Otus vs Leica?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

I'm currently in the market for a SL and Noctilux..................I'm sure I will get an ear bashing about that, but that's okay "Bring it on"

 

 

Neil

 

Not from me. The SL and Noctilux is a wonderful combination. I much prefer it on the SL than the M.

 

Gordon

[LocalHero1953]

I have always said I don't want a Noctilux: too specialised, too expensive, too heavy, too difficult to use reliably, just too......

Since getting the SL, I have to admit to treacherous thoughts sneaking into my head at unguarded moments. My eyes are on the Summicron 90SL in a year or so's time, but who knows.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[John McMaster]

Whereas I sometimes go out with my f0.95 on the M(240) and the f1.0 on the Monochrom ;-)

 

john

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Whereas I sometimes go out with my f0.95 on the M(240) and the f1.0 on the Monochrom ;-)

 

john

Now your showing off :)

[Jon Warwick]

For me, the way the picture looks is the most important thing, rendering and lens characteristics. This is, however, overridden by necessity. I need resolution because of, often, large output size.

 

My ideal camera does not exist and unless there is some sort of serious shift I'm not going to get what I want.

 

What I see as a working combination for me would be Phase One IQ100, on a Hasselblad H6x or H5x with True Focus, with Leica S lenses and a new 65mm Summilux-S. Unachievable, of corse.

 

80MP or greater S would possibly be the silver bullet for me.

 

Either that or I'm considering, like many I know right now, to return to film and buy a Drum Scanner and truly get the look I'm after, of corse at great expense of resource and time and probably sanity.

 

I also need resolution, given my tendency for large printed output size.  Admittedly, printing large is a very unusual goal.

I've tried a lot of digitals .. Leica S, new X1D, and I've looked at 80-100mp digital MF back raw files.

And yet i keep returning to the same conclusion, i.e., that for my preference, for VERY LARGE prints, it is film images that melt my heart and make my knees go weak.

My gut feel is that 4x5, with a large drum scan (750mb ...and that's on just at 8, not 16, bits.  At native resolution, that scan is producing an image that opens up in photoshop at 60x48" at 300dpi output!) ..... is at least 80-100mp equivalent in terms of resolution for large prints. But i think film has better colour depth, tonality, smoothness and hence a more "natural" look that i personally prefer.

I get prints done to 60-70" on the wide side using 5x4" + best-in-class lens + fine film like Acros 100, and the image entirely "pops out" at me.  It's not sweating.  It looks natural and rich, even though it's a massive print size.

Digital can look mega-sharp when it's not resampled into large prints.  But that feeling of sharpness is arguably more one's confused response to digital's high acuity, rather than perceiving fine-detail resolution.  And, anyway, i can add edge sharpness to film scans too in post.

I'd love it if digital could provide what i seek for HUGE prints, given i like its convenience, workflow etc etc. Film is a hassle. For small prints, I'd choose my M240 the whole time, but for anything big I keep falling back into a preference for film.

 

I'd agree with your inference that the S lenses are best in class.  Their rendering is superb and wonderfully smooth (I prefer their rendering on the 007 rather than 006).  Maybe a higher megapixel S will one day occur .....

[Paul J]

I also need resolution, given my tendency for large printed output size.  Admittedly, printing large is a very unusual goal.

I've tried a lot of digitals .. Leica S, new X1D, and I've looked at 80-100mp digital MF back raw files.

And yet i keep returning to the same conclusion, i.e., that for my preference, for VERY LARGE prints, it is film images that melt my heart and make my knees go weak.

My gut feel is that 4x5, with a large drum scan (750mb ...and that's on just at 8, not 16, bits.  At native resolution, that scan is producing an image that opens up in photoshop at 60x48" at 300dpi output!) ..... is at least 80-100mp equivalent in terms of resolution for large prints. But i think film has better colour depth, tonality, smoothness and hence a more "natural" look that i personally prefer.

I get prints done to 60-70" on the wide side using 5x4" + best-in-class lens + fine film like Acros 100, and the image entirely "pops out" at me.  It's not sweating.  It looks natural and rich, even though it's a massive print size.

Digital can look mega-sharp when it's not resampled into large prints.  But that feeling of sharpness is arguably more one's confused response to digital's high acuity, rather than perceiving fine-detail resolution.  And, anyway, i can add edge sharpness to film scans too in post.

I'd love it if digital could provide what i seek for HUGE prints, given i like its convenience, workflow etc etc. Film is a hassle. For small prints, I'd choose my M240 the whole time, but for anything big I keep falling back into a preference for film.

 

I'd agree with your inference that the S lenses are best in class.  Their rendering is superb and wonderfully smooth (I prefer their rendering on the 007 rather than 006).  Maybe a higher megapixel S will one day occur .....

