Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.927 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
Allen,
If you go with an M-E or used M9, you'll want all the lens speed you can get. With the M240 the file characteristics at higher ISOs are similar to what you're already accustomed to with Canon, but I find that while one can push M240 high ISO files moderately, they feel somewhat thin and brittle. It doesn't take too much for white speckles to appear at pixel level and shadow values will start to reveal a green tinge. Unlike the M-E/M9, it's not such a great idea to push M240 shadow values a huge amount, especially at higher ISOs....Show more →
VERY difficult for me to do on the fly corrections when shooting weddings photojournalism style, but something I'll have to work on I suppose.
I agree about the M240 having a slight green bias in the shadows when shooting and brightening, I don't know why, but the added benefits of shooting ISO 800 and boosting in LR to equivalent of ISO 6400 shows FAR less grain, and the green is something I've just compensated for when needed. In fact, after switching work systems so much, I've come to appreciate my M240 files, and my old M9 files as well.
Allen - I just wrote about the slower lenses, I didn't know you were considering the 21/24.. I tested them both as I was planning on buying one or the other. In almost all instances I'd take a 21mm over a 24mm, but in this case, I found that if I was going to buy a super expensive wide, I'd take the 24mm as it seemed to give this unreal 3D effect not only to the few samples I shot, but also I noticed this trend on flickr/web. However, I think, and I have limited knowledge in this area, but the 21Lux had less or at least appeared at Min focusing distances to have less of a weird distorting effect. So what I thought was, if I was using the 21Lux for environmental portraits, I could see the benefits, but if I wanted a street/travel wide, I'd buy the 24mm.. In the end I thought about how little I use the 21SEM, even though I love it, so I decided to keep the money under my mattress for a bit longer.
I too shoot at wide open, 5.6, 11 (I don't like the funny in-between numbers). F/11 is fantastic in studio! I rarely shoot landscapes though
Allen,
If you go with an M-E or used M9, you'll want all the lens speed you can get. With the M240 the file characteristics at higher ISOs are similar to what you're already accustomed to with Canon, but I find that while one can push M240 high ISO files moderately, they feel somewhat thin and brittle. It doesn't take too much for white speckles to appear at pixel level and shadow values will start to reveal a green tinge. Unlike the M-E/M9, it's not such a great idea to push M240 shadow values a huge amount, especially at higher ISOs....Show more →
VERY difficult for me to do on the fly corrections when shooting weddings photojournalism style, but something I'll have to work on I suppose.
I agree about the M240 having a slight green bias in the shadows when shooting and brightening, I don't know why, but the added benefits of shooting ISO 800 and boosting in LR to equivalent of ISO 6400 shows FAR less grain, and the green is something I've just compensated for when needed. In fact, after switching work systems so much, I've come to appreciate my M240 files, and my old M9 files as well.
Allen - I just wrote about the slower lenses, I didn't know you were considering the 21/24.. I tested them both as I was planning on buying one or the other. In almost all instances I'd take a 21mm over a 24mm, but in this case, I found that if I was going to buy a super expensive wide, I'd take the 24mm as it seemed to give this unreal 3D effect not only to the few samples I shot, but also I noticed this trend on flickr/web. However, I think, and I have limited knowledge in this area, but the 21Lux had less or at least appeared at Min focusing distances to have less of a weird distorting effect. So what I thought was, if I was using the 21Lux for environmental portraits, I could see the benefits, but if I wanted a street/travel wide, I'd buy the 24mm.. In the end I thought about how little I use the 21SEM, even though I love it, so I decided to keep the money under my mattress for a bit longer.
I too shoot at wide open, 5.6, 11 (I don't like the funny in-between numbers). F/11 is fantastic in studio! I rarely shoot landscapes though
Jun 02, 2014 at 01:08 AM
p.927 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Gary, Mitch, Adam, great contributions.
Also many thanks to Adam and Ron for the very interesting insights. Particularly about the Leica 21/24, all this is new for me and highly appreciated.
Also many thanks to Adam and Ron for the very interesting insights. Particularly about the Leica 21/24, all this is new for me and highly appreciated.
Jun 02, 2014 at 01:34 AM
p.927 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Thanks Adam, Edward and Ron for the isight. Great to tap into others knowledge and experience when making expensive decisions. Another reason this is one of my favorite threads on the world wide web. Great photographs and wealth of knowledge.
Jun 02, 2014 at 05:04 AM
p.927 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Love the series Mitch and I to love Epson Exhibition Fiber.
