Advice for an M8 rangefinder newbie

[diogenis]

One of their future firmware updates should really be the use of the 4 button rotary switch for Iso and EV. These switches still remain unused for so long when you take pictures, they should put them in use for these critical functions

[lars_bergquist]

About depth of field: This is an embarrassing subject. How much depth of field you can expect depends of course on the enlargement of the print. The more magnification, the more critical is the focus. Now Leica d.o.f. tables and scales go back to the late 1920's. In those days it was not expected that the 24x36mm neg would be enlarged more than 3x! So the computations were based on an assumed largest circle of confusion (the largest fuzz that a point in the subject should be allowed to make) of 1/30th of a mm. Enlarged 3x that made about a 1/10 mm c.o.c. in the print, which is about the most that the eye at normal reading distance sees as sharp.

The result is that for normal modern print sizes (18x24cm, 8x10'' or A4) the computations are totally inadequate—and have been since the late 1930's! But Leitz/Leica have never dared change them. What you need today, especially with an M8, is a c.o.c. of about half the size. Now listen: You get this by halving the f-stop numbers on the d.o.f scale of the lens. This means that for instance if you want to take a picture at 5.6, you read the scale at 2.8. For f:8, read at f:4.

This has two consequences. First, many modern Leica lenses start to lose some crispness at or beyond f:8 due to diffraction. Second, thinking in terms of d.o.f. is meaningful only with quite short wide angle lenses. With anything longer than 28mm you must simply point-focus. Now these are the facts of life in optics, and true for any camera lens of any brand. It's just that autofocus has taught customers to be satisfied as long as there is SOMETHING reasonably sharp in the picture. We are more picky.

This said, there are more and sometimes other things that make a great picture than just sharpness. It's the situation and how you capture it that counts. David Douglas Duncan's and Robert Capa's pictures were not all that tack sharp ...

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

[stunsworth]

I agree with what you say Lars. It's interesting to notice how shallow the DOF is with say a 75mm Summicron even at a moderate aperture of say f5.6 once you begin to zoom into the image.

You are also correct in my opinion when you say sharpness isn't everything.

[delander]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

You are also correct in my opinion when you say sharpness isn't everything.

I agree but photographs where nothing is sharp have to have something, and I often look at such photographs and wish that the photographer had nailed the focus somewhere.

We see sharp, otherwise we wear glasses. With digital, sharpness is becoming all the more important. How many proprietary sharpness routines and stand alone software packages are on sale? Lenses are often rejected for lack of sharpness. Apart from one Zeiss lens (and a Canon soft focus lens) who is trying to sell soft lenses? All the comments about the latest Nikon zoom lenses "focus" on sharpness.

Jeff

[suden]

Both delander and lars have very good points re: the whole sharpness issue. Sharpness seems to be the number one obsession for most people...especially DSLR owners. Go on any DSLR message board and the "tack sharp" obsession is alive and well and after a while it almost brain washes you into that mentality.

Lars: thanks for your input regarding depth of field...for some reason that topic still causes a "circle of confusion" in my head and every little bit helps!

Jaapv: I will definitely give the AE lock a go...sounds like a quick, easy solution when you don't have time or want to futz with buttons!

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by delander

I agree but photographs where nothing is sharp have to have something...

Of course, composition and light for two things.

Given the choice between a sharp but 'boring' photographs, and one that's less sharp but 'interesting', I'd take the latter any day.

[Daniel Ortego]

Originally Posted by suden

Both delander and lars have very good points re: the whole sharpness issue. Sharpness seems to be the number one obsession for most people...especially DSLR owners. Go on any DSLR message board and the "tack sharp" obsession is alive and well and after a while it almost brain washes you into that mentality...

Yeah, this affected me to the point that I purchased a 24-Elmarit, that’s sharp enough to draw blood. In hindsight, the warmer texture of some other Leica lenses is now more apparent.
Regards,

[andybarton]

So, what are you moving on to now, Daniel?

[elviskennedy]

Daniel:

Your point about the 24 being so sharp and some other Leica glass having different assets is interesting. I usually prefer "sharp" over "warm" but not always. It's easier to correct cool/warm in post than it is to get actually sharpness since software sharpening causes other issues. So I'd stick with the "sharp" lenses like the 24. Respecting others tastes on this matter, of course.

One lens that exhibits both sharpness and the Leica glow and warmth is the 35 'cron. I think it's the most underrated lens for the M8.

[Daniel Ortego]

Originally Posted by andybarton

So, what are you moving on to now, Daniel?

On point; the lens filter makes a huge difference. Sidebar: I stumbled across a match Titanium set of camera & lenses that’s really hard to pass up. Now, I’m not at all sure about my decision, although I don’t think it’s going to happen, given the underwhelming response. Go figure ~
Regards,

[elviskennedy]

Daniel:

What's not going to happen? Your purchase of the titanium set or your satisfaction with the 24/25/50 set?

BTW, I don't think I could pass on the titanium set - coolest Leica I've ever seen.

