Nice shots Luka, DR on the first image looks pretty good considering you have the sun and the shadows on the gazebo. Were you happy with the X1 in this instance?
My workflow for B&W is so much simpler with the M8/M9 compared to my recently sold D700. I will first try to apply B&W conversion in LR and see if I like the look/feel of the image. If I see nice tones to start of with, then I quickly add fill light, blacks, contrast and clarity. If this works, I'm done. If it does not work or if I need local adjustments, then I take out my magic wand, Silver EFex Pro and that normally takes care of it. In the past when I was using the D700, it was very difficult to get nice B&W tones from LR and I almost always had to use Silver Efex Pro.
As an example, on my last post, the first 3 shots were done within LR. The fourth shot (biker), I used Silver Efex Pro, TriX profile with some burn & dodge and vignetting.
I'm still learning all the time and my reference for B&W pics is my local library. I try and look at all the great B&W street photography books and learn from there.
I'm still relatively new to PP, I don't really know how to sharpen, resize, ,etc. I export using LR3 with default sharpening . When I have some time, I'll go thru the threads in FM (including your excellent examples) on PP.
A few more, The experiment with OOF, I won't even think of doing this with the DSLR. With the DSLR, it was always about checking sharpness, pixel peeping, etc. With the rangfinder, I just shoot what I like
denoir wrote:
What's up with this calibration thing I keep hearing of? Is it that the camera has to be calibrated for one specific lens or is it the lens that is to be calibrated for the camera?
Don't have much experience on this but because the rangefinder parts are mechanical devices, I guess they need to be adjusted periodically if there are issues? From what I read in the forums, the adjustment is not that difficult to do on your own but most people sent them to specialist or Leica.
I was actually quite amazed when I brought my 50Cron to Youxin Ye of Canton, MA for a CLA. I didn't realize that the lens is such a simple design. Youxin actually showed me how to unscrew the lens barrel and clean the lens on my own. I cannot imagine doing this with the Nikkor AF-S lenses.
Just added a shots "Urban Grunge" taken with 35 Cron Asph.
I with you about taking shots I would not imagine with a DSLR, which is great with respect to having fun and being creative. Some work and a lot don't
I am now finding a better quality way of presenting shots here, is using a web page, such as Zenfolio, then sharing the file. It seems to have better definition and rendering than just uploading directly, regardless of the technique used for downsizing.
denoir wrote:
Thanks Charles! And thanks for the info!
I'm surprised by your experience with the 35/2 Bigon. Lloyd Chambers compared it to the 35/2 cron asph and although he did not want to make absolute statements due to focusing & calibration issues in his test the samples showed the Bigon as being significantly better. Sample variation?
What's up with this calibration thing I keep hearing of? Is it that the camera has to be calibrated for one specific lens or is it the lens that is to be calibrated for the camera?
I wouldn't recommend Lloyd Chambers as a source of good information on rangefinders; he simply doesn't have the experience with these systems. If you really want good information on lenses to help you with a purchase decision, you should subscribe to Sean Reid's site. Sean has been shooting with RF's for years and has a very thorough and objective approach to testing.
On the calibration, its important in some cases. The rangefinder is a mechanical device capable of great accuracy and precision. When the image is precisely focused, it will have a very accurate measure of the distance to the subject. In order to focus the lens (when its a RF-coupled lens), there are mechanical connections between the RF and the lens cams. As such, the RF has to be calibrated for accurate operation and the lens also has to be calibrated so that when the RF is focused on say, 0.7m, the lens is also mechanically moved to the 0.7m focus. The camera RF and lenses are all calibrated to a standard in the factory, and most of the time this is just fine. However, sometimes the lenses or the RF can move out of calibration due to being jarred, etc. They can be recalibrated by Leica or by others with the right repair skills. The same issues happen with other camera systems, which is why newer DSLRs have focus calibration capabilities built into them; although there are fewer mechanical components in that case.
