Very nice. Now I want to visit Egypt. In your next postings, please give travel tips, i.e., place to visit or stay way, security concerns, booking logistics..... Drooling :-) and thanks for sharing.
Carsten, sure - in short, the M9 gets a big plus for being compact. I'm happy with how it performed and the image quality is generally as good as one can want. The 35 Lux ASPH rendering..well, I just love it. My most used lenses were the ZM18, 35 Lux & 75 Cron. I'm very happy with the performance of all three. Zeiss + harsh light and shadows isn't an ideal combination but M9 DNG's have loads of headroom in the shadows so it is easy to lift the shadows a bit in post.
On the negative side is that 75mm (my longest lens) was a bit too short on occasion. Although I cleaned the sensor every day, I still got dust in the camera during the day which means that I'll be spending a lot of time in post removing spots.
A big minus to Leica (but not the M9) is that the aperture ring on my 75 Cron broke and is now completely loose. I can still change aperture by pushing it hard against the lens barrel when rotating, but it will have to take a second trip back to Leica. Not very happy about that.
Finally, the question if the M9 is an ideal travel camera. That was my original theory, but I'm not sure. I missed some shots that I would have gotten with an AF camera. I like to play with shallow depth of field and that means accurate focusing. You can get it very accurate with the rangefinder but not (at least I can't) action shots of moving subjects. So if size and weight and selection of lenses aren't an issue, a weather sealed DSLR with an AF lens would probably be a better choice. Size, weight and lenses are of course an issue. This makes me conclude that although far from being the ideal travel camera it may still in practice be the best choice - at least if you take the auxiliary conditions (size, weight, lenses) into consideration.
I did not miss focus often - essentially only with the 75 Cron when shooting W/O. Not often, but I did miss on one critical shot and I'm not happy about that:
Incidentally the M9 and X1 were not the only Leica-related cameras I had. I also had a Panasonic FT2 which has a Leica Vario-Elmar lens. It's essentially a small sensored P&S, but it has one nice feature - it can shoot underwater:
Welcome back (to the forums)! Great pics - love them all, especially #2, 3,4 and 6! So did you really find your self wishing you had brought the dSLR for this trip ?
Welcome home Luka! Images look very promising so far, can't wait to see the formal thread. Funny but I could guess which images were with which lens, but then, there's a huge difference between the 18 & 75 And I like those two X1 images a lot too.
I think for my purposes the ideal travel kit will depend a lot on what I want to achieve, but for general use, I don't think I would ever travel without a DSLR and a 70-700 f/4L IS & 1.4x TC or the new Canon 70-300L in addition to the M9 kit. There are many times when I see things that just need ~200mm reach or the compression effect.
Do you think M9 images, when processed with LR, tend to over emphasize yellow (which is of course also a significant component of green)? I've been looking back at how I've processed most of my M9 images and now feel like many have a too strong yellow bias. So now I'm desaturating yellow by varying amounts, sometimes even up to 100%, though as I can see in the first couple images in the set I posted above, it sometimes results in a bit of an overall magenta bias. I ask in part because I wonder whether the rock in Egypt, as seen in the sphinx and temple images, really have that kind of yellow hue (of course there will be yellow, just whether it's that strong)?
Joe: Images from my last set were with the ZM 35 f/2.8 and the third image was at f/2.8. All of these images from my walk to Leica were with the 35mm.
Some more, now walking east along Allendale Avenue
Ron - I can't imagine traveling with a 70-200. I just took a trip with 2 M's and 4 lenses and at times, that was too much. Travel was what originally drove me away from SLRs.
Well, we're all different At the moment I look at the M system and DSLRs as complementary rather than a one or the other type decision. And with only two wides for the M at the moment, I don't really have much of a choice. I definitely like the M better for wandering around and exploring new places, especially when it comes to closer confines and people photos, but there are definitely times where a 70-200 comes in handy (note I would not bring along an f/2.8 beast, rather, the f/4 version).
I brought both systems to NYC a few weeks ago and it worked out pretty well. I definitely needed the DSLR because I only have one battery for the M9 and it never lasts a full day's photo walk.. but my approach to subject matter was certainly different with each.
The last 500m stretch to Leica, after turning north onto Boroline Road...
Entering the industrial park..
A typical industrial park building...
And the sidewalk ends just before reaching Pearl Court. From here it's only around 50-75 feet or so...
Leica is in sight!
Sorry for the repeat posting of a few of these, but at least for me it fits the timeline and wanted to include them again.
Nice Ron, I see you are doing your own version of Google StreetView
kidtexas wrote:
Ron - I can't imagine traveling with a 70-200. I just took a trip with 2 M's and 4 lenses and at times, that was too much. Travel was what originally drove me away from SLRs.