 

 

In terms of image quality and the look I like, and have been trying to find in digital for decades, everything I like is right there in film. I agree large format is special, but I also find 6x7 something quite incredible, it's a significant leap in an IQ and quality I want compared with medium format digital. 645 and 35mm too, they just have a different appearance but I still favour it over digital for a lot of things. I just find film is just so much more beautiful, organic, with texture you can just about eat. Large prints do look so much better. The way the image tones hold together an and colour melts into itself. the way grain just looks better as you increase print size compared to how digital just quickly falls apart. The colour and the tonality is just something else and not reproducible with digital even with the best techniques.

 

The downside is the days of extra production involved, to do it properly, the crazy costs, of film, development, contacts, prints, prints, drum scans and then the hours of spotting which I'd somehow forgotten about! All that's only going to get worse too.

 

Sharpness is actually not something I look for or particularly seek, well over and above good amount, but we where there long ago. Often my work is blurred too, I quite like a picture to be abstracted from reality in that sense. So I find colour, contrast, tonality, gradation is far more pleasing and expressive and emotive for me and this is what I seek in an increase in digital resolution (as well as print size and post flexibility). Digital has an unnatural look about it and its sharpness. When you spend some time working with film or even just looking at it, digital looks quite jarring and really quite false next to it, they look quite brittle and plastic and is not an image characteristic i like at all, I find it can be quite off putting once you know it's there, you can't unsee it. The lower the digital resolution, I have found the look is exacerbated. I've worked with digital for a long time though and developed some things in my post workflow that bring it very close and within certain parameters work well, but it will just never be the same. It's the intervention in between in post production that makes digital go wrong too. What a computer does when changing things and natural/organic are very different things. There is nothing like shooting film, getting the exposure and development perfect, making a darkroom print and hanging it, or scanning for minimal manipulation and/or it to reproduce it in a magazine or whatever.

 

The heart of Photography, for me, is film. Too bad things have ended up the way they have and, well, to be realistic, digital does have it's place and for certain things I would actually choose it in preference. But I wish it could remain secondary. I just hope the day comes that we can choose either, more easily, where the film workflow technology can increase in a way that makes it less resource and time intensive.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing will replace the look you get from a larger imaging sensor, whether than be one made from film or silicon. If someone were to manage to fabricate a 5x4 sensor then you'd see it but the puny (not quite) 645 sensors are still small in comparison. No amount of resolution and dynamic range imrovements will change that.

 

Processed properly there's no reason a 35mm sensor can't have all the qualities of 35mm film. It's simply that there are no 6x7 or 4x5 sensors out there to be enjoyed.

 

Gordon

[djmay]

Nothing will replace the look you get from a larger imaging sensor, whether than be one made from film or silicon. If someone were to manage to fabricate a 5x4 sensor then you'd see it but the puny (not quite) 645 sensors are still small in comparison. No amount of resolution and dynamic range imrovements will change that.

 

Processed properly there's no reason a 35mm sensor can't have all the qualities of 35mm film. It's simply that there are no 6x7 or 4x5 sensors out there to be enjoyed.

 

Gordon

Until this year 4x5 film was my main medium. Because I live in Europe and my darkroom is in North America, I made an annual trip just for printing (for ten years). Because of that inconvenience I moved to the S.

 

There is something about getting your hands "in the soup" that digital cannot yet match.

 

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

[Vieri]

Not from me. The SL and Noctilux is a wonderful combination. I much prefer it on the SL than the M.

 

Gordon

 

Second that. I was just in Burano (close to Venice) and did a project with the Noctilux f/1 on the Leica SL, using the lens wide-open at f/1 for all the images in the series. I simply couldn't have got the precise framing I was after and the precise focus I needed on any M without lots and lots of trial and error, and even if that could perhaps have been possible on the M 240 using Live View, I simply prefer to look down a viewfinder rather than looking at a screen holding it at arm's length; more, being at f/1 all the time, the smallest arm movement would have thrown my focus off, while holding the SL against my face helped getting precise focus every time. You can see the resulting images here:

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/11/buranoscapes-burano.html

 

of course, others might feel different, but to me the SL is the best platform to use M lenses provided you don't need the larger space offered around your captured area by the rangefinder's window for your work.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[MarkP]

Second that. I was just in Burano (close to Venice) and did a project with the Noctilux f/1 on the Leica SL, using the lens wide-open at f/1 for all the images in the series. I simply couldn't have got the precise framing I was after and the precise focus I needed on any M without lots and lots of trial and error, and even if that could perhaps have been possible on the M 240 using Live View, I simply prefer to look down a viewfinder rather than looking at a screen holding it at arm's length; more, being at f/1 all the time, the smallest arm movement would have thrown my focus off, while holding the SL against my face helped getting precise focus every time. You can see the resulting images here:

 

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/11/buranoscapes-burano.html

 

of course, others might feel different, but to me the SL is the best platform to use M lenses provided you don't need the larger space offered around your captured area by the rangefinder's window for your work.

