Jump to content

Jon Warwick

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Member Title
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, I’d agree, and IMHO his images are all the more unique and beautiful for him mastering that lens over the decades. To my eyes, his work definitely has a de Paola look, and I really like it.
  2. "Best" is subjective, so I can't begin to answer your question, it depends on the rendering and look you want. In my case, my parameters were as much edge-to-edge sharpness and high resolution as possible - with that in mind, I chose a Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar, and thoroughly enjoy both its remarkable image quality and excellent construction (eg, really smooth and well-dampened focus ring). I used to own the M 50mm APO Summicron. For me, one benefit of that Leica lens is it is shorter than my Voigtlander, even with the Leica having a built-in hood. But the Voigtlander remains a small lens IMHO. And given the Voigtlander's slightly longer length I have been wondering to myself if it's more telecentric in design and as a result might work better (due to light rays hitting the sensor more directly) on non-M bodies like the SL? (I don't know the answer yet to that idea). I will also be considering a Voigtlander 35mm APO Lanthar in the future. ReidReviews did an in-depth report comparing it to the Leica M 35mm APO Summicron.
  3. It’s an interesting opinion, and I’m not going to negate what you personally see. My own background is owning an SL2 + SL 50 APO, and selling the Leica for a GFX100S + GF63mm. At 60” wide prints, yes, I’d give the nod to the GFX against the SL2, but I think that’s simply a megapixel deficiency of the 47mp at that massive print size, and if the next iteration of the SL has a similar sensor to the M11, I think the differences between the Leica and GFX100 would be really really tiny. It’s very plausible at a later stage that I might return to Leica SL for “color” cameras. The M10 Monochrom is the most satisfying digital camera I’ve ever owned (I think the lack of color filter array really makes a difference to my eyes in achieving a less “processed” look), but what I’ve learnt about the switch from SL2 —> GFX is the more limited lens flexibility that I can choose in terms of “different renderings”. With the SL2, I can use the perfect edge-to-edge sharp SL primes (no field curvature, great for landscapes, especially with an in-camera multi shot mode), and at the same time could use, as an extreme opposite example, an f1.2 50mm Noctilux to give an utterly different look and rendering. With the GFX, I’m finding the lenses are all very “digitally” sharp in terms of rendering, in my personal opinion … so the output is good to my eyes, but it’s more limiting for me in terms of aesthetic choices compared to what is possible with the SL + multiple M or SL lenses. And that flexibility of choosing different renderings with the SL system is something I’m starting to miss for color images.
  4. Yes, agreed, and I find it a noticeable benefit. I think it’s an amalgamation of that type of “purity” of image capture on a Monochrom sensor (eg, without the additional processing of an RGB checkerboard in a color filter array camera) that I appreciate a lot. I’m not sure everyone sees it the same, but the result to my eyes is that big prints off my M10 Monochrom look the least “digital” of any digital camera I’ve used.
  5. That comment might surprise some people, but I came to a similar conclusion about both fine detail (and, to my eyes, the “look”) of crops from 60” wide prints after I did handheld test shots of the same street scenes, using the M11 against my GFX100S whilst using equivalent focal lengths (ie, a 50mm APO Lanthar and GF 63mm lens, respectively). Keeping the GFX for now for color images simply because I’d owned it for a short period and it seemed a bit quick to switch, I ended up getting an M10 Monochrom, which unhesitatingly has replaced my GFX100S for B&W images to the same 60” wide size.
  6. It’s a very interesting point. I didn’t notice anything physically obvious with my v5 before I sold it (in frustration), but as I already mentioned above, after a decade or so of no probs at all with veiling flare, it bizarrely started to create (very regularly) a milky soft patch bang in the middle of the image, even in really really subdued light. So when people say flare isn’t an issue with the v5, and others say it’s a problem - well, I’ve experience both as the lens aged (no probs at all for a decade, then frequent veiling flare), so your hypothesis of lens haze could well be onto something, at least in my instance!
  7. I got veiling flare with the v5 ….producing a milky and low contrast patch, bang in the middle of the image (including in flat light). I think it got progressively worse over the years, ie, never noticed an issue at all for the first decade from new, then it seemed to be a problem consistently. One observation was the black paint(?) on the rear “inner part” of my lens near the back element had started to deteriorate, such that a wipe with a cloth would cause black flecks to come off. Maybe that didn’t help the veiling flare in my case. I never investigated getting it fixed; sold it instead. The v5 has lovely rendering, mind you, less “digital” to my eyes than the very high contrast and high acuity of more modern lenses IMHO.
