Jump to content

DandA

Members
  • Posts

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DandA

  1. Thank you Jason for your reply. I appreciate your diligence and attention to the small details and hope that your endeavors into addressing corroded sensor coverglass is successful and look forward to your future postings as things develop. Dave (D&A)
  2. Jason, welcome and thanks for all your posting and information. You mentioned that Leica got around the underexposure issue by issuing new firmware for those cameras in which they replaced with the latest sensor. If that's the case, if someone wanted you to replace the coverglass in a M9 that has the latest sensor to obtain your replacement BG40, would they then have to find a way to revert to the firmware revision that was just prior to the latest installed by Leica upon replacing the camera with the latest sensor? Dave (D&A)
  3. Can someone clarify something (in simply terms) please. What was the original thickness or the original non coated (corrosion prone) cover glass used in the M9's. 0.8mm? Secondly, once Leica replaced the corroded cover glass on a M9 with a coated no corroding one, what was the thickness of this newly replaced coverglass? I assume it was 0.8mm too, like the original? If so, isn't it possible for these third parties now having the ability to replace M9 cover glass, to spec a 0.8mm one instead of a 0.6mm cover glass, so focus stack remains the same and no refocusing or changes to the focusing of the M9 takes place in any measurable way, even using ultra wide angle lenses? Thanks! Dave (D&A)
  4. Isn't a replacement 0.8mm ICF/coverglass for the M9 available instead of the 0.6mm, so that any concerns of focusing being even slightly "off" with say a 11mm or 15mm M lens (on the M9), is eliminated? Dave (D&A)
  5. I posed this question to Kolari. They mentioned their replacement M9 cover glass reduces the Leica sensor stack by 0.2mm, further improving on it’s excellent corner sharpness. I assume when the sensor stack it changed in thickness, the camera's focusing has to be readjusted? If that's the case and assuming its done, does that in turn mean every M lens one owns also has to be recollimated or adjusted to match the camera's newly adjusted focusing? If that's the case, it would make more sense to simply have the replacement coverglass being the same thickness as the original and avoid needing the both the camera as well as lenses readjusted for focusing. Simply trying to get an understanding of all this. Dave (D&A)
  6. Just a question. Could there have been a possible reason other than a slip-up, mistake or some cost saving reason that Kodak (or the glass manufacturer) decided to use a ICF without vapor deposition metallic coatings? Did it have any optical advantage over those ICF's with vapor deposition metallic coatings (not realizing they might face pitting/oxidation down the road?) There must of been a reason unless someone simply made a terrible mistake. Dave (D&A)
  7. Although both cameras (the M240 and M262) are essentially the same with regards to still images...I have heard from some that supposedly the M262 was tweaked regarding its output. I'm not sure of the validity of this. Dave (D&A)
  8. Strangeboy very well said and a great analogy. The M9 doesn't have the most neutral and accurate color but it's unique signature (like certain film stocks you mentioned) are very attractive to many users and it gives the camera a unique position with regards to output as compared to the plethora of CMOS based cameras. Sure a lot can be done to any digital cameras RAW files but there are limitations and in addition time constraints if working on large numbers of files. Dave (D&A)
  9. Photoshop/Lightroom (same company basically same algorithms) I'd venture to say is one of the most popular photo software for post processing, especially of RAW files. What do you use? Dave (D&A)
  10. I've already discussed this at length with Dave at Leica store Miami (in person) and are familar with the discussions in the link. There's a reason a significant number of individuals who went from a M9 to a M240, went back to a M9. Additionally I've worked with some top notch Photoshop experts and they too agreed that not all M240 files can be manipulated to look exactly like their M9 counterparts. There is also a reason M9's have retained their value, even above many M240 variants. I respect those that have a different opinion there will always those who prefer one of these cameras over the other. Dave (D&A)
  11. I'll just make a personal comments regarding matching M262 colors to M9. I don't claim to be a Photoshop guru but have been working with Photoshop since Ver. 1 many years ago and working with RAW files in general for more than 20 years. Depending on the kind of light as well as lighting conditions for subjects, sometimes you can match colors of the two camera but there are times you can't. It depends..and sometimes you can get close but a difference is readily noticeable. I've used both camera but for image output alone, I much prefer the M9. Functionally of course the advantages of the M262 are well known. All things considered its a personal decision and taking a few shots with each camera is not enough to get a feel of which image output you prefer but taking a wide variety of different kind of subjects in all sorts of lighting situations, would be most helpful. Dave (D&A)
  12. I will look forward to your thoughts after testing out your newly acquired Zeiss Zm 21mm f2.8 lens. I shot with one quite some time ago and was thoroughly impressed by it when tested along side some of the other 21's mentioned in this thread. Which M camera will you be testing it out on? Dave (D&A)
  13. Ko.Fe., In the article (at the very end(, he explained why the film scans look subpar. He added this postscript.... "I finally have an explanation regarding the poor results from my film scan. The film I used on this blog post was damaged by X-Ray. I had forgotten about them, and have been traveling with them unprotected. This was never a problem when I used to shoot film, back in the day, since I never shot pass ISO 200" Dave (D&A)
  14. The acuity of the images from the M8 are indeed sharper straight out of the camera compared to the M9 due to the thinner sensor cover glass that the M8 uses. IN addition as you stated, the M9 images out of the camera are indeed sharper than the M240, which is due to the differences of the CCD vs. CMOS. Dave (D&A)
