This one evokes memories. I worked big-city police street patrol for 33+ years. Traffic control for crashes and fires, especially at night, is one of the most frightening things that a street cop/patrolman/trooper has to do. Most of life’s emergencies are over and done, before there is a chance to become firghtened.
As a heat wave begins to build here in San Diego, the beach gets busier. I shot this yesterday from inside my car, as I drove down to the Tourmaline Beach parking lot to take in the cool late afternoon sea breeze. It was a better day for windsurfing than wave surfing.
Yesterday was the first day I was allowed to drive since my accident. Better every day!
Enjoy!
LEICA M10-PSummilux-M 1:1.4/35 ASPH. lens35mmf/8.01/2000s200 ISO0.0 EV
I've contemplating getting a Leica M camera and some lenses. I have some R lenses now and use them on my Canon 5DSR 50 MP camera and I really see the difference over my Canon L lenses. However, my real question after seeing the comments here is, what seems to make some of the Leica photo results so spectacular over so many other brands are the lenses, not the Leica camera. Does this seem right? Are the Leica M and even the SL bodies doing something much better than the Sony FF and Canon FF bodies?
I noticed a lot of comments here about Leica M-9's that their photos aren't any better than any other camera out there. If I got a Canon mirrorless or Sony FF with a lens converter that allowed me to use Leica M lenses, would I get at least as good of photos as the same photos taken with an M body also using the same Leica M lens?
billsamuels wrote:
would I get at least as good of photos as the same photos taken with an M body also using the same Leica M lens?
Not in my experience. In fact my Leica lenses preform very poorly on my Sony A1 camera. Leica builds a camera system. They engineer the micro lenses on their sensors to match the optical characteristics of their M lenses. As we know lenses also have a color signature.
The Leica sensors and processors are optimized for this. Finally, focus peaking is not the same in my experience as using the range finder.
You can have your non Leica cameras modified to work better with M lenses. People seem happy with the IQ then. But, You still end up having a camera dedicated to shooting Leica lenses. In that case, why not just have a Leica Camera and enjoy a pure Leica experience and image quality.
billsamuels wrote:
I've contemplating getting a Leica M camera and some lenses. I have some R lenses now and use them on my Canon 5DSR 50 MP camera and I really see the difference over my Canon L lenses. However, my real question after seeing the comments here is, what seems to make some of the Leica photo results so spectacular over so many other brands are the lenses, not the Leica camera. Does this seem right? Are the Leica M and even the SL bodies doing something much better than the Sony FF and Canon FF bodies?
I noticed a lot of comments here about Leica M-9's that their photos aren't any better than any other camera out there. If I got a Canon mirrorless or Sony FF with a lens converter that allowed me to use Leica M lenses, would I get at least as good of photos as the same photos taken with an M body also using the same Leica M lens? ...Show more →
And if you are a B&W photographer there is really nothing better for digital B&W than a monochrome sensor.
Leica M is not a camera that you usually can just pick up and be great with. It takes time to learn how to focus and expose properly because it is a camera that doesn't do eveything for you. So as a result the photographers that tend to use them are usually well seasoned.
billsamuels wrote:
Are the Leica M and even the SL bodies doing something much better than the Sony FF and Canon FF bodies?
M bodies use elliptical micro lenses.
I'll try to find the article that illustrates the elliptical micro lenses.
In short, we hear a lot about stack thickness difference, and then there's the Kolari surgery that gets done to Sony to "try" and correct for the aberrations. But, even hacking a Sony with Kolari doesn't give you the elliptical micro lenses that Lecia uses for the M lenses.
Gotta run, but the physics involved make the light projection / light path of M lenses onto elliptical micro lenses ... the solution that Sony can't achieve, even with Kolari surgery.
As a system, Sony's lenses work fine enough with their approach to sensor stack, lenses, etc. But, if you want to get out of the M lenses what they are really offering ... imo, anything other than an M body (SL / TL / CL is "okay" enough, but not the same) with M lenses will render a reduction some form of compromise of the projected image from the M glass. That's not to suggest it will be "bad", just not the "best" it can be.
RustyBug wrote:
M bodies use elliptical micro lenses.
I'll try to find the article that illustrates the elliptical micro lenses.
In short, we hear a lot about stack thickness difference, and then there's the Kolari surgery that gets done to Sony to "try" and correct for the aberrations. But, even hacking a Sony with Kolari doesn't give you the elliptical micro lenses that Lecia uses for the M lenses.
Gotta run, but the physics involved make the light projection / light path of M lenses onto elliptical micro lenses ... the solution that Sony can't achieve, even with Kolari surgery.
As a system, Sony's lenses work fine enough with their approach to sensor stack, lenses, etc. But, if you want to get out of the M lenses what they are really offering ... imo, anything other than an M body (SL / TL / CL is "okay" enough, but not the same) with M lenses will render a reduction some form of compromise of the projected image from the M glass. That's not to suggest it will be "bad", just not the "best" it can be.
The micro lenses can be especially useful for wide- and ultra-wide lenses which cause a steeper light refraction angle at the borders and corners of the sensor frame. Kolari's sensor stack modification removes the main culprit seen with rangefinder lenses attached to Sony MLCs. This modification seems fine for the majority of rangefinder lenses used on such Kolari-modified sensor. You will be very challenged to see a difference in the 35-50 mm and higher FL range between just a Kolari-based sensor modification and the same lens attached to a Leica M with micro lenses on the sensor.
It remains unclear to which extent this micro lens array actually makes a visible difference in photos comparing original Leica M sensor and Kolari-modified sensor stack. Maybe somebody has examples with wider lenses where this might be visible at best.
yes...
