denoir wrote:
The NEX is great, but it would really be a waste of money to use the 50 Lux on a cropper. You need full frame to make full use of the lens and currently that's the Leica M9.
i never really understand this thinking. if i can see an improvement on the NEX versus any other 50mm lens than it wouldn't be a waste of money (any more than paying an extra $2000 for marginal improvement in image quality is always a waste of money). i would be more interested in using a NEX with the 50/1.4 lux asph than i would be i an m9 with the 75 cron asph - though if offered one or the other i would obviously take the m9, sell it, and use the money to buy the 35 lux asph and 50 lux asph.
Its also worth mentioning that in addition to field curvature, some lens will show a different transition from in focus to OOF, some being quite dramatic and others more gradual. This rendering style can give the impression that the dof is more or less for a given lens than its comparison, which often brings with it comments regrading the focus plane being different.
denoir wrote:
Of course the Nex is 1.6 crop, so the DOF for a given framing would be even larger than on the M8.
actually it's 1.5 crop (but could anyone really tell the difference?), and are you sure your aperture multiplier is correct. i'd always seen the calculation that a f/1.4 worked out to a dof of about f/2.1 on a 1.5x crop, meaning in would be around f/1.9 for 1.33x crop.
sebboh wrote:
i never really understand this thinking. if i can see an improvement on the NEX versus any other 50mm lens than it wouldn't be a waste of money (any more than paying an extra $2000 for marginal improvement in image quality is always a waste of money). i would be more interested in using a NEX with the 50/1.4 lux asph than i would be i an m9 with the 75 cron asph - though if offered one or the other i would obviously take the m9, sell it, and use the money to buy the 35 lux asph and 50 lux asph....Show more →
Thats just it though, you really need to be able to SEE an improvement to justify a $4k+ lens, and given the crop factor, your not going to be able to see it.
Thats one of the really amazing things about the 50 Lux, is its near perfect edge to edge sharpness. If your cropping off those edges anyways, why spend all that money ? There are some less expensive lens that can give nearly as good center sharpness.
It would be the same as if you were only going to shoot a 50 Noct at f5.6 or smaller. Why spend $10k for a big heavy and insanely fast lens if your only going to use it in a manner where a Cron or any other lens works just as well, if not better, as diffraction is probably going to set in on the Noct by f5.6
Its worse than that. If you look at say a Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH shot wide open on a NEX 5 shots, they are softer than when shot on the M9 as if the spherical aberation gets magnified by the 1.6 crop factor of the NEX5.
millsart wrote:
Thats just it though, you really need to be able to SEE an improvement to justify a $4k+ lens, and given the crop factor, your not going to be able to see it.
Thats one of the really amazing things about the 50 Lux, is its near perfect edge to edge sharpness. If your cropping off those edges anyways, why spend all that money ? There are some less expensive lens that can give nearly as good center sharpness.
It would be the same as if you were only going to shoot a 50 Noct at f5.6 or smaller. Why spend $10k for a big heavy and insanely fast lens if your only going to use it in a manner where a Cron or any other lens works just as well, if not better, as diffraction is probably going to set in on the Noct by f5.6...Show more →
luka's test shows that you would see a difference though. center crops show a difference and that difference would be magnified on a higher pixel density sensor. that's just sharpness though. there is also bokeh, color, contrast, and distortion to consider.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Its worse than that. If you look at say a Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH shot wide open on a NEX 5 shots, they are softer than when shot on the M9 as if the spherical aberation gets magnified by the 1.6 crop factor of the NEX5.
but that just means that any lens with worse spherical aberration than the 35 lux asph will look even worse.
if you buy it because you think it will be as good as it is on FF than you're fooling yourself. if you buy it because it's better than any of the alternatives for the camera you have, then it makes sense.
sebboh wrote:
actually it's 1.5 crop (but could anyone really tell the difference?), and are you sure your aperture multiplier is correct. i'd always seen the calculation that a f/1.4 worked out to a dof of about f/2.1 on a 1.5x crop, meaning in would be around f/1.9 for 1.33x crop.
+1, f1.4 on a 135 sensor should be the DOF equivalent of f1.9 on the M8, and around f2.1 or 2.2 on APS-C, if using varying focal lengths to frame similarly.
