joe88 wrote:
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?
Joe, you are right. I forgot to mention that my M6 does indeed have a MP finder in it. My M8.2 , in my opinion, does not compare. My eye just feels cramped. I feel like I am looking through a straw. It feels like there is always just a little more of the scene to be seen.
Joe .... Thank You Very nice shot considering ISO 2500 on a M8
Adam, I still have the 50/1.1 Nokton ready to find a new home Seriously the difference between the two lenses, is huge. Firstly for portraits, MFD is 0.7m for the 50 Lux Asph, compared to 1.0m for the 50/1.1, I find it to be a huge advantage. When you are trying to fill a frame, or looking to rid of the background, it is great. I find quite often, I use the about 0.8m with Lux, when I don't want to change to the 75 Lux. The real difference is the colour, vibrance and rendering of the 50 Lux Asph. I still have the 50/2 Planar specifically for it's different rendering. The 50/1.1 is an excellent lens, but is not a lens that I would keep on the the M9, whereas the 50 Lux Asph it is there 80% of the time, easy to focus with about 95% keep rate. It works. I had the 50/1.1 calibrated, but I still find at f/1.1 hit rate is about 40 or 50%. I would say it is a specialist lens. More importantly it is large and heavy, but a very well built lens. Another interesting detail is the DOF with 50/1.1 is larger than the 50 Lux as the same f stops, based on its design. This was an observation made by Wayne from the Camera Clinic, testing the 50/1.1 optical performance for their data base. Having the narrow DOF with the 50 Lux, lends itself better for portraits. If you like I may be able to run some comparison shots of the two, in a portrait setting.
Ron, you are so correct that one most important part of workflow is the PP. With your experience, it would be great if you could initiate a blog, or site, where we can learn from.
Your shots are amazing demonstrating the film like quality you mentioned, and really this demonstrates your experience with PP. Even better, it shows what can be achieved with the M9 files. Excellent idea, with shots to provide PP details so we can all learn from
adamdewilde wrote:
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
I guess I've not seen that in the 0.95 samples I've seen. It is sharp at the plane of focus though; much sharper than the 1.0.
adamdewilde wrote:
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.
Based on my results with the ZM 35 f/2.8 I agree with you. With it, my feeling is I either shoot it at 70cm wide open, or at medium to infinity distances stopped down. The exception above is the stop sign. I shot it at f/8 and f/2.8 and preferred the separation of the 2.8 image.
On the subject of field curvature, the ZM 35 f/2.8 definitely has it. Shoot something at 8-10 feet away wide open and tree branches at 50 feet in the image corners will be relatively in focus.
Today I did a bit of investigation into my 21 2.8's performance and confirmed that it definitely has significant field curvature that is very evident wide open. Shoot a brick wall and the edges and corners will be soft. Shoot something with some depth and objects along the edges of the frame but located farther away than the central point of focus will be in focus. Stopping down to f/5.6 or more hides the curvature in the depth of field.
While out today I intentionally shot a few images with the 35 2.8 wide open at 70cm to see how it compares to Luka's ZM 35 f/2 sample. Though maybe difficult to compare because of different subject matter, my feeling is the 35 f/2.8's rendering a bit calmer.
Thanks Charles, I think if I pushed the M8 a little harder on that shot, it would have shut down . I sooo appreciate the high ISO improvements on the M9
Ron, I like the first shot and the stop sign shot. You are right, it could boil down to pp skills when handling digital files... but there is something about film that still tugs me, the pics are really creamy and rich without much retouching. Often times I find myself trying to emulate film on my M9 even though the M9 has very nice punchy colors out of the box.
Wow, thanks for the kind welcome everyone.
I am using all kinds of film. Mostly what is cheap. Much of it is expired 160 potra that I got for $2.00 buck a roll. I am processing the C-41 negs at my super store where my pal is the manager.
I get the film souped cheap and they throw it on a CD giving me a low res scan. Than a post process in I-photo. I never have used photoshop. I can barley turn a computer on.
I got me a couple of D3 and yes I think about getting a M9 everyday.
Im going broke buying film and getting it processed
I alway wanted a Noctilux and only got a M3 to
to tied me over untill I got an M9 and than ...
well, here is my Leica bag.
Joe, very nice film shot! The second shot I would guess digital
Gregory, nice shots! Love your gear, not too sure I could revert to film again though!!!
Adam, just wanted to highlight something you wrote that I previously quoted:
adamdewilde wrote:
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.
I think what you've seen has at times been exaggerated by post processing. Take a given image and in LR crank up the contrast and especially the clarity sliders and you'll find that tonality variations in background bokeh suddenly become a lot harsher and more obvious.
Thanks Joe. I agree that film has a different look. It's probably partly due to the nonlinear tonal reproduction that digital doesn't have.
Thanks Charles. While I have a fair amount of prepress experience, I wouldn't say I'm a post processing whiz. My experience is primarily in the news industry where it's not desired to push images too far. My general feeling about getting a film-like look from digital is pretty basic - add contrast, especially through an aggressive tone curve. I think that will get you most of the way.
