Summarit Series 35,50, 90 IMAGES

[s.m.e.p.]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

Okay sorry if that took some time . i am done at the moment and have caught up so please post at will here. ...

O.K. Guy!

For me it´s very difficult to learn anything about the quality of a new lens out of 900x600 72dpi pictures at all.
I would like to see pictures with a forground (person at 1,5 meters) then I could say something about the bokeh. A 1:1 Detail (Photoshop 100%) would be fine!

Btw. the green antenna of the phoenix police truck is really funny. LOL
Pic 2 at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post406299

Some pictures have a cut I would not dare to deliver to my clients:
Pic 1 (feet cut) at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post406296

Pic 1 (roof of the house cut) at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post406325
+ Pic 2 (Coke Bottle cut)

The pictures of the Golfplayers would look better with less DOF (200mm or more telephoto lens).

The pictures of the silent witness car could also have been taken with a c-lux2.

Regards, Stefan

[stunsworth]

There seems to be a tendency to over-exposure in quite a few of the shots - the guy swinging in the next to last series - #18 - for example. Not sure you can judge much from these.

[Jack_Flesher]

Combining both Robert's flat comment and Steve's over-exposed comment, what I see is more of a "fill-flashed" look. They don't look "blown" anywhere to me, but they do look different --- and I hate to say it, but they more like a Canon shot...

This could just be one or two of a few different things:

1) Arizona daylight --- I *KNOW* it's freaking bright there, like 1-1/2 stops over basic daylight;

2) Possibly the raw converter --- I find C1's standard film curve to over-do the top end (though admittedly it looks like the tops are fine and the mids are running over in some of these);

3) Could be a characteristic of the lens;

4) OR could be how Leica coded the Summarits for DNG processing...

With #4 in mind, it might be interesting to see a comparitive "with coding" and "without coding" shot...

Cheers,

[guy_mancuso]

Okay everything from 1-18 in the posts are from the summarit camera and most of them are shot specifically for testing only , so most of them will never see the light of day with clients also none of them are white balanced at all, so there really just defaults in LR which i did nothing too because i wanted to show what is coming directly off the sensor with little to do with software. So keep that in mind on these, 19 and came from the client camera and are WB . Need to read in between the images there is data there. Hope that explains it a little better . Now the use of a longer lens i would agree and my 135 apo is in Germany right now but i would have used that mostly. Remember weekend warrior golfers and getting close to them is very unhealthy. LOL They spray the ball everywhere. But yes a longer lens would give me a nice softer background no question there. One reason i miss my DMR and 180 f2 but i have no desire to buy a DSLR at all so the M8 is the tool

[eronald]

Originally Posted by s.m.e.p.

O.K. Guy!

For me it´s very difficult to learn anything about the quality of a new lens out of 900x600 72dpi pictures at all.
Regards, Stefan

Actually, these images are atrociously sharp and have a great look. My camera with its $500 lens will beat Guy's any day of the week, as he knows but I think Guy is getting his money's worth from the M8.

Edmund

[guy_mancuso]

LOL, Edmund is it working now, i sure hope so i may have to give you one of mine. LOL

Stefan maybe you just need to go get one and find out. Never know until you try one

[eronald]

The bigger one is working

Edmund

[Joop van Heijgen]

Originally Posted by eronald

Actually, these images are atrociously sharp and have a great look. My camera with its $500 lens will beat Guy's any day of the week, as he knows but I think Guy is getting his money's worth from the M8.

Edmund

All the images have not a very 'natural' character.
I think the lens quality of the summarit's and summicron's have to perform better.

Difficult to say something about the image quality on a computerscreen.

My (film) slide presentation of the summicron's gives a much better result!

In this test the differences between the summarit's and summicron's are not big; are even marginal.

I think with 'soft light' you can obtain a better result of the lenses.

In this way there is no difference between film and digital images...