However, Charles was referring to something different with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar ZM. In that case, the lens has native focus shift. Focus shift is a function of optical design--a lens either has it or it doesn't. You will hear people argue that some copies have it and other don't--that's not the case--it's physics and lens design. Now, depending on how a lens is calibrated and how you use it, you may never notice the focus shift. For a fast lens like the Sonnar, the calibration is very important--if the lens is calibrated for a stopped-down aperture, then it can be OOF wide open. This will mask focus shift, at the expense of the focus being off wide open. With film this might have slipped past, as the CoC was much larger due to the nature of film. By calibrating it wide open, you will get great sharpness wide open, but likely see some loss of focus due to focus shift as you stop down.
Finally, the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is a pretty soft lens by design. Some might like this, but it seems that many don't, as it doesn't seem to fit the idea of what Zeiss glass is all about.
A dark horse fast 50 is the Voigtländer 50/1.5 Nokton, which has been discontinued, but can still be found. It's extremely sharp and has a very nice rendering, IMO. It's quite popular as a result.
Jeff, great discussion again! By the way I do have a 50/1.5 Nokton silver, as new, and very willing to part with it, since the 50 Summilux Asph arrived back this morning!
joe88 wrote:
Nice shots Luka, DR on the first image looks pretty good considering you have the sun and the shadows on the gazebo. Were you happy with the X1 in this instance?
Thanks Joe
Well, yes and no. Not at all pleased with the dynamic range of the default RAW conversion - I had to add a horizontal grad filter increasing the exposure on the left side. I'm also not very happy with the detail in the resized image but that could be because I'm using the same resize script I typically use for 21 megapixel images.
Nice shots, #2 is my favorite
charles.K wrote:
I am now finding a better quality way of presenting shots here, is using a web page, such as Zenfolio, then sharing the file. It seems to have better definition and rendering than just uploading directly, regardless of the technique used for downsizing.
Nice portraits Charles!
I use Zenfolio as for my web gallery and of all the web gallery software I've found they suck the least. But IMO they still suck big time as they insist on adding extra sharpening. I hate it - I want to be the one to control the sharpening. Ideally I'd like to upload a series of versions at different resolution and disable any automatic sharpening.
jhapeman wrote:
I wouldn't recommend Lloyd Chambers as a source of good information on rangefinders; he simply doesn't have the experience with these systems. If you really want good information on lenses to help you with a purchase decision, you should subscribe to Sean Reid's site. Sean has been shooting with RF's for years and has a very thorough and objective approach to testing.
Jeff, I think Lloyd Chambers is an excellent source exactly because he is primarily a DSLR shooter. No point in getting general advice from somebody that is a specialist. Lloyd has a similar shooting style to my own so his experiences with the system are quite valuable to me. In fact his review of the M9 serves as an instant cooling off in interest for me. He makes a very good point by asking of what use is a fantastic lens and a great sensor without an AA filter when you rarely can nail focus precisely.
It's a good point. It's not relevant for all types of photos to get perfect focus. Missed focus can be seen quite often in the images in this thread and more often than not it doesn't diminish the quality of the images. In Charles' portraits above the first shot is back focused and the second one front focused but it doesn't matter - they're still very good portraits.
The second valid point he makes is of the impossibility of getting an exact composition using framelines. This again may be a non-issue for many types of photography but not for my own. To clarify, this is how I usually take a shot with my DSLR:
I see something that attracts my attention. I place my tripod, turn on live view. I set approximate focus. I move the tripod to a better position. I adjust tripod hight, angle etc to get the composition exactly the way I want it and make sure that the out of focus areas look like I want them to look. I then adjust focus with 10x magnification using live view. Texture is important to me so I make sure that the focus is critically accurate where I want it (and it's almost never in the center). With the camera in aperture priority mode I use live view exposure simulation to get the exposure right. Finally using a cable release I take the shot (live view still active in order to get a mirror lock up).