Charles, of the portraits from this shoot you've posted, I think these two are the best so far. The rendering is really nice but equally important, the lighting is more complementary to your subject than some of the other images, particularly the second image.
When you get tired of the 75 Lux and want to sell it, let me know first
Joe: the processing is digital-like and not what I would expect to see natively from film.
Gregory - very nice images. The dead duck partly goes along with Luka's (denoir) duck theme. The kid (?) in front of the TV looks quite like an alien
Thank you Ron! I actually went through the PP again, after the discussion of film like qualities. Having started with B&W film, and processing, I thought, about emulating the film like qualities with these DNG files, and PP'd accordingly. I raised the contrast and adjusted the tone curve, to give the face more depth and shape.
The 75 Lux is not leaving! Together with the 50 Lux, they are my favourites
BTW, nice shot, with subtle hint of your nationality
Gregory, very nice series of shots. You are right film is photograpy, at least how I started and really appreciate the ressurgence for the "film look and feel".
For me digital is photography and film is just a hassle. I have two film cameras (medium format and 35mm) but I rarely use them because of the impracticality of it compared to digital.
adamdewilde wrote:
About the 35ZM do you think something's misaligned with your copy?
Nope. It's perfectly symmetric and in line with what the MTF curves show.
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.
Generally speaking the bokeh of the ZM line is, well, not very good compared to the ZE lenses. Loads more longitudinal CA mixed in with a ton of spherical aberrations. This gives the bokeh 'blobs' fairly harsh edges.
Anyway, a few more shots at MFD showing the 35/2 bokeh:
If somebody had showed me the shots above before I had ZM lenses, I would have guessed they were shot with a Voigtländer lens and not a Zeiss. None of my ZE lenses produces anything similar to it.
Guess I need to go back and tweak that digital file some more.
Ron, nice touch with the maple leaf shot.
Gregory, you are surely giving me some MP and Noct f/1.0 envy!
Luka, those shots at MFD, looks more like a Nikon/Canon or alternative SLR lens. The bokeh is too busy for me.
Charles, the portraits on this page has nicer tones than the earlier ones. I prefer these. I also like the pp on the first beach shot. Beautiful tones!
charles.K wrote:
Joe .... Thank You Very nice shot considering ISO 2500 on a M8
Adam, I still have the 50/1.1 Nokton ready to find a new home Seriously the difference between the two lenses, is huge. Firstly for portraits, MFD is 0.7m for the 50 Lux Asph, compared to 1.0m for the 50/1.1, I find it to be a huge advantage. When you are trying to fill a frame, or looking to rid of the background, it is great. I find quite often, I use the about 0.8m with Lux, when I don't want to change to the 75 Lux. The real difference is the colour, vibrance and rendering of the 50 Lux Asph. I still have the 50/2 Planar specifically for it's different rendering. The 50/1.1 is an excellent lens, but is not a lens that I would keep on the the M9, whereas the 50 Lux Asph it is there 80% of the time, easy to focus with about 95% keep rate. It works. I had the 50/1.1 calibrated, but I still find at f/1.1 hit rate is about 40 or 50%. I would say it is a specialist lens. More importantly it is large and heavy, but a very well built lens. Another interesting detail is the DOF with 50/1.1 is larger than the 50 Lux as the same f stops, based on its design. This was an observation made by Wayne from the Camera Clinic, testing the 50/1.1 optical performance for their data base. Having the narrow DOF with the 50 Lux, lends itself better for portraits. If you like I may be able to run some comparison shots of the two, in a portrait setting. ...Show more →
charles, I forgot to mention your shots with the Lux.. Good work, I'm really liking the portraits you've been taking with your M9.
You're welcome to run comparison shots if you have the time, but I'll take your word for it if not
EDIT: Just wanted to mention that I really really like the mood of p988912340-4.jpg that you posted, also the last few landscapes you just posted have great colors!
rscheffler wrote:
Based on my results with the ZM 35 f/2.8 I agree with you. With it, my feeling is I either shoot it at 70cm wide open, or at medium to infinity distances stopped down. The exception above is the stop sign. I shot it at f/8 and f/2.8 and preferred the separation of the 2.8 image.
On the subject of field curvature, the ZM 35 f/2.8 definitely has it. Shoot something at 8-10 feet away wide open and tree branches at 50 feet in the image corners will be relatively in focus.
Today I did a bit of investigation into my 21 2.8's performance and confirmed that it definitely has significant field curvature that is very evident wide open. Shoot a brick wall and the edges and corners will be soft. Shoot something with some depth and objects along the edges of the frame but located farther away than the central point of focus will be in focus. Stopping down to f/5.6 or more hides the curvature in the depth of field.
While out today I intentionally shot a few images with the 35 2.8 wide open at 70cm to see how it compares to Luka's ZM 35 f/2 sample. Though maybe difficult to compare because of different subject matter, my feeling is the 35 f/2.8's rendering a bit calmer.
Denoirs latest 35 shots don't have the harshness I'm talking about.. Seems it only happens in certian conditions, I think mid focal distances.
Also all your shots are really quite smooth, and pleasant in the bokeh dept.
Very nice shot considering ISO 2500 on a M8 
. I sooo appreciate the high ISO improvements on the M9 