  15. I would most definitely try Leica lens code 11364 (as suggested) as that in my experience eliminated residual issues as you described. As for the suggestion of using the Leica 18mm vs. the Zeiss 18mm, I extensively tested both side by side and for myself, the clear superior lens was the Zeiss primarily that the Leica suffered from complex type distortion such as mustache type wavy distortion, which is hard to correct in post processing. Again the Leica 18mm is a fine lens but when at the time a choice had to be made, it was a clear decision for me. All the above testing and observations were made on a Leica M9 camera. Dave (D&A)
  16. To provide an example to my explanation above....on average temperature days, I'd go out with one of my M9's and one of its batteries, camera would show it was nearly full and I could go on shooting many frames that day and still have camera show decent battery life left. Alternatively when out in quite cold conditions for a time, even if camera is by my side (or in a bag) and I first check battery capacity, camera might show battery nearly full. Then when I fire off a few frames in this cold weather, camera quickly shuts down indicating with the message, "battery low". Doesn't matter which M9 battery I use nor which M9 I use. Battery though in both examples provided may have last been charged a week or so earlier. I suppose if I went out in the cold with a battery that was fully charged a couple hours earlier, maybe camera would have allowed some additional shots before shutting down? Conversely, I don't know what would have happened if I took that same battery that camera showed exhausted while out in the cold, and let it warm up to room temp, whether it would have recovered sufficient charge to go on shooting indoors for a time. My suspicion from general recall is "it would not", and would still require a sufficient charge before next use. As a final example, if one shoots in normal temps and starts out with a battery say half full, the camera at some point would shut down much faster with the firmware that now shuts down camera faster with a low battery, then with previous firmware that would let one keep on shooting till battery was actually exhausted (but with risk to getting black frames). It appears to me, Leica was so conservative, it set the shut down point of low battery, too quickly when in many cases, battery (at least according the camera), was actually showing something close to 50% capacity. Maybe it was measuring actual current output and battery indicator on camera was just a approximation of actual output from battery. Hard to actually know without adequate testing of actually battery at various stages of use. Dave (D&A)
  17. others can chime in with more info, but from what I recall, there was a firmware update (one of the last ones Leica applied to the M9) that monitored battery capacity in a very conservative way in shutting down the camera when the battery fell below a certain level. This was done because previous to this firmware update, the battery would run down to near low exhaustive levels, causing black frames and/or taken images not to be recorded or lost (or something similar to that). Unfortunately, the now conservative cutoff often shuts down the camera while the M9 info just a few shots earlier showed approx. 50% battery life left. It doesn't appear to always cut off the camera this fast and in my experience seems to happen more often in col(er) weather where although the camera's info shows approx. 50% battery life, I suspect the battery's current flow is reduced to the levels that would cause black frames. Dave (D&A)
  18. Jim have you tried the 21mm (pre asph) lens detection setting of 11134 yet? Hopefully this will help. Dave (D&A)
  19. Adan, from what I recall, the optical formula was tweaked in all three lenses when the new hoods were designed and it was primarily for improved corner performance, especially on some Leica non M bodies such as the original SL. I think it also may have improved corner performance on M bodies too. Dave (D&A)
  20. The code to try is the Leica 21mm f2.8 (pre asph). It is 11134. Its been quite effective with a fairly large array of wide angle lenses that exhibits color casts such as the Italian flag color cast. See what it does and how effective it is in your case. Again it's the pre asph 21mm f2.8, not the asph version which has a different Dave (D&A)
  21. OK, I just opened both some MM1 monochrome images in ACR. On the bottom of the ACR window, the image opened as Gray GAmma 2.2 8 bit. I changed it to RGB 16 Bit and then opened the (these) MM1 ACR images in photoshop. Voila! Nik filters were available. I then immediately opened some color images from other cameras in ACR and they too now opened in RGB 16 Bit. My guess is a long time ago when I opened MM1 images in ACR the Nik filters were immediately available without doing anything, my ACR was set to RGB. Along the way I recall I did a fresh re-install of ACR/photoshop and it must have set ACR to Grey Gamma 2.2/8bit. Not realizing this when I recently opened MM1 files was the issue. All very informative and I learned something valuable. Guess old(er) dogs can learn new tricks. :). Thanks! Dave
  22. Very informative! Either late tonight or tomorrow when I can get back to my desktop, I will examine the points you made with regards to my MM1 files and other color files from different cameras...all in ACR and see if I observe what you just wrote. My photoshop and ACR is the very last non subscription version which I purchased, which was released just prior to when they started subscription service, if that might make any difference to current subscription version. Just a thought. Dave
  23. If I had done that, then wouldn't that have been a global command (choice) and that any file from any camera opened in ACR, would open in Gray Gamma 2.2? Unless it only applies to a specific camera or possibly only to a monochrom camera? Dave
  24. Hi All, I just opened a MM1 file and converted it from Grayscale to RGB. That did the trick and it can now be used in all Nik filters. Funny I don't recall needing to do this a long time ago but maybe I had forgotten that I did convert to RGB before use with the Nik filters. In any case I'd like to thank each and everyone here who took the time to post and contribute their imput to the solution. It's greatly appreciated!! Dave
  25. SrMi, I import all Raw files into ACR, so your explanation is apparently the reason Nik filters aren't available to my MM1 Tiff or jpeg files. I was certain a few years ago while using ACR, that my MM1 Tiffs/jpegs did work with my Nik filters without converting to RGB, but maybe I am mistaken. As I mentioned in previous post, I will try this out with MM1 files this evening. Thanks ever so much! Dave
×
×
  • Create New...