Jun 02, 2014 at 05:05 AM
p.927 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
+1 
Allen, the most difficult aspect I have found with the M9/M240 with WA's is composing images, as the frame lines can be very hit and miss. The horizontal is usually way off with using the RF. Ron, seems to always nail his compositions!! I have been lately using LV for this reason.
Don't discount the ZM 25 is an excellent lens for street work. It is not too wide and it has the traditional Zeiss look. It has MFD of 0.5m combined with LV if needed, or guesstimating. I now have the 24 Lux which is great, but I find myself using a lot of the WATE. I have never thought about using anything less 21mm, but combined with LV, there is not the frustration of unexpected compositions.
Adam, beautifully executed shot!
Gary, very nice impromptu captures.
Allen, the most difficult aspect I have found with the M9/M240 with WA's is composing images, as the frame lines can be very hit and miss. The horizontal is usually way off with using the RF. Ron, seems to always nail his compositions!! I have been lately using LV for this reason.
Don't discount the ZM 25 is an excellent lens for street work. It is not too wide and it has the traditional Zeiss look. It has MFD of 0.5m combined with LV if needed, or guesstimating. I now have the 24 Lux which is great, but I find myself using a lot of the WATE. I have never thought about using anything less 21mm, but combined with LV, there is not the frustration of unexpected compositions.
Adam, beautifully executed shot!
Gary, very nice impromptu captures.
Jun 02, 2014 at 05:43 AM
p.927 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I usually don't mind the inaccurate frame lines and just roll with it. Sometimes I surprise myself, and end up with compositions I like better on inaccurate-framed cameras (the rangefinders, the Fuji X100s, etc) than with accurate viewfinders (the 5D Mark3).
The only thing I have trouble with is getting horizons straight with the 28mm frame lines.
The only thing I have trouble with is getting horizons straight with the 28mm frame lines.
Jun 02, 2014 at 06:01 AM
p.927 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
atwl77 wrote:
I usually don't mind the inaccurate frame lines and just roll with it. Sometimes I surprise myself, and end up with compositions I like better on inaccurate-framed cameras (the rangefinders, the Fuji X100s, etc) than with accurate viewfinders (the 5D Mark3).
The only thing I have trouble with is getting horizons straight with the 28mm frame lines.
Yeah, but the trouble begins when you like to frame your subjects really tightly.. For instance with couples shots, you find that you have the girl in the frame and half of the guy out of the frame. Stepping back is also a possibility, but it increases focus error (or at least for me it does).
I usually don't mind the inaccurate frame lines and just roll with it. Sometimes I surprise myself, and end up with compositions I like better on inaccurate-framed cameras (the rangefinders, the Fuji X100s, etc) than with accurate viewfinders (the 5D Mark3).
The only thing I have trouble with is getting horizons straight with the 28mm frame lines.
Yeah, but the trouble begins when you like to frame your subjects really tightly.. For instance with couples shots, you find that you have the girl in the frame and half of the guy out of the frame. Stepping back is also a possibility, but it increases focus error (or at least for me it does).
Jun 02, 2014 at 06:43 AM
p.927 #9Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I have really gotten pretty good with how the 35 frames with the Mono. It did take some time to learn though. But thats all part of the process in my opinion. Getting to a point where a new tool becomes second nature. Theres more to the image than the crop lines show. I would imagine that just increases with wider angles? Yes, no?
Jun 02, 2014 at 07:38 AM
p.927 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
airfrogusmc wrote:
I have really gotten pretty good with how the 35 frames with the Mono. It did take some time to learn though. But thats all part of the process in my opinion. Getting to a point where a new tool becomes second nature. Theres more to the image than the crop lines show. I would imagine that just increases with wider angles? Yes, no?
It would APPEAR to increase, as the lens is wider, so it takes in more of a scene. But in actual measurement of frame, I think that the more tele the lens, the more "loose" the frame line becomes. Or that's how I felt on my few M9 cameras and two M9p cameras that I owned. Specifically I remember the last M9p I owned was REALLY bad with 90mm frame lines, you'd get way more then you thought you were going to get.
Do you notice how when you focus your frame lines move down and to the right? That's correcting for parallax error, and I have a suspicion that either my M240 is overcorrecting, or the frame line mask in general is just really off from the start. Which is why when I shoot, not only do I get a bit of breathing room, but I get like a few feet more on two sides of the rectangle box. And lose a few feet on the other two sides. And when I say a few feet, obviously it depends on how far away I am from my subject, the shift varies, as it should.