  8. This is my experience of M10M files to 60x40” too. I really like how charmingly the M10M can capture so much detail, and just how clear but also “unprocessed” the prints look at 60”. Personally I consistently prefer the rendering off my M10M to my GFX100S files. Your comment about older design lenses is interesting, I’m currently using quite the opposite (Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar and M 75mm Summarit), but ought to try out some older designs too. Even if I don’t go down the route of very old lenses, I can imagine something like the Mandler 50mm Summicron v5 could be a nice blend of resolution and gentleness on the M10M.
  9. Re the Billingham, it might be the “72” model you’re thinking of? I have one, and find it exceptionally well padded and robust. It fits just an M on its side + average sized M lens attached, and not much else. Whilst far from big, the 72 isn’t perhaps as small as I assumed, probably because the padding is so thick (which I appreciate) and so this adds slightly to the bag’s overall bulk. I also have a Leica neoprene case, very light and compact, but I don’t view it as anywhere close in terms of protection to the Billingham 72.
  10. Clearly I think people have different needs, and camera requirements can be remarkably different to achieve an end effect. Cartier-Bresson is often cited, and without taking anything away from his magnificent “eye”, his prints are typically very small and 35mm film is ample for outstanding image quality at that small print size. In comparison, and I bring him up because he was mentioned by tashley, people like Greg Crewdson (I’m a huge fan of his) has used 10x8 and now I believe Phase One because presumably the image quality of his 85”+ prints benefit from that resolving power and is part of the clean and detailed aesthetic he wants to achieve. If you go to a Crewdson exhibition, I see people constantly dart in and out in terms of distance away from his images, because despite being 85”+ a lot of the images’ meaning can be found in the smallest details that I think benefit from being resolved clearly. 35mm film or 24mp isn’t going to provide that as well, IMHO, however wonderful his composition.
  11. As the OP, I will give an update, in the end I got an immaculate secondhand M10M and am delighted with it. It’s my favourite digital camera ever, given (as I’d hoped for) it seems to achieve a less digitally processed rendering in final prints than I perceive from the color filter array cameras I’ve always used (eg, my GFX100S, or the M11 that I tried out).
  12. Anyone know the reason for the 2-by-3 form factor on the S line? I don’t, but rather than aesthetic choice for the image format, is it possibly to help reduce the bulk of the mirror to keep the overall size of the S body fairly reasonable? FWIW, I’d rather see a 44x33 format because it dovetails closer to the way I’ve historically framed with 6x7 and 4x5, but that’s just me. As a GFX100S user, I expect I would be very interested in a mirrorless medium format camera if Leica ever produced one. And if replicated into a bigger format, some of the aspects of the SL2 that I previously owned (SL lens rendering; in-camera integration of high resolution multi-shot mode with a mode that strips out movement “issues”) are things that I preferred in the SL2 over the Fuji.
  13. I’d never try to emulate “film grain” via high ISO “noise”. But the opportunities for adding film-like grain in Photoshop / C1 are extensive and moreover convincing IMHO, which I variedly choose to match across to 35mm / 120 / 4x5 depending on what I want.
  14. I think large scale images have been a critical component for some photographers’ style ….I’m thinking here of Crewdson, Struth or Gursky, for example. Their 80”++ images lend a different feel entirely compared to small prints, and I think the subject matter works for their choice of large scale. In terms of portraits, I tend to favor smaller prints and I enjoyed the need to stand up close to view the smaller picture of Afghan Girl ……but then again, if you’ve ever seen one of the larger (roughly 80” tall) prints from Avedon’s “In the American West”, there is room for large scale portraits too IMHO, that series is utterly epic off his 10x8! As I mentioned already above, and I guess to tie it back into this thread ….one of the things I like about the Monochroms is just how well they resample to very large sizes and still look pleasing (less processed, less digital) when compared to a color filter array camera.
  15. In terms of image quality and mechanical feel - I’m pretty neutral between them. I use an M10 Monochrom and print to 55-60” wide, so I’m pretty demanding on the lenses. But where I do acknowledge a benefit of the M APO is it’s a bit smaller and with the convenience of a built-in hood. Although I do like using the Voigtlander dedicated hood (it reminds me of a more compact version of the one I had years ago that came with my M 50 Summicron v3) my pick would be the M APO due to that built-in lens hood and slightly smaller size, more than much else that I’ve personally noted. For the 35mm APOs from Voigtlander and Leica, those I haven’t tried yet, but so far I have read Reid Reviews’ very detailed study of them.
  • Create New...