 

Best,

Vieri

 

 

Beautiful set of photos Vieri.

 

Although I don't expect to produce something as special as that series, you've inspired me to get out this weekend with my 1.0/50 Noctilux (but on my M240 :-)

 

Regards,

Mark

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I just bought a new SL and new Noctilux 0.95..............I should have it next week :) 

 

Neil

[Deliberate1]

Second that. I was just in Burano (close to Venice) and did a project with the Noctilux f/1 on the Leica SL, using the lens wide-open at f/1 for all the images in the series. 

 

Vieri, congratulations on a lovely series which I will spend more time with. I share your passion for the tortured beauty time inflicts (or bestows) on the faces of buildings. Humans should be so lucky as we age, as faults appear and the facade of youth surrenders.

My first Leica was an M9 which I have enjoyed very much as a tool and extraordinary learing experience. The rangefinder with manual lenses is a splendid, if sometimes unforviging, teacher. But I found it maddening to shoot images that require tight and precise framing, especially with no tripod. For the last year my go-to camera is an 006 with the 70, 35 and Contax 120. The OV in that camera is a revelation and so much more accurate to use under the above circumstances than the M9. I describe looking through the OV as looking up at a movie screen. It amazes me every time I lift it to my eye.

Again, congrats on your work. Very well crafted.

David

Edited December 5, 2016 by Deliberate1

[Vieri]

Beautiful set of photos Vieri.

 

Although I don't expect to produce something as special as that series, you've inspired me to get out this weekend with my 1.0/50 Noctilux (but on my M240 :-)

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Thank you Mark for your kind words, I am glad you enjoyed the series! Looking forward to what your weekend with the M240 + Nocti f/1 will inspire you

 

Vieri, congratulations on a lovely series which I will spend more time with. I share your passion for the tortured beauty time inflicts (or bestows) on the faces of buildings. Humans should be so lucky as we age, as faults appear and the facade of youth surrenders.

My first Leica was an M9 which I have enjoyed very much as a tool and extraordinary learing experience. The rangefinder with manual lenses is a splendid, if sometimes unforviging, teacher. But I found it maddening to shoot images that require tight and precise framing, especially with no tripod. For the last year my go-to camera is an 006 with the 70, 35 and Contax 120. The OV in that camera is a revelation and so much more accurate to use under the above circumstances than the M9. I describe looking through the OV as looking up at a movie screen. It amazes me every time I lift it to my eye.

Again, congrats on your work. Very well crafted.

David

 

Thank you very much David, I am happy to see I am not the only decay-lover here Actually, I always felt that Burano's face was a bit "overdone", too picture-perfect to photograph, and this time over I finally saw what I needed to do: photograph the flip side of the coin, so to speak, the one that nobody ever sees...

 

I totally agree with you about the difficulties of precise framing with RF - as much as I love the RF way of framing for street, reportage and all sort of photography where anticipating out-of-frame movement and action is important in your framing, for this kind of work it really isn't the right tool for the job. I use an S 007 together with the SL, and I have to say that the 007 is the most beautiful OVF I ever used, as the SL's EVF is the most beautiful EVF I had the pleasure to see

[Flu]

I have all modern/latest/sharpest, M, S, and SL lenses. From purely a technical point of view, yes, my Otus lenses out resolve most if not all Leica lenses. I believe they are rated up to 100 MP of max resolve and they need only a sensor capable of showing their brilliance. That being said, I find I do not use my Otus set very often at all, they are just sitting atop a shelf collecting dust...

Edited December 5, 2016 by Flu

[Paul J]

Until this year 4x5 film was my main medium. Because I live in Europe and my darkroom is in North America, I made an annual trip just for printing (for ten years). Because of that inconvenience I moved to the S.

 

There is something about getting your hands "in the soup" that digital cannot yet match.

 

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

 

 

I actually have moments of depression about film and in particular large format. That may seem extreme to some but it really pisses me off what we've lost. It is the ultimate in quality and photographic experience but it's just getting beyond crazy to shoot it now. £20 per shot to shoot and develop, £50 for a Drum Scan, then prints on top you are looking at hundreds of pounds per set up. I get so frustrated about where photography went and how more beautiful large format is compared with digital. It's something of beauty that has mostly been taken away from us. I feel robbed

Edited December 5, 2016 by Paul J

[Jon Warwick]