The very last calculator at the end of the following page is what I like to use: link to lens equivalent
sebboh wrote:
luka's test shows that you would see a difference though. center crops show a difference and that difference would be magnified on a higher pixel density sensor. that's just sharpness though. there is also bokeh, color, contrast, and distortion to consider.
No one says your not allowed to do it, just most would think it a bit silly putting one of the most expensive full frame 50mm's made onto a crop body is all.
I mean if you've already got a M9, then a NEX is a fantastic addition. Its one of the reasons I bought into the NEX. Its a great second/backup travel body, and its honestly got better high ISO performance than the M9, not to mention being able to shoot at 7fps, record movie clips etc. Makes ton of sense to add a NEX and m adapter if your a Leica shooter for sure.
However, if your not a Leica shooter it still seems a bit silly to me to be buying $4000 glass for a $500 crop bodies camera, but to each his own and its not my concern how people choose to spend their money.
Again though, if your not using a Lux on a platform that can best showcase its strengths it seems a lot more practical to use a far less expensive lens that can provide similar optical performance in the center.
I also don't think your going to see as much of an improvement as you'd expect on the NEX even with its pixel density being higher than the Leica.
I compared with both a M8.2 which is only 10megs and the NEX and the m8.2 showed better per pixel sharpness and overall detail still. The M9 just furthers that even more.
Steve Huff has a comparison as well with the NEX, using the same glass on both bodies and I think full size samples you can download as well.
NEX just doesn't show every bit of resolution a lens can deliver even in the center of the fame the way a M9 will.
millsart wrote:
No one says your not allowed to do it, just most would think it a bit silly putting one of the most expensive full frame 50mm's made onto a crop body is all.
I mean if you've already got a M9, then a NEX is a fantastic addition. Its one of the reasons I bought into the NEX. Its a great second/backup travel body, and its honestly got better high ISO performance than the M9, not to mention being able to shoot at 7fps, record movie clips etc. Makes ton of sense to add a NEX and m adapter if your a Leica shooter for sure.
However, if your not a Leica shooter it still seems a bit silly to me to be buying $4000 glass for a $500 crop bodies camera, but to each his own and its not my concern how people choose to spend their money.
Again though, if your not using a Lux on a platform that can best showcase its strengths it seems a lot more practical to use a far less expensive lens that can provide similar optical performance in the center.
I also don't think your going to see as much of an improvement as you'd expect on the NEX even with its pixel density being higher than the Leica.
I compared with both a M8.2 which is only 10megs and the NEX and the m8.2 showed better per pixel sharpness and overall detail still. The M9 just furthers that even more.
Steve Huff has a comparison as well with the NEX, using the same glass on both bodies and I think full size samples you can download as well.
NEX just doesn't show every bit of resolution a lens can deliver even in the center of the fame the way a M9 will. ...Show more →
i wouldn't expect the NEX to be sharper than M8 on a per pixel level (but very close at an equal percentage of frame size). i'm not really interested in comparing a leica camera to the NEX because i'm not interested in rangefinders. what i am interested in is comparing a leica lens on the NEX to other lenses also on the NEX. also, sharpness isn't my primary concern. control of aberrations, SA and CA in particular since these are magnified on a crop sensor, are my primary concerns.
i understand what you're saying about price, but the combination of $5000 lens on a $500 camera only seems crazy to me if there is a better camera that does the same thing as the $500 one. the m9 and NEX are very different cameras. if/when someone comes out with a mirrorless FF that is close to the size of the NEX, then i'll agree that the NEX + lux is crazy. till then it makes sense to me at least in theory.
I've seen great results from the Summarit line of Leica lenses with the NEX, that seems like a more sensible pairing vs. a $4000 lens. But I wonder what the argument will be, for the M9 when a Full Frame Mirrorless is finally released.
bluetsunami wrote:
I've seen great results from the Summarit line of Leica lenses with the NEX, that seems like a more sensible pairing vs. a $4000 lens.
but they're soooo slow!
bluetsunami wrote:
But I wonder what the argument will be, for the M9 when a Full Frame Mirrorless is finally released.
rangefinders are expensive to make and require precision mechanics, but they have some real advantages. also, precision mechanics are nice in their own right.
bluetsunami wrote:
I've seen great results from the Summarit line of Leica lenses with the NEX, that seems like a more sensible pairing vs. a $4000 lens. But I wonder what the argument will be, for the M9 when a Full Frame Mirrorless is finally released.
