KyleR. wrote:
Yes!
Finally a place where digital Leica users can post and discuss!
I recently got an m8.2, the zeiss 50 1.5 sonnar, and the voigtlander 25 f/4.
I must say, I'm in love with the m8.2 and these lenses. I've only had it for about 2 months, but here are some shots: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/4752323356_a71a61aafc_b.jpg
Some really great shots here! I'm glad to see people are making good use of their Leicas.
Me on the other hand.. I'm starting to think that getting the X1 was a bad decision. On a couple of occasions now where its compact size would have been an advantage, I opted to take my DSLR with Zeiss glass instead. The reason is that the X1 is notoriously unreliable. The AF system sucks and the manual focus is completely unusable. Furthermore the image quality is nowhere near a FF DSLR with good glass. One of the main culprits is exceptionally poor dynamic range. On occasion it does surprise me with very lovely rendering - it is especially nice for portraits. Those occasions are however very rare and most of the time I get unusable or mediocre shots.
Anyway, a couple of pictures - all of them would have been significantly better with my 5DII and a Zeiss 35/2 or 35/1.4...
Jim, yes some colors are ok. If you look at the second image, at the bridge and silo - that's very good. That is what I would expect from Leica glass. Unfortunately it's rarely that good.
Ryan: I didn't shoot with the Zeiss 35/1.4 at the time, so the one I have is with very different light:
I have a shot with the Zeiss 21/2.8 that was taken the same evening about the same time as the Leica shot.
Also, I've done some heavy color correction on the Leica shot. The Zeiss shot above was only white balance adjusted. This is what the original Leica shot looked like before PP (just white balance adjustment):
As you can see, the highlights have been completely blown. The colors are also are not as nice as with the Zeiss.
If I reduce the exposure by two stops, I do recover the highlights (the X1 RAW files are excellent with loads of room for adjustments), but now the shadows are gone:
wow...interesting. There just is no substitute for Zeiss in my opinion. I see exactly what you mean about the X1. The glass seems excellent but the camera/processing does not
rsolti13 wrote:
wow...interesting. There just is no substitute for Zeiss in my opinion. I see exactly what you mean about the X1. The glass seems excellent but the camera/processing does not
Well, it's not exactly a fair comparison. An M9 with a 35 Summilux ASPH would probably produce much better results than the X1.
But yes, the limitation is the camera & sensor. When there is low dynamic range in a scene, it can produce quite nice results. My primary gripe with the X1 though is its unreliability because of the poor AF, generally slow speed and its extreme susceptibility to camera shake (due to its very low weight). I've gotten shots at 1/125s ruined by camera shake where I can consistently get sharp shots at 1/25 with a 35 on my 5DII.
Denoir, you've posted a lot of nice shots with the X1. Of course, if you're not happy with it, that's what counts. Camera shake at 1/125 would have me wondering I know.
Dan, nice rail shot. I haven't shot anything that long with the M8 yet. Did the camera handle the long exposure noise that well or did you PP it out?
denoir wrote:
Charles: Thanks! Very nice rendering of the motorcycles by the way. The Voigtländer has an interesting rendering style - more like Zeiss than Leica, I'd say.
This is probably because Cosina (The parent company of Voigtlander) makes the Zeiss glass too! I've always liked the Voigtlander M-mount glass. I used to have some with the Epson R-D1 I used to shoot with. (which was also made by Cosina)
Luka, your experiences with the Leica X1 largely mimic that of mine with the Sigma DP1, I've bought and sold them a couple times, and now I have a DP1s because Amazon had them for a good price. It has so many short-comings and quirks, but man those Foveon files can really sing!
zombii wrote:
Denoir, you've posted a lot of nice shots with the X1. Of course, if you're not happy with it, that's what counts. Camera shake at 1/125 would have me wondering I know.
Dan, nice rail shot. I haven't shot anything that long with the M8 yet. Did the camera handle the long exposure noise that well or did you PP it out?
Charles - thanks I like the M8 for street/candid shooting .. very fast and less noticeable than my DSLR..
thrice - nice one with the rail tracks shot!
denoir - whatever limitations you mentioned on your X1 does not show in your pics
anyone has pics with the Ultron 28/2 on the digital M's? thinking of getting one for my M8 but was am hesitant of the back focusing based on Sean Reid's reviews..
The Ultron 28/2 is a great lens on the digital M's. Like all Voigtlander lenses, you have to be careful for decentered copies; I've had three and only one was perfect. That said, it has a lovely way of drawing that I really liked. On my M8.2:
denoir wrote:
Me on the other hand.. I'm starting to think that getting the X1 was a bad decision. On a couple of occasions now where its compact size would have been an advantage, I opted to take my DSLR with Zeiss glass instead. The reason is that the X1 is notoriously unreliable. The AF system sucks and the manual focus is completely unusable. Furthermore the image quality is nowhere near a FF DSLR with good glass. One of the main culprits is exceptionally poor dynamic range.
Sorry to hear that...
Look, I might repeat myself, but if you want a smaller reliable system,
I strongly suggest Pentax K-7 and a set of Pentax primes Limited.
The lenses are amazing, the camera is very small and there is a replacement
coming with a newer sensor...
I have 5 or 6 lenses, they are all very good optically and so small.
K-7 has all the features of the best cameras out there, it's weatherproof,
all metal, anti-shake, all you want.
I've always liked the Voigtlander M-mount glass. I used to have some with the Epson R-D1 I used to shoot with. (which was also made by Cosina)
