't seem to tell the difference between the two lenses at close to min focusing distances. I know this sounds crazy, but for portraits at 1m distances really I didn't see to much of a difference (I'm just going on a handful of shots that were available to me).
joe88 wrote:
From Gregory's post, the Noct 1.0 renders beautifully on film but when I see a lot of shots from this lens on M8/M9, the pics seem to be missing some depth (my personal opinion).
It's probably in part due to various levels of post processing skills and the willingness, or lack thereof, to push digital files considerably in post.
Back about 6-8 years ago when digital submissions became a lot more prevalent for publication, it was pretty obvious when a given prepress operator was light handed with digital files. It often resulted in muddy repro, lackluster colours, etc. People were just not comfortable manhandling digital files to achieve a film-like look. (BTW, I have ~10 years of prepress experience)
Gregory's images are a perfect example. I don't know how much post he did, but these images are well beyond what would be default settings for digital files. That's the way a lot of film looks once printed. Clipped shadows, saturated colours... Instead with digital we have people creating HDR images that preserve shadow and highlight detail to a fault. Perhaps it's technically perfect, but often, to my eyes, it's bland.
The more I use LR now, the more I'm pushing contrast levels to the point where I'm getting a lot of pop. In contrast (haha) when I processed Canon RAW files with DPP I tended to a relatively neutral rendering. I'm not really sure why. It's not that my M9 + ZM images need more help in post. Maybe I just have different expectations, perhaps partly influenced by this thread.
I think post processing is a somewhat unspoken factor here. We all do it, each to varying degrees. I don't think it's a problem at all, but it probably causes some readers to expect certain kinds of results as a default from the M8/9.
Maybe we should all be posting our LR settings with each image (not).
For example, this image shot with the ZM 21 2.8 the camera didn't read the hand coding on the lens, so there's more vignetting than usual. But in LR I changed the following settings from default to get a more 'polarized' kind of look:
exposure +0.10
contrast: 61
clarity: 34
Tone Curve
Lights: 84
Darks: -41
HSL
Hue
yellow -23
green -21
blue -4
Saturation
yellow -25
blue-42
Luminance
blue -42
A few more from wandering around the neighbourhood this afternoon, all with the ZM 35 f/2.8. The first and last are at f/2.8. The middle two at f/8:
).
