Yes, it's interesting how going back to an older technology can actually help.
I know that my own photography has improved a lot since I started using MF glass. Before that I was off on a completely different tangent - high performance (fast AF, high fps etc). I sort of reached a dead end there where 7D + 70-200 MkII was about as good as it would get. Fortunately a very disappointing A3 print of a shot taken with my 16-35 plus some of snowboarder's images convinced me to get the Zeiss 21/2.8.. As manual focus takes longer I suddenly had time to think a bit about composition and I was no longer stuck with just using the built in focus points. In short, a little bit more of thought behind each photo => better photos.
I'm guessing that the DSLR->RF transition is a similar process and that you are reaping the same kind of benefits.
denoir wrote:
High ISO performance & live view. Both are unfortunately deal breakers for me. I have high hopes for a future M10 though.
That's third shot looks very interesting, "Sugar Daddy's pole dancing fitness classes".. You did not enter to investigate?
You are right, high iso (which I personally don't care about), live view (I don't utilize like I probably should anyways), lack of lenses and system ability in lenses over 100mm (again, dont care about personally) and the rangefinder focussing/VF(which I like). To me, it obviously makes sense. Like you say Luka, we all have different wants/needs. That being said, i still do have my D700 and that will never leave me
Re: Sugar Daddy's.....
I'm too much of a chicken to step foot in that place
Charles, I'm going to be the oddball this time. I like the color version better.
Love the cherry blossoms Dan.
Ryan, sure the M's do birds. Not like a 100-400 on a 5D2 but if you can get close enough, they look good. #1 is my fave of the birds but #3 is the one I like best in this group. Really, it's because of the IQ not the content.
I was thinking about you Aussies as I was out sweltering trying to take something, anything after sitting inside for most of the last month. We had a record tying high temp today of 105. When I got out late this afternoon, it was still 102 and it occurred to me that you guys are either in winter or just coming out. I know one thing, when you're that hot, it's gets to be pretty hard to concentrate on composition and good camera technique. I was getting light headed by the time I called it quit, a little over and hour. I'll post some later.
rsolti13 wrote:
You are right, high iso (which I personally don't care about), live view (I don't utilize like I probably should anyways), lack of lenses and system ability in lenses over 100mm (again, dont care about personally) and the rangefinder focussing/VF(which I like). To me, it obviously makes sense. Like you say Luka, we all have different wants/needs. That being said, i still do have my D700 and that will never leave me
Re: Sugar Daddy's.....
I'm too much of a chicken to step foot in that place
Interesting comment. While I was out today, I actually started wondering if RF is the best choice for me. I like a lot of it but sometimes its' harder to see what you're shooting, at least for me. Of course, near heat stroke might have an effect on that.
Come on now Ryan, I'll go in there with you. It'll be fun. Course, you probably don't want to tell your wife.
You are right Luka, lacking the high ISO and live view was a deal breaker for me at first too. But then I looked critically as my shots, and how I was shooting. I rarely used liveview except for landscapes and macros. With RF for landscapes, with smaller fstops I use the lens adjust the DOF as per the clear marks on the lens barrel, and then I don't need to touch it. Similar with street shots. Macros and fast action shots ...definitely the 5DII.
One other interesting observation, is that even though you have a lower ISO limit, camera shake is substantially less limiting than with the 5DII. With 5DII, I use 1.5xFL to irridicate any possibility of movement. With M9, I have taken shots with 50 FL, to 1/25sec, even 1/12 sec with the shutter in soft and discreet mode. Also I have fast lenses which offset some of the lower ISO limit. It is definitely different and interesting new way of photography for me.
I have my 5DII there, with a reduced range of lenses now, keeping it simple when needed. If either don't work, well I use my fiancee's Canon S90.
Mentally I have not said either M9 or 5DII. Just which ever does the job at the time. That way I find I use which ever camera is suited and reap the best of both.
My way of thinking is that I have now invested in some excellent lenses, and allow the technology to evolve.
Thanks Rod Missed your earlier post! I suppose this is reason that sometimes I post in both colour and B&W.
Yes we are just coming out of winter On the hot days, I love the hot evenings with dusk like lighting with a single fast lens.
I really like #1 and #3. The rendering of the 50 Lux is so unique and so different, it has the dreamy and creamlike bokeh. And the ZM 25 is an amazing lens.
Thanks Charles. The ZM 25 is just such an easy lens to capture what you're trying to get. This Lux 50 seems to have some of the best of both worlds, really sharp with moderate contrast. I've seen some of the pre-ASPH Lux versions called low contrast but this one isn't. This is the last version before the ASPH and they seem to have made some definite improvements over the older version which is a good lens in its own right.
Great shots Rod. I have seen excellent results with the 40 cron and M8 from many. How do you like the 50 Lux compared to other 50s you have used? I had a 50 Planar on order but got lost in the mail....I have more time to ponder if that is the one I want. I was thinking something fast but just got a 35 1.4 Nokton so maybe the sharpness of the Planar is the one for me
rsolti13 wrote:
Great shots Rod. I have seen excellent results with the 40 cron and M8 from many. How do you like the 50 Lux compared to other 50s you have used? I had a 50 Planar on order but got lost in the mail....I have more time to ponder if that is the one I want. I was thinking something fast but just got a 35 1.4 Nokton so maybe the sharpness of the Planar is the one for me
Thanks Ryan.
I've had the first three versions of the Lux 50. With each successive version, sharpness wide open has gotten better to the point with the V3 that I'm really happy with shooting it wide open. They are all sharp stopped down to f/2 or smaller. I've got the Planar 50 and bought it after seeing Tim Barker's portraits with it. I like them both a lot but since I shoot a lot of low light, the Lux is with me a lot more than the Planar. I think the Planar has more contrast, similar to the ZM 25 in that respect. The Lux 50's are more medium contrast although the V3 seems higher than the V1 or V2. Wide open, the V1 and to a lesser degree the V2, will give you the so called Leica glow. As far as which is the best choice, if you shoot in high contrast or low light very much, the Lux is probably your best choice. The Planar is probably the better choice for low contrast or situations where you don't need the extra speed. The Planar is obviously lower priced and if that's critical, it certainly won't disappoint. If you're hard core about the Zeiss look, it's probably your choice.
As for other options, I've bought and returned two Sonnar 50's because they front focused wide open despite being supposedly optimized for f/1.5. I've had both CV Nokton 50's. The 1.1 that I had was so-so, not bad, not great. It's big and heavy and not easy to focus wide open which kind of counters the main reason you'd buy it. I bought the 1.5 after reading Sean Reid's review and just was never impressed with its IQ. Maybe I just didn't have a good copy. Unfortunately, copy variation seems to be more of an issue with CV's than with Leica and Zeiss.