Same argument as when the M3 first came out, its a rangefinder. Period. No more needs to be said.
A M9 certainly does provide amazing optical quality, but so do plenty of other cameras, many costing less money. If there is a full frame mirrorless it isn't going to change the fact a M9 is a range finder any more as when the 21meg 5D mkII came out at $2500, or the 24 meg Sony a850 at just $2000. None of them are rangefinders.
Thats the only argument one needs. Doesn't mean everyone has to like using a rangefinder (I personally think its an awesome method of shooting) but for those who enjoy that style of camera, no more needs to be said.
denoir wrote:
Well Jonas, although I suspect your question wasn't all that serious, I'll answer it anyway. There are two answers to that. First of all is that you'll miss all the sweet stuff going on in the corners. It's like a pizza without the outer crust. (I know some people prefer it that way).
The second thing is that you are paying premium for a fast lens.
(...)
So the question is, do you really want to pay $4,000+ for the equivalent of a 67 mm f/2.5 Summarit lens?
I was serious, but not extremely. As a former FF user in a pro FF forum I'm not very serious about crop cameras. But, I'm using them right now, and as i said I'm eagerky waiting for a FF LIVE camera, or a mirror-less FF with a good EVF. My hope is that this theoretical camera will take rangefinder lenses.
I wish the 50Lux would work as a 50Lux. On the Nex it won't as you say. The price is high, more on that at the bottom of this post, but not impossible. our kids have grown up and left home, I can afford saving up to an EUR 2.800 lens should I so wish. What's the option? Buying a Summarit performing like an Elmar?
millsart wrote:
No one says your not allowed to do it, just most would think it a bit silly putting one of the most expensive full frame 50mm's made onto a crop body is all.
(...)
NEX just doesn't show every bit of resolution a lens can deliver even in the center of the fame the way a M9 will.
Hey, I think it is the other way round. A FF camera with its relaxed pixel pitch doesn't need a super sharp lens. The NEX will demonstrate the superior performance of the Summilux even more than the M9 does - if you compare the 50 Lux on the NEX with other 50mm lenses mounted to the NEX. Maybe it is silly not to pick the 50 Cron if you have an M9?
sebboh wrote:
luka's test shows that you would see a difference though. center crops show a difference and that difference would be magnified on a higher pixel density sensor. that's just sharpness though. there is also bokeh, color, contrast, and distortion to consider.
(...)
i understand what you're saying about price, but the combination of $5000 lens on a $500 camera only seems crazy to me if there is a better camera that does the same thing as the $500 one. the m9 and NEX are very different cameras. if/when someone comes out with a mirrorless FF that is close to the size of the NEX, then i'll agree that the NEX + lux is crazy. till then it makes sense to me at least in theory....Show more →
I'm right with you, about the money, about the complete set of features of a lens one is looking for and also about the theoretical part about all this... To me Luka's series of images has been an eye opener. I guess he hasn't revealed something the aficionados not already knew. To me it was news though; I had an M4 and an M5 many years ago and that learned me that I'm a viewfinder and DOF control sort of photographer.
This has not been my experience in regards to the M9. Yes it holds true if we are talking about, lets say a very packed Canon crop body vs a FF body with lower pixel density, but we are talking about a CCD sensor with no AA filter and offset microlenses vs a CMOS sensor with an AA filter.
I think Steve Huff has a comparison with a M9 with 50 Cron against a NEX5, using the same lens, and while the NEX has the edge in pixel density, the per pixel resolving power of the M9 is superior.
When its different types of sensors, or apples vs oranges, you can't go by what holds true for just CMOS sensors based on pixel density alone.
Hey, I think it is the other way round. A FF camera with its relaxed pixel pitch doesn't need a super sharp lens. The NEX will demonstrate the superior performance of the Summilux even more than the M9 does - if you compare the 50 Lux on the NEX with other 50mm lenses mounted to the NEX. Maybe it is silly not to pick the 50 Cron if you have an M9?
, I haven't heard of the Swedish Bikini Team in probably 10-15 years. They might not be looking quite as good these days as I remember growing up.
(I know some people prefer it that way).