[andybarton]

Originally Posted by Daniel Ortego

On point; the lens filter makes a huge difference. Sidebar: I stumbled across a match Titanium set of camera & lenses that’s really hard to pass up. Now, I’m not at all sure about my decision, although I don’t think it’s going to happen, given the underwhelming response. Go figure ~
Regards,

I thought that your M8 was up for sale, so I assumed that you were moving away from Leica altogether.

Are you moving into a film M, now, then?

[Daniel Ortego]

Andy,
Oh no, I love the Leica for sure! Anyway, I sent you a PM. ~
Regards,

[Ecaton]

Daniel,

So far, you posted 2,44 comments per day. I would estimate at least about 1,44 per day about you buying/selling/waiting to arrive/regretting, rebuying 28cron, 24elmarit, 50lux, cron 35 or so.
Is this a hate love affair or might the RF system simply not be for you?

[Daniel Ortego]

Originally Posted by Ecaton

Daniel,

So far, you posted 2,44 comments per day. I would estimate at least about 1,44 per day about you buying/selling/waiting to arrive/regretting, rebuying 28cron, 24elmarit, 50lux, cron 35 or so.
Is this a hate love affair or might the RF system simply not be for you?

ROTFLMO Damn that’s funny! I guess I never really looked at my posts' in this way. Yeah, it's been a bit of a square peg into a round hole for sure. Still, the system is truly amazing and I'm not at all crazy to sell anything, but it is listed for now. Who knows, maybe I’ll pull the darn thing off and just move forward. In any event, thanks for the sanity check.
Regards,

[lars_bergquist]

Originally Posted by delander

I agree but photographs where nothing is sharp have to have something, and I often look at such photographs and wish that the photographer had nailed the focus somewhere.

We see sharp, otherwise we wear glasses. With digital, sharpness is becoming all the more important. How many proprietary sharpness routines and stand alone software packages are on sale? Lenses are often rejected for lack of sharpness. Apart from one Zeiss lens (and a Canon soft focus lens) who is trying to sell soft lenses? All the comments about the latest Nikon zoom lenses "focus" on sharpness.

Jeff

'Sharpness' (definition) is of course very desirable in a lens. And the ability to make use of it is very desirable in a photographer. But these are craft aspects of photography, and that is not all there is to photography. We should not make a fetish of it (or of 'correct exposure', whatever that is, or 'correct white balance').

People who make boring pictures (because they do not have the 'eye' or the imagination, or the interest in the subject) can brag about how sharp they are instead. The camera is a tool for capturing the subject. Without an interesting subject, the camera and its lens become uninteresting too. Photographically, of course—M cameras are fascinating objects of tech art, but that is a different matter.

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

[Michael Tyler]

About sharpness: I come from Canon, and I love my Leica lenses. But I look at the images I show clients, the ones on my wall, and 75% of them are from a Canon 50mm at 1.4. In other words, they're soft as hell. You could cut them with a butter knife. But the softness lends to the image.

Better examples of this are from Riccis Valderes' website. He never made any claims that his images are tack sharp, he doesn't care at all about that, and yet look how great his work is.

Leica lenses are sharp. No doubt. But the magic of them for me has nothing to do with the sharpness. It's about character. No way to define that. You know if when you see it. The Noctilux is the best known of all Leica lenses and yet it's one of the softest, by today's standards.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by elviskennedy

Daniel:

Your point about the 24 being so sharp and some other Leica glass having different assets is interesting. I usually prefer "sharp" over "warm" but not always. It's easier to correct cool/warm in post than it is to get actually sharpness since software sharpening causes other issues. So I'd stick with the "sharp" lenses like the 24. Respecting others tastes on this matter, of course.

One lens that exhibits both sharpness and the Leica glow and warmth is the 35 'cron. I think it's the most underrated lens for the M8.

I have a problem with "sharpness"as a quality criterium for lenses. As such, it is no defined characteristic in optical theory. What is meant by the word?
Resolution? No - not really, at moderate printsizes a lens with low resolution may appear "sharp", as well at large sizes with certain subjects.Contrast? Maybe, but older Leica lenses with low contrast can appear razor-sharp.Frequency response - quite possible - that is where modern Leica lenses excel - but it is not the same thing. Added to which, post-processing "sharpening" is nothing but contrast-enhancing. It is time "sharpness" got ditched.

[lars_bergquist]

Sharpness is a subjective experience. It seems to be a composite of edge sharpness (distinctness of contours of large to medium objects) and the ability to render fine detail clearly. A fairly good measure of the first is MTF contrast at line frequencies of 5 and 10 line-pairs/millimeter, while 20 lp/mm is a good indicator of the second; 40 lp/mm adds a certain crispness or 'bite'.

But as image contrast is such a large component, contrasty subjects will of course always look more 'sharp' than low-contrast ones. Even mediocre lenses can look good in front of a high contrast subject. At least until you start looking at the details—but most camera users would not even know what to look for.

And if you took Tri-X and cooked it in Rodinal, even an optically soft image could look sharp because the coarse and crisp grain masked the softness. Up to a certain limot, of course.

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

[elviskennedy]

I suppose that we could try to pin down and succinctly define just what "sharp" means in photography but the discussion will get bogged down in semantics. Perhaps we can just paraphrase the US Supreme Court and state that, "I know sharpness when I see it".