Thanks Luka Nice shots with the horses, I'm immediately drawn to the neutral tone in #1 and the rendering in #4. The 75Cron seems to be more "transparent" and let the subject shine thru while the Sonnar adds character to the shots. What do you think?
Your B&W are stunning, Charles! I can see many Zeiss SLR users here and pictures are often better here as well, I have to say. Well, one day I hope to be able to post a picture here as well
This thread is really starting to drive me nuts! Luka, really like #1 and #4 from your first post and #1 in the second. Lovely bokeh in that 75 cron
You guys have me thinking about this again....though I would start with an M8 and not go full M9. I was thinking 3 lengths, 25, 50 and 75 and for the 75 range the new CV 75 1.8.......but now your 75 cron shots have me thinking about that one instead. I don't want to go through buying and selling several times and it is hard to find many samples on the new Voigtlander...let alone comparisons to the 75 Summicron
denoir wrote:
I find the whole Leica & B/W thing intriguing. First of all there's the sensor that blows highlights in a similar way to film. Then there's the glass itself. I'm guessing the lower local contrast which I don't appreciate all that much in color shots works very well B/W, preserving some of the finer tonality. I like Leica rendering for B/W & film while I like Zeiss more for color and digital...
Hmm, I will have to think about that B&W vs. colour thing, but my hunch is that for me it is not only that, but also the subject, which dictates which rendering style I prefer for a given subject. My Egypt photos would often have been disastrous with Zeiss glass, I am pretty sure, for example. Way too much contrast down there, so the softer Leica images worked for me.
Your comments about finer tonality make me wonder (I am in no way trying to start another silly argument, but just truly wondering). If the finer tonality helps in the B&W conversion, what effect does it have in colour shots? Do we just prefer punchy (=some tonality loss) in colour and gentler rendition in B&W, or is there something deeper at play?
About your horse shots, while I don't see what you mean with the Sonnar being more immersive (I generally prefer the Cron shots here, even though I normally find the Zeiss rendering style superficially more attractive), there is a funny thing going on with the edges of the horses here, like their muzzles, for example. The edges of the Cron look quite harsh, and much more attractive with the Sonnar. That is the first time I have made this observation, and I find myself thinking back to old claims by Brainiac, to try to recall what exactly he was on about. He talked about darker, or black edges, I think, something which he claimed enhanced 3D...
rsolti13 wrote:
This thread is really starting to drive me nuts! Luka, really like #1 and #4 from your first post and #1 in the second. Lovely bokeh in that 75 cron
You guys have me thinking about this again....though I would start with an M8 and not go full M9. I was thinking 3 lengths, 25, 50 and 75 and for the 75 range the new CV 75 1.8.......but now your 75 cron shots have me thinking about that one instead. I don't want to go through buying and selling several times and it is hard to find many samples on the new Voigtlander...let alone comparisons to the 75 Summicron...Show more →
Haha, I guess you have a lot of reading and browsing in front of you. Don't forget the main difference between the M8 and M9, and I don't mean the FF vs. crop topic, but rather, the mandatory IR filters for the M8. If you can live with that, and the somewhat poor high-ISO ability of the M8, it is a fantastic camera, and at this point, almost a good deal, even compared to the Japanese cameras it competes with in IQ. The crop factor is 1.33x, so your lens choices work out to 32, 67 and 100, kinda high up in the focal length range. You could add a CV21 cheaply, and cover the lower end though. You can even buy a true chrome M8 An upgraded M8 is a really nice tool (quieter shutter, sapphire LCD glass, tight framelines), but the M8.2 is still a bit pricy.
carstenw wrote:
Haha, I guess you have a lot of reading and browsing in front of you. Don't forget the main difference between the M8 and M9, and I don't mean the FF vs. crop topic, but rather, the mandatory IR filters for the M8. If you can live with that, and the somewhat poor high-ISO ability of the M8, it is a fantastic camera, and at this point, almost a good deal, even compared to the Japanese cameras it competes with in IQ. The crop factor is 1.33x, so your lens choices work out to 32, 67 and 100, kinda high up in the focal length range. You could add a CV21 cheaply, and cover the lower end though. You can even buy a true chrome M8 An upgraded M8 is a really nice tool (quieter shutter, sapphire LCD glass, tight framelines), but the M8.2 is still a bit pricy....Show more →
For most wide I will continue to use my Nikon....though adding a ZM 18 would also come down the line. I see myself using the Leica as primarily a cityscape camera...so don't think I need the ultra wides at first.
I had the M8 before and was surprised that I really didn't see much difference using IR filters on a coded ZM 25. I also had a ZM 35 where no filters only impacted one single image. The 50 and 75 shouldn't need the filters if I understand correctly. I thought anything over 640 was pretty much unusable unless you wanted the high 'film-like' grain in your shots. I am thinking to counter the lack of high ISO in the M8 of getting a 50 lux pre-ASPH and also something fast on the long end. I thought I was set with the CV 75 1.8 but I am really liking the 75 cron shots. Decisions, decisions
For landscape photography, it is possible that you wouldn't see much difference with or without the IR filter, but it does depend on the time of year. IR light shifts bright greens significantly, for example. Maybe that doesn't bother you, which would explain it. When I was using my M8 with 50 Lux ASPH indoors or at night, every shot without IR filter was f*cked.
carstenw wrote:
For landscape photography, it is possible that you wouldn't see much difference with or without the IR filter, but it does depend on the time of year. IR light shifts bright greens significantly, for example. Maybe that doesn't bother you, which would explain it. When I was using my M8 with 50 Lux ASPH indoors or at night, every shot without IR filter was f*cked.