In effect I'm looking at the image very close to what it will be in its final form and make a ton of minor adjustments to get everything from composition, exposure, bokeh and focus just right. I can't do any of that with a rangefinder - no matter how brilliant sensor and lenses it has. How many of you guys have even a quick release plate mounted on your M8/M9's? Not many I'd guess and I would guess few are using tripods at all. It's a different style of shooting with completely different priorities.
Now I don't always do tripod based photography. I shoot handheld as well and this is where the M9 could be very interesting. I don't like carrying a massive DSLR around any more than the next guy and the idea of a compact kit with very high quality is indeed appealing. The problem is that I'm likely to end up doing the same thing as Lloyd does with his M9 or what I'm currently doing with my X1: bring along the DSLR anyway, just to be sure. I'd hate to go someplace interesting and get home with inadequate shots because I wasn't able to control the camera the way I wanted. So in the end the benefit of a compact system would be lost for me.
Lloyd Chambers' review is very interesting to me because he has faced those problems already. I'm not claiming that it's universally valid. It depends very much on the type of shooting you prefer but for my type of live view & tripod based shooting his observations are highly relevant.
Luka, Sean Reid may shoot Leica's but he shoots Canon too. He's got a number of reviews of Canon bodies and lenses that I felt were valuable before I ever thought about buying a Leica body. I've read both Sean and Lloyd Chambers and while they both can be a bit long winded, I trust Sean Reid's opinions more. He's not always right but who is? Lloyd's been accused of being biased toward Zeiss and I think there's some truth to that. In any case, the point's been made and I agree with it that Lloyd is a Leica newbie. Just like the first time you picked up any camera, you weren't an instant expert, Lloyd isn't going to be an instant expert with a Leica. Let him use it for 6 months and then do a report. In any case, no matter what he says, you're not going to know until you try it yourself.
As for taking your DSLR along after you get the Leica, I would almost guarantee you that won't last long. To begin with, you're not going to take it out with little or no experience on a mission critical shoot. The kind of shooting you're doing with the X1 would be a perfectly good way to start with the M. Give it a try.
Rod, the kind of shooting I do with the X1 is forced shooting. I've almost always had my DSLR with me when I've had the X1. I've been forcing myself to use the X1 but the results are always inferior to what I get with my 5DII & Zeiss glass. There is no way I'd go shooting just with the X1. I don't trust it enough and the results are not nearly as good (compare the images I've posted here to the ones I've I've posted in the Zeiss thread).
As for Chambers he has had an M9 since november last year and seems to have a love-hate relationship with it. He uses it but typically brings a DSLR along and then later complains how few keepers he got with the Leica compared to the DSLR - mostly due to missed focused or messed up composition. He seems to love the camera in theory but not so much in practice. In fact, something similar to my feelings towards the X1.
denoir wrote:
As for Chambers he has had an M9 since november last year and seems to have a love-hate relationship with it. He uses it but typically brings a DSLR along and then later complains how few keepers he got with the Leica compared to the DSLR - mostly due to missed focused or messed up composition. He seems to love the camera in theory but not so much in practice. In fact, something similar to my feelings towards the X1.
It looks like he just has to practice more with the leica. I also had messed up compositions because I still had the idea I was looking in a slr finder and everything I saw was in the image. You know its not and you have to look inside the lines, but in the back of your mind your not.
It took me at least some time to get used to, especially with longer lenses on the leica.
I did't use my slr for some time and love the way the leica works now. Nevertheless I still like my slr, and am planning to buy new slr (zeiss) lenses (thanks to that zeiss ZE topic....).
Both systems are great working next to eachother, but it takes some time to get used to the rangefinders.
Thanks Luka
RF's is a very particular way of shooting. I really enjoy the RF technique and method of shooting, coming from DSLR's, and yet for some people it is not them. Personally I love the older ground glass technique and MF film camera. Reason is that when I compose, I remove my mind's eye from the scene, and compose purely on what I see looking down.