It depends on what you are shooting. I was on a safari in South Africa in may and the 70-200 was an excellent tool. You do need reach there though. Now in Egypt I could have used it for some shots but it would have been awful for street/people photography. It's simply too big, noticeable and intimidating. I have the f/2.8 MkII beast though and I suppose the f/4 might be a better travel choice.
There is however more to it than just the size. I could take my Canon kit to Egypt and get lovely professional looking shots suitable for a travel magazine or a postcard. The problem is that it has been done to death. How many shots do you suppose there are taken each day of the pyramids? Just google it. What's the point of taking the 50,000:th identical tele photo shot? I mean it's great to see that you can do it, but once you've established that you can, is there a point continuing with imitating a style that has been done to death? A rangefinder by its very nature will make you take different shots.
So by using the M9 instead of a DSLR I (for the most part) skipped the very obvious shots and tried to find angles and compositions.
This is not always possible of course and you end up with a standard tourist shot but still, the gear does encourage you to shoot a bit differently.
singletrack wrote:
So did you really find your self wishing you had brought the dSLR for this trip ?
Yes, but only now when the whole thing is over and I don't have to actually carry it Picking which gear to use is always a compromise between image making capability and convenience. If I only cared about the end result in pictures then I should have brought all my gear. In reality there are however other considerations. What I had was a good compromise between convenience and photographic "firepower". If somebody told me I had to go back tomorrow and do it all over again, I'd make the same choice in gear. I would probably skip the tripod (didn't really use it) and I would leave the ZM25 and ZM50 at home as I did not really use them.
There were some really serious time constraints on the trip as I was on organized tours to the historical sites so I would have in fact not had much opportunity to use more gear.
thx for the quick reply - anxiously awaiting the rest of your pics.
Do you use the tripod a lot for travel trips like this? I have the same tripod (gitzo) and a couple of smaller ones (this new travel fold-flat one from Benro is superb too http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10056-11011) and havenot been using them much for the M9 (maybe it's cos I have the M9 protected in a leather case, lol). Would like to hear more about your experiences using a tripod on travel trips.
When I use my 5DII I like to use a tripod whenever possible. Then it's all about using live view and getting precise framing. I have four tripods and the Gitzo 1541T is the smallest. I got into this whole photography thing after starting with shooting video on my 7D. So my largest tripod is a massive video tripod. I've used it on occasion for photography with a gigapan (robotic panorama head):
For the most part I'm using the M9 handheld. I don't like to use it from a tripod as focusing and framing is cumbersome. I did have the small Gitzo with me to Egypt but it did not get used much. As it turns out, it was waaay to dark in the desert once the sun was gone.
That was wide open with the 35 Lux, ISO 640, 32 seconds exposure. Noisy beyond use.
My second attempt to use a tripod can only be described as an epic failure. We were in the Makadi Bay area at the Red Sea and my idea was to capture the fireworks over the bay, reflected in the water. I convinced everyone that we should wait for the new year on the beach, watching the fireworks. What happened was this:
2010-12-31 23:58:
2011-01-01-00:01:
...nothing. Not a single rocket. As it happens they don't celebrate New Year in Egypt. Although the locals were very eager to wish a happy new year to tourists they had completely failed to grasp the concept of it. Throughout the week and on the day that we left (January 7th) we were wished a happy new year by hotel staff. I'm sure they'll be at it for a couple more weeks to the puzzlement of the tourists. Anyway, no fireworks. We were standing on a very quiet beach, well, because of me and my wish to take photos of the fireworks..
singletrack wrote:
Hi Luka,
Super shot of the Pyramid! Would you by any chance of the 21 mm ZM? Am thinking of getting it over the Leica 21mm Elmarit.
Cheers
KL
KL, I own the ZM 21 f/2.8 but don't have any experience with the Leica equivalent. According to diglloyd it performs quite similarly to the Leica, but this is all he's posted on the free portion of his site. While considering the 2.8 version I also borrowed the ZM 21 f/4.5 C Biogon (I'll refer to it as the 21C below). Here's my take on the two ZMs:
The 21C is IMO the more impressive lens. It's very compact and stopped down 2/3 of a stop is as sharp as it's going to get (which is excellent), and has virtually no distortion (i.e. barrel type). It's biggest downfall though on digital M is extremely severe vignetting and red fringing. On film, from what I've seen (for example kidtexas' Flickr as well as NateVenture), it's excellent. I want to revisit it with cornerfix or an LCC in Capture One, if I ever get around to trying that program, to see how salvageable such images are because it's such a nice lens and would be awesome for travel.
