The cool thing about shooting with the SL2 is you don't need a tripod for a 1/2 second shot. My M bodies are taking a break.
The wife and I started a thing during the pandemic where 3 or 4 times a week after dinner, just to get out of the house...we'd drive to a neighborhood we've never been to before. Which can be challenging in a city you grew up in.
We still do it about every week, out of habit...Great time to just talk and be alone.
1bwana1 wrote:
I just really enjoy how my my M10-P and Leica lenses render images of people. If you asked me to pick out which images of people were shot on a Leica from a random group of images, I'm not sure I could do it. But when I shoot people I can see a difference from my Leica images and my Sony images.
I was looking for something I'd read elsewhere, but haven't been able to find again (yet), so hopefully this is close enough.
The MTF charts of diff lenses, and Puts opinions of them are of interest, but he prefaces that with some technical design understanding. A basic understanding of optical physics helps in his development of the ethos, but the take away is how intricately the pieces of the puzzle combined.
A few excerpts below ... that culminate in the "balance" between how (and where) slowly vs. how rapidly the transitions occur are (imo) the end game difference for what gives the Leica "difference". This is a consideration in addition to "how sharp" a lens may be. Imo, it can be difficult to "explain" what is different about the Leica optics ... but, this "rate of transition" is about as close as I've come to getting my head around what contributes to that "je ne sais quoi" difference. That, and the sum is greater than the parts, with consideration also given to the controlling the flux, etc.
I think Leica makes it a point to design differing lenses to have their "rates" of transition yield a balance between smooth transitions and rapid transitions ... and applied a bit differently in the various zones. Couple this with the use of their elliptical microlenses in the M bodies (light path continues in the camera), and I think the harnessing control of the light path is accountable for the difference you notice.
They aren't alone in the ability to do so, just that I think their ethos for doing it is well modulated, whereas other designers may be a bit more "relaxed" or "aggressive" or exaggerative (compared to human vision). It's a nuance, but one that becomes discernable / appreciated over time. Not unlike the differences in any other "fine" craftsmanship (i.e. wine, woodworking, gunsmithing, clothier, etc.), some will discern the differences, others may not.
Short (imo) version: Aberration control + rates of transition = Leica designs = perceptual outcome.
Page 8
In the end, it is the
weighting and the method of compensation of the aberration balance that determines how the resulting imaging performance is perceived and accepted by
photographers.
Page 9
The clarity of the image
is also improved because stray light, i.e.
light energy that does not contribute to
image formation and that is scattered in
the optical system, is controlled effectively
Page 10
If the
cone of light is generally narrow, then
the difference in the diameters of the
point and the circles in front of and behind the tip is also small. In that case
the transition from sharpness to
unsharpness is smooth.
Leica M lenses are corrected in such a way that
they are capable of reproducing the finest structures and details of the object.
That also means that the tips of the light
cones have to be very small and that
they have to subtend a larger angle (see
illustration). The circle of confusion will
be relatively larger (also absolutely
larger) than it was in the previous example.
A characteristic of current Leica M
lenses is a visually faster transition from
sharpness to unsharpness. This is helpful in composing the picture at full aperture, because pictorially important portions of the picture will stand out
distinctly from the background.
the optical system, is controlled effectively....Show more →
I was looking for something I'd read elsewhere, but haven't been able to find again (yet), so hopefully this is close enough.
The MTF charts of diff lenses, and Puts opinions of them are of interest, but he prefaces that with some technical design understanding. A basic understanding of optical physics helps in his development of the ethos, but the take away is how intricately the pieces of the puzzle combined.
A few excerpts below ... that culminate in the "balance" between how (and where) slowly vs. how rapidly the transitions occur are (imo) the end game difference for what gives the Leica "difference". This is a consideration in addition to "how sharp" a lens may be. Imo, it can be difficult to "explain" what is different about the Leica optics ... but, this "rate of transition" is about as close as I've come to getting my head around what contributes to that "je ne sais quoi" difference. That, and the sum is greater than the parts, with consideration also given to the controlling the flux, etc.
I think Leica makes it a point to design differing lenses to have their "rates" of transition yield a balance between smooth transitions and rapid transitions ... and applied a bit differently in the various zones. Couple this with the use of their elliptical microlenses in the M bodies (light path continues in the camera), and I think the harnessing control of the light path is accountable for the difference you notice.
They aren't alone in the ability to do so, just that I think their ethos for doing it is well modulated, whereas other designers may be a bit more "relaxed" or "aggressive" or exaggerative (compared to human vision). It's a nuance, but one that becomes discernable / appreciated over time. Not unlike the differences in any other "fine" craftsmanship (i.e. wine, woodworking, gunsmithing, clothier, etc.), some will discern the differences, others may not.
Short (imo) version: Aberration control + rates of transition = Leica designs = perceptual outcome.