RF is very different again, taking a snapshot from part of the scene in the view finder. I have never found it easy composing with a smaller size view finder of a DSLR.
As I have mentioned before, I have the utmost respect for Lloyd, and his reviews. His observations with regards to focusing the RF and its accuracy are so very different than mine. If I were experiencing similar issues in trying focus, I would be very disappointed also. I have had focusing issues, but were resolved within days, and I am finding RF focusing is easier and more fun than with the 5DII.
RF cameras, are really are different way of composing and taking photographs. Excellent in so many ways, but lacking in some of the features of with the DSLR, but yet so much more liberating. There is a place for both as with MF. Just a matter of picking your "weapon" of choice.
Agreed! When I post images, I still use both techniques, and I do agree the best is to control the level of sharpening when sizing in stages. I have found Samuli and your knowledge on sharpening and downsizing incredibly helpful.
denoir wrote:
In effect I'm looking at the image very close to what it will be in its final form and make a ton of minor adjustments to get everything from composition, exposure, bokeh and focus just right. I can't do any of that with a rangefinder - no matter how brilliant sensor and lenses it has. How many of you guys have even a quick release plate mounted on your M8/M9's? Not many I'd guess and I would guess few are using tripods at all. It's a different style of shooting with completely different priorities.
You are very lucky that you have been born into the age of live view, otherwise I guess you wouldn't be able to take photos
I do have an RRS L-bracket for my M8u. In fact, I have two baseplates, one with the L-bracket on it, so I can switch quickly. I do sometimes shoot my M8u from the tripod, and in the past I have done my panoramas like this.
So, I cannot dispute that not many work like this, but I do. The Leica M cameras are not only good for street photography.
About Lloyd chambers, I respect his opinion on DSLRs, and I am interested in his view on the M9, but I do not think he is an authority there. If he had trouble with focusing with 90mm lenses and below, he either wasn't using it right, or it was adjusted wrong, something which can be fixed in the field in a couple of minutes quite easily. By sheer geometry, it is not hard to show that rangefinder focusing is much more accurate than DSLR focusing (live view excepted, but this has only existed for a very short time, and loads of awesome photos were made without, so one could not make a strong point that live view is *necessary*).
Robert, when using the X1 optical viewfinder (which I do almost all the time) I have to compose with frame lines as well. It's a very sloppy way of composing and usually I don't really bother trying to be precise there. When I do, I often need to take multiple shots before I get roughly the composition I want. So I'm not unfamiliar with the problem.
Charles, yes I agree. They are two different tools that are at their best in different circumstances. I am really attracted to the concept of the M9 but each time I start considering it I realize that it isn't the tool I want right now. I'm enjoying my current style of photography too much right now for it to make sense to switch tools. I'm more leaning towards going the other end with digital medium format cameras - the problem being that they are not as good yet as they ought to be (still too small sensors to make it worth abandoning the convenience of a DSLR). As I'm to a certain degree gear driven - i.e. I constantly need to get new gear to really keep up my interest, I'm definitely not ruling out the M9 once I feel that I'm starting to get bored.
Carsten, yes, Live View is new, but so are 20 megapixel sensors. DSLRs also usually have auto focus which when calibrated can get you critical focus. I have never used manual focus lenses on a non-live view enabled camera, so I've never run into that particular problem. On my older non-live view DSLRs, I used AF lenses which of course solves the whole focusing thing. One thing that I do like with manual focus glass regardless of optical/live view is that you can easily focus anywhere in the image. There is no need for center-focus-recompose that typically both ruins compositions and focus.
In the past when I was using the D700, it was very difficult to get nice B&W tones from LR and I almost always had to use Silver Efex Pro. 
. When I have some time, I'll go thru the threads in FM (including your excellent examples) on PP. 