I decided to go with the 21 2.8 instead for a few reasons: Due to the M9's so-so high ISO performance and expecting to use it hand held a lot in lower light conditions, I felt f/2.8 was beneficial, even if wide open corner to corner performance was not up to the 21C. My reality is I will rarely do critical photography of architecture, etc. with this lens wide open. The vignetting/red fringing is much more manageable and the coding options from Leica can address it for the most part, but so far I have not found a perfect coding match, resulting in slight reddishness along the left edge of images. I like that the length of the lens makes it very easy to use with gloves in cold conditions (perhaps not a concern for you) because the aperture and focus rings are well separated. In comparison the 21C's focus and aperture rings are extremely close together and I often found myself shifting the focus when adjusting the aperture while wearing gloves. The end of the lens appears slightly in the aux. 21mm viewfinder (I cheaped out with one from Voigtlander), which means I can easily set the aperture while looking through the viewfinder. I opted not to get the hood for it because it's extremely shallow and is kind of annoying. The lens will flare though if the sun is outside the picture frame yet still shining on the front element (where the hood wouldn't make much of a difference anyway), though I haven't found it to be a huge issue so far. It exhibits some mustache type distortion but in day to day use has rarely been an issue for me. See if you can notice it in the samples below. Wide open it's very sharp in the center at f/2.8 but is soft into the corners due to field curvature that bends away from the camera. You could strategically place farther objects you want in focus towards the edges while working with a closer object in the center and get all in focus, but if you're doing a lot of flat field work, it might be an issue. By f/5.6 depth of field seems to cover the field curvature and the lens doesn't really improve much beyond f/8. For most outdoor photography I tend to use it at around f/8 to f/11. I have not noticed much, if any CA in regular use, which has included a fair number of images with tree branches against bright sky, etc.
This review has raised some questions in at least one post here on FM about its apparently so-so performance. There are a couple of considerations... First, the lens was tested on a NEX with an adapter that was also shimmed with paper, probably throwing off alignment and possibly resulting in the non-symmetrical performance shown in their graphic. Second, to fill the test chart, they would be shooting this lens at a very close distance. From my experience with it, it seems to be a better performer with medium to distant subjects.
Below are a bunch of samples from a recent trip to NYC. Some of the photos aren't really anything special, but might show characteristics you're interested in seeing. All have had some sort of processing through LR, some more than others. Conversion to 1000 pixels was also sharpened in Photo Mechanic If you'd like to see FF versions, send me a PM with a list of the ones you're interested in, just refer to the file name (the date string watermarked on each image).
Nice Ron, I see you are doing your own version of Google StreetView
Haha, yeah, I guess so. I did use StreetView before making the trip just to make sure there were actually sidewalks and would be safe to walk... You sure can get a quick impression of an area after a few seconds on StreetView!
There doesn't seem to be a whole lot about the ZM 21 f/2.8 out there on the web... so here are a few more:
The image below taught me that dof on digital, when viewing at the huge 100% sizes we do now on displays, is not as generous as the dof indicators on manual focus lenses indicate. I think I shot this one at f/8 and kind of did a hyperfocal setting for it, but at 100% the buildings and tower are definitely still soft. This of course makes sense because 100% on a display is much larger than an 8x enlargement and the resulting circles of confusion for which dof scales are traditionally calibrated. This was a revelation in part because for the last 15 or so years I've been shooting exclusively with Canon AF lenses that have crappy distance and dof scales.
As a result I now shoot this lens a lot at f/8 or smaller, especially when trying to cover a lot of depth.
This one below was at around f/11 and of course there is no way the tree and tower will be in focus (though at 1000 pixels look like they are):
The following three were all at f/2.8:
This one below, if viewed at full rez and 100% shows the lens's field curvature. Focus in the center is on the Hauptbahnhof sign. At the left and right edges the train in the background is in focus, yet is soft in the center of the frame.
Here's a sample of the worst flaring I've had so far with this lens. At least with digital it's possible to immediately see the problem and my solution was to hold my hand outside the lens's view to block the sun. My improvised coding technique (black marker) also didn't stick for this shot, but as you can see, the left edge isn't too bad, with only a trace of reddishness.
Yeah, I love the 21/4.5. I shoot film though so I don't worry about red edges and stuff. When I got the 21, I decided to go for a daylight/tripod/compact travel type/super low distortion lens, so I opted for the 4.5 over the 2.8. I also have a 28/2, so I've got a fast wide angle. That's what I use indoors, lowlight, handheld, etc.
If 21 were more of my main focal length and I needed it for more low light situations, or I shot digital, I'd go for the 21/2.8. Or the Leica 21/1.4
I forgot about the Summilux... it's only around $2200 more than the Elmarit for a whole extra two stops, though I think I'm more tempted by the 24 Lux, haha...