I have really gotten pretty good with how the 35 frames with the Mono. It did take some time to learn though. But thats all part of the process in my opinion. Getting to a point where a new tool becomes second nature. Theres more to the image than the crop lines show. I would imagine that just increases with wider angles? Yes, no?
It would APPEAR to increase, as the lens is wider, so it takes in more of a scene. But in actual measurement of frame, I think that the more tele the lens, the more "loose" the frame line becomes. Or that's how I felt on my few M9 cameras and two M9p cameras that I owned. Specifically I remember the last M9p I owned was REALLY bad with 90mm frame lines, you'd get way more then you thought you were going to get.
Do you notice how when you focus your frame lines move down and to the right? That's correcting for parallax error, and I have a suspicion that either my M240 is overcorrecting, or the frame line mask in general is just really off from the start. Which is why when I shoot, not only do I get a bit of breathing room, but I get like a few feet more on two sides of the rectangle box. And lose a few feet on the other two sides. And when I say a few feet, obviously it depends on how far away I am from my subject, the shift varies, as it should.
Jun 02, 2014 at 09:41 AM
|
p.927 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Adam, I also notice with the MM that the frame lines move from upper left to lower right as I focus closer and yes I get a bit more in reality than the lines show. But shooting with the 35 only for a year and a half I rally have a good feel for where the frame actually is in relationship to the actual image.
Jun 02, 2014 at 06:04 PM
p.927 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
It would APPEAR to increase, as the lens is wider, so it takes in more of a scene. But in actual measurement of frame, I think that the more tele the lens, the more "loose" the frame line becomes. Or that's how I felt on my few M9 cameras and two M9p cameras that I owned. Specifically I remember the last M9p I owned was REALLY bad with 90mm frame lines, you'd get way more then you thought you were going to get.
Do you notice how when you focus your frame lines move down and to the right? That's...Show more →
Hi Allen/Adam,
The M9P/MM framing lines for 35/50 and 75, were always calibrated very accurately for 1 to 2m by Camera clinic in the past. This saved many excellent shots from being discarded having captured only part of the frame. Of course the M240 needs to be sent to Solms, so this for me is out of the question, unless the calibration has moved.
For the WA's, such as the ZM 25, 24 Lux and SEM 21, I used the CV 21/25 finder. This is excellent, as you can use zone focusing, and then just frame and take the shots. Again the issue, is finding horizontal, and the frame lines can be loose. I now exclusively use LV for WA's, as I really like to think where I place items in WA shots. I don't like the hit and miss in PP'ing where the horizontal is incorrect, and I have lost a lot of my image. Of course this is become a lot easier, as you really get to know your camera
airfrogusmc wrote
I have really gotten pretty good with how the 35 frames with the Mono. It did take some time to learn though. But thats all part of the process in my opinion. Getting to a point where a new tool becomes second nature. Theres more to the image than the crop lines show. I would imagine that just increases with wider angles? Yes, no?Do you notice how when you focus your frame lines move down and to the right? That's...Show more →
Hi Allen/Adam,
The M9P/MM framing lines for 35/50 and 75, were always calibrated very accurately for 1 to 2m by Camera clinic in the past. This saved many excellent shots from being discarded having captured only part of the frame. Of course the M240 needs to be sent to Solms, so this for me is out of the question, unless the calibration has moved.
For the WA's, such as the ZM 25, 24 Lux and SEM 21, I used the CV 21/25 finder. This is excellent, as you can use zone focusing, and then just frame and take the shots. Again the issue, is finding horizontal, and the frame lines can be loose. I now exclusively use LV for WA's, as I really like to think where I place items in WA shots. I don't like the hit and miss in PP'ing where the horizontal is incorrect, and I have lost a lot of my image. Of course this is become a lot easier, as you really get to know your camera
Jun 02, 2014 at 06:56 PM
p.927 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
The M9 frame lines are calibrated for 1 meter while the M 240 frame lines are calibrated for 2 meters. That makes a huge difference especially at MFD.
Jun 02, 2014 at 08:26 PM
p.927 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
lots of talk on 50s, but I didn't see mention of the 50mm M-Hexanon.
it's a very nice lens. maybe no one on FM owns one?
it's a very nice lens. maybe no one on FM owns one?
Jun 02, 2014 at 08:27 PM
p.927 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I don't hear much about the Hex lenses but I have seen some good shots from the 50mm. IIRC, it behaves much like the ZM50 Planar.... I have always wanted to try out the 60 Hex though.