Regarding the M8, Ryan - you've had it before and switched back to using a DSLR. Why? And how come you've changed your mind?
carstenw wrote:
Your comments about finer tonality make me wonder (I am in no way trying to start another silly argument, but just truly wondering). If the finer tonality helps in the B&W conversion, what effect does it have in colour shots? Do we just prefer punchy (=some tonality loss) in colour and gentler rendition in B&W, or is there something deeper at play?
My theory is that a B/W shot already appears much more defined because of the two color limit. Typically B/W shots accentuate the subject, and adding high local contrast to that can make it over the top.
About your horse shots, while I don't see what you mean with the Sonnar being more immersive (I generally prefer the Cron shots here, even though I normally find the Zeiss rendering style superficially more attractive), there is a funny thing going on with the edges of the horses here, like their muzzles, for example. The edges of the Cron look quite harsh, and much more attractive with the Sonnar. That is the first time I have made this observation, and I find myself thinking back to old claims by Brainiac, to try to recall what exactly he was on about. He talked about darker, or black edges, I think, something which he claimed enhanced 3D......Show more →
I mean more immersive in the sense that it gives a much more live impression that sucks you into the image. The wilder bokeh and the DOF falloff are contributing factors. The Cron is more detached in its rendering with the backdrop just being a backdrop.
In many ways it reminds me of Canon rendering, or at least what Canon aspires to. I think that if there were no cost issues of material etc, Canon rendering would look like modern Leica - perfectly controlled and neutral in style. Good for allowing the subject to stand out rather than doing any wild rendering stuff. Also from my experience better for B/W conversions where the high local contrast of the Zeiss can create a weird look.
The Sonnar on the other hand has anything but a neutral rendering and chances are much higher that some people will hate it than the chances are for people hating the nonoffensive Cron rendering. The Sonnar overwhelms you with being the Sonnar while the Cron just provides an optically accurate image without asserting any strong style of its own.
Regarding 3D and edges - Braniac's activity in this forum was before my time so I don't know. What I do know is that applying sharpening to well defined edges helps with 3D 'pop'.
Regarding the M8, Ryan - you've had it before and switched back to using a DSLR. Why? And how come you've changed your mind?
I liked the M8 for the most part...wasn't a fan of the crop factor mainly. I didn't have any really fast glass, so I was stuck shooting slower speeds at high ISO which just isn't a good combo. And to be honest, I had some cheap glass that I just didn't like. I never invested in the glass as I should have. The only lens I had that I liked was the ZM 25.....which I certainly plan on getting round 2. I would get an M9, but don't feel like spending that much and would rather use money on glass than a camera. I want a compact kit with excellent options for glass and until Zeiss makes a digital Ikon I am going to fork over money to Leica for their rangefinders
Hmm. Well, the crop factor will be the same so that part won't change. Zeiss glass is reasonably priced, but if you are considering the 75 Cron plus other Leica glass like it, then it will cost you more than an M9 plus a couple of Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses. I'd probably choose that path but then again I'm not a particular fan of Leica lenses. Choosing lenses over a new camera body is a good policy at the budget end of things but with high end lenses you really need a good sensor to get the most out of them.
denoir wrote:
Regarding 3D and edges - Braniac's activity in this forum was before my time so I don't know. What I do know is that applying sharpening to well defined edges helps with 3D 'pop'.
Did you ever read the very long "What is 3D?" thread, trying to determine what causes the 3D look? A lot of what I am referring to happened in that thread. There was lots of discussion of Zeiss vs. Leica there too, simply because no other manufacturer than Leica really reaches Zeiss levels (ignoring Coastal Optics here), yet the looks are so different. We never reached any conclusions, but each of us walked away from it with our own ideas about contributing factors. One of the interesting things about the thread was that the discussions would go on for long periods with people clumping into groups of beliefs, but as soon as we started posting photos, we all split apart again. People who agreed on everything in theory would not see 3D in the same images. I made a vain attempt at separating the definitions of 3D and depth, but it was only partly adopted. A very interesting thread, even if it ultimately didn't resolve anything.
Brainiac is still around, I think, he just doesn't post much any more. Too bad. As much as we disagreed on many things, he was an interesting and challenging opponent, and we found a common ground in the end, each respecting the other's viewpoints.
Incidentally, w.r.t. your sharpening for bringing out pop with well defined lines, I have observed in the past that the M8 can hardly take any sharpening before it starts damaging the files visually. It is fortunate that it isn't usually necessary with the lenses I have chosen. Have you found something similar with the M9?
Yes, I've seen the thread but I have not read it from start to end. After briefly looking through it I came to the conclusion that there was no consensus about a definition of 3D
As for M9 and sharpening, no, not really. I'm using the same scripts as for my 5DII shots and they seem to work adequately.