I actually have moments of depression about film and in particular large format. That may seem extreme to some but it really pisses me off what we've lost. It is the ultimate in quality and photographic experience but it's just getting beyond crazy to shoot it now. £20 per shot to shoot and develop, £50 for a Drum Scan, then prints on top you are looking at hundreds of pounds per set up. I get so frustrated about where photography went and how more beautiful large format is compared with digital. It's something of beauty that has mostly been taken away from us. I feel robbed

I hear you! I'm increasingly considering medium format film as an alternative to LF, given LF is now running at that sort of cost you mention. I could get a roll of 120 processed much easier and cheaper per shot (i.e., 120 runs closer to £ 1.50 a click). For 120 film, a 300mb drum scan (for just an 8 bit scan) opens up nicely for a very large print if exposed well and tripod mounted. I'm looking at a whopping 60" wide print off my Mamiya 7 on Provia, and it has colour and tonal depth that makes me want to walk into the image. Not as much or as smooth as LF film, clearly, but still really pleasing.

The one thing I like about LF is movements, especially front rise. If I move exclusively back to MF film, I'm considering something like an Alpa STC, remounted analogue lens, and their Alpa-Linhof 6x9 back. A small LF equivalent but for 120 film instead, and it's modular, so for digital snaps I could also bolt on a lowish-MP digital back when wanted.

[otto.f]

I actually have moments of depression about film and in particular large format. That may seem extreme to some but it really pisses me off what we've lost. It is the ultimate in quality and photographic experience but it's just getting beyond crazy to shoot it now. £20 per shot to shoot and develop, £50 for a Drum Scan, then prints on top you are looking at hundreds of pounds per set up. I get so frustrated about where photography went and how more beautiful large format is compared with digital. It's something of beauty that has mostly been taken away from us. I feel robbed

We can't give 3 Thanks in this forum alas.

 

One tiny nasty question though, what would you like on a DrumScan from your large format negative ? At least in B&W, the wet print is the real icing on the cake. I think that the baryta print is THE most important part of the whole chain, that we more or less lost and we lost especially AgfaGevaert. Those guys who made Record Rapid and Portriga Rapid were real geniuses

[Paul J]

We can't give 3 Thanks in this forum alas.

 

One tiny nasty question though, what would you like on a DrumScan from your large format negative ? At least in B&W, the wet print is the real icing on the cake. I think that the baryta print is THE most important part of the whole chain, that we more or less lost and we lost especially AgfaGevaert. Those guys who made Record Rapid and Portriga Rapid were real geniuses

 

Hi Otto,

 

I am a wet print man through and through. But commercial reproduction, magazines etc. or any sort of manipulation means it needs to be digitised - I do this by scanning prints though, not the negative.

[Paul J]

I hear you! I'm increasingly considering medium format film as an alternative to LF, given LF is now running at that sort of cost you mention. I could get a roll of 120 processed much easier and cheaper per shot (i.e., 120 runs closer to £ 1.50 a click). For 120 film, a 300mb drum scan (for just an 8 bit scan) opens up nicely for a very large print if exposed well and tripod mounted. I'm looking at a whopping 60" wide print off my Mamiya 7 on Provia, and it has colour and tonal depth that makes me want to walk into the image. Not as much or as smooth as LF film, clearly, but still really pleasing.

The one thing I like about LF is movements, especially front rise. If I move exclusively back to MF film, I'm considering something like an Alpa STC, remounted analogue lens, and their Alpa-Linhof 6x9 back. A small LF equivalent but for 120 film instead, and it's modular, so for digital snaps I could also bolt on a lowish-MP digital back when wanted.

 

I have similar thoughts about a Linhof Master Technika. Firstly because it can be an entire system from 645 Digital with live view, multiple format film roll backs and right through to 4x5, continuing to shoot sheets here and there where it's justified. Secondly because the rangerfinder is so useful when shooting film and lastly, just to get use of the Xenotar, one of the best rendering lenses ever.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Photoskeptic]

My opinion. I went out and shot a comparison. Leica S006 100/2 at f2 and D810 Otus 55 at f2. I used an interesting tree with lots of chunky bark. I will not post the results as comparing JPEG's is just a waste of time. I was really splitting hairs at 100% but the Otus was a touch sharper than the Leica. The Leica had more contrast and better color - still very sharp, mind you. I've got good copies of both lenses so I would discount sample variation.

 

After doing these first two tests I was fidgeting around wondering just how good the RM3di with Rodenstock glass is. After festooning myself with all the equipment necessary to shoot the tech cam I went out today at noon and shot the same tree. The Rodenstock is a better combination of the qualities of the above two lenses. Demonstrably better (and it should be).

 

I believe the files from the Leica are better than the Nikon. But the Nikon is no slouch and offers flexibility lacking in the Leica. I no longer own the Leica but I enjoyed it's capabilities. Darn shame the way Leica supported the S, their so-called "professional" camera.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Photoskeptic