Jun 02, 2014 at 09:05 PM
p.927 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
edwardkaraa wrote:
The M9 frame lines are calibrated for 1 meter while the M 240 frame lines are calibrated for 2 meters. That makes a huge difference especially at MFD.
When I got my camera adjusted, I told them I shoot at min distances to a max of 2 meters.. They said they'd adjust accordingly, and just didn't.. So either the fellows in Germany can't adjust for min focusing because of the mechanics, or won't because they don't want to. Either way, it's a big hassle, the biggest.
Charles - You are right, anything wide and LV comes on, it's great to have in those cases.
The M9 frame lines are calibrated for 1 meter while the M 240 frame lines are calibrated for 2 meters. That makes a huge difference especially at MFD.
When I got my camera adjusted, I told them I shoot at min distances to a max of 2 meters.. They said they'd adjust accordingly, and just didn't.. So either the fellows in Germany can't adjust for min focusing because of the mechanics, or won't because they don't want to. Either way, it's a big hassle, the biggest.
Charles - You are right, anything wide and LV comes on, it's great to have in those cases.
Jun 03, 2014 at 01:00 AM
p.927 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I've viewed the 50Hex online, not bad, people tend to love the 60(?) hex.. It's got a cult following I guess.
I actually like the physical appearance of the Hex lenses, but probably wouldn't bother paying what people are asking over here in SG. You can get the ZM lenses at comparable prices since there more readily available here.
I actually like the physical appearance of the Hex lenses, but probably wouldn't bother paying what people are asking over here in SG. You can get the ZM lenses at comparable prices since there more readily available here.
Jun 03, 2014 at 01:07 AM
p.927 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
It would APPEAR to increase, as the lens is wider, so it takes in more of a scene. But in actual measurement of frame, I think that the more tele the lens, the more "loose" the frame line becomes. Or that's how I felt on my few M9 cameras and two M9p cameras that I owned. Specifically I remember the last M9p I owned was REALLY bad with 90mm frame lines, you'd get way more then you thought you were going to get.
The 75mm framelines are perfect for a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 and the 90mm framelines are perfect for a Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5. Coincidence? and alignment...
It works out- with different focal lengths I tend to use either inner/outer edges of the framelines and compensate from there.
It would APPEAR to increase, as the lens is wider, so it takes in more of a scene. But in actual measurement of frame, I think that the more tele the lens, the more "loose" the frame line becomes. Or that's how I felt on my few M9 cameras and two M9p cameras that I owned. Specifically I remember the last M9p I owned was REALLY bad with 90mm frame lines, you'd get way more then you thought you were going to get.
The 75mm framelines are perfect for a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 and the 90mm framelines are perfect for a Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5. Coincidence? and alignment...
It works out- with different focal lengths I tend to use either inner/outer edges of the framelines and compensate from there.
Jun 03, 2014 at 03:47 AM
p.927 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Brian - Interesting 
I actually just spent some time trying to take photos of flowers my wife had bought, and I realised that my 75APO is really much tighter then the frame lines suggest. As well as being off (all at min focusing distance to 1m).
The M240 is showing a 70mm frame line, approx.
I actually just spent some time trying to take photos of flowers my wife had bought, and I realised that my 75APO is really much tighter then the frame lines suggest. As well as being off (all at min focusing distance to 1m).
The M240 is showing a 70mm frame line, approx.
Jun 03, 2014 at 03:50 AM
p.927 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Ok, since this is a picture forum mostly, here's an example Brian and anyone else who's interested.
In this .7m shot with the 75APO I had wanted to get the top flower that's cut off in the shot. There was suppose to be far less breathing room after the last bulb. Maybe about the biggest bulb worth of breathing room, but the top flower was suppose to be fully in the shot with slightly less breathing room then the bottom of the image... This is what I ended up with:
For those who care, 75APO wide open. (Mind you my 75APO focus is also off, hahah, so really very troublesome.)
In this .7m shot with the 75APO I had wanted to get the top flower that's cut off in the shot. There was suppose to be far less breathing room after the last bulb. Maybe about the biggest bulb worth of breathing room, but the top flower was suppose to be fully in the shot with slightly less breathing room then the bottom of the image... This is what I ended up with:
For those who care, 75APO wide open. (Mind you my 75APO focus is also off, hahah, so really very troublesome.)
Jun 03, 2014 at 04:15 AM