Jump to content

PCPix

Members
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Country
    United Kingdom

Converted

  • Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte
    M10, M262, SL2, Summilux ASPH FLE 35mm, Summicron 50mm v.3, Summicron 75mm APO, Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III, Trinovids
  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

244 profile views
  1. I’m often surprised that the image on my computer big screen is far better than the preview had suggested... especially when judging critical sharpness. As mentioned by Stevejack (above) - it’s the same with many others!
  2. Certainly it’s enough! I just traded my M10 for an M10R - only for the better highlight handling - not the extra resolution. All that does is slow down my computer and fill up the hard dives faster 😉
  3. It would be good if they can make the manual lens coding list editable (as per SL2) so you can shorten the extensive list down to ‘only’ your lenses... anybody listening in Wetzlar?
  4. Thank you all for your valuable input. Some good reading - especially the Tim Ashley piece here: https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/leica-m-240-with-35mm-f1-4-fle---some-observations I have come to realise that this lens does in fact have focus shift - and I think my copy is also needing some adjustment. I think if the close-in focus is able to be brought a fraction forward (presumably by adjusting the FLE group slightly) to bring focus at f/1.4 to sit midway through the DoF, then when the focus shifts in the f/2.8 - 4, the target would sit towards the front of the DoF and still be acceptable... As a matter of interest, I tried a friend’s brand-new Zeiss 35/1.4 and just doing a quick and dirty handheld test in his kitchen, I could not get any focus shift to show at all… Problem is it’s a bit of a chunky lens compared to the Summilux. I shall engage with Mayfair/Wetzlar and report back here if the lens can be coaxed into providing a better result. This seems to sum it up lct - thanks. As the new body seems to agree perfectly with the nearly new 75, I’m thinking the body and 75 are going to be at or very close to ‘standard’ and the 35 needs tweaking.
  5. Recently got a new M10R and have been looking carefully to check all my lenses are happy/accurate on the new body. I have a relatively new apo Summicron 75mm and this lens performs exactly as I would expect with rangefinder, live view and actual images all agreeing with each other. Infinity hard stop on the lens shows perfect rangefinder alignment and sharp images at f/2, 2.8, 4, 5.6. At about 1 metre again, everything is spot on - in fact I‘d dare say ‘perfect’. Now the 35mm Summilux FLE... the infinity hard stop on the lens shows perfect rangefinder alignment, live view and sharp images at infinity - no problems. However at about 1m (using the rangefinder) and f/1.4, the target sits right at the very front of the DoF with all of the sharp area sitting behind (so the target is actually not quite as sharp as it could be). At f/2 there is little difference. But then between f/2.8 - 4 the DoF falls noticeably behind the target and the target is not sharp - classic focus shift. At f/5.6 the DoF catches up and images are usable. My questions are: Isn’t the FLE supposed to be well behaved with regards focus shift and general close-up accuracy/performance - and have other FLE owners found similar results? I do have other lenses with focus shift and know how to compensate, but should that really be necessary on the 35 FLE? It seems to me that the rear floating group may be misaligned/out of adjustment on this lens? All comments welcome... (* all tests done on tripod, no focus change between shots, lens always rotated from infinity, multiple retakes, all showing the same results)
  6. Not even Agfa Mike? Came from the same country of origin as the cameras I believe? 😉
  7. By the time they let us go out again, Leica will have a 300/2.8 a 400/2.8 and a 600/4 in the SL line-up! I used to live in Zambia and SA and went to the bush at least three times a year. My preferred setup was a 70-200/2.8 on one body and a 400/2.8 on another body. Also a 1.4x to use on the 400 if needed (almost no loss of quality, the 2x was soft). All of this kit was EOS - and I was in my own vehicle with the kit on the passenger seat... For Kruger, with the SL2 - I would go for the 90-280 as you will be closer to the animals (as others have pointed out in this thread) and 400+ lenses just get ‘too much’. I’d also make an estimated guess that the 90-280 will be sharper than a 70-200 with a 2x.... and with the big files you can crop a little if necessary. There is also the simplicity of just one camera/lens in hand - which on a LandRover is a real bonus - you don’t want to be the bloke with a suitcase of gear taking up the whole bench... and missing the shots doing lens changes!
  8. Couldn’t agree more - however the clipping value is a precise number and you would need to set it to something (assuming you would like to change it). What that number is is totally irrelevant and once set to your preference would probably never be looked again (a bit like the treble and bass settings on your car hi-fi 😉 I wanted a little more headroom so dropped the clipping value slightly - the actual value isn’t important, but the way the camera shows me over exposure certainly is.
  9. Another thing to consider would be to set your clipping value lower. I think it’s set at 253 by default, I set mine at 250, however there is nothing to stop you going down to 240 (for example). I appreciate this is applicable only to the jpeg and makes no difference to the actual image, but it will allow you more breathing space by revealing the over exposure a little earlier, hopefully before the DNG file reaches a true 255.
  10. The protection factor is valid - but not only for drops or violent damage. I have no issues with cleaning the front of a dusty lens with a huff of breath and a wipe with my T-shirt with a filter fitted - but would never dream of doing this to the actual front element! Filter of choice: B+W 007 clear MRC nano coated
  11. You have made a choice from the heart... accolades! I am definitely an M user (since about 1983), and recently traded all my parallel SLR Canon EOS gear to buy an SL2 and some lenses. I’m not really quite sure how to phrase this politely, but looking at a TV screen is not my idea of photography… The view through either a rangefinder or an SLR is looking at ‘real light’... And that is a criticism of all mirrorless (not just the SL’s) I’m trying really hard to move out of the Jurassic period, but it is difficult emotionally.... I chose the SL2 as my first mirrorless, primarily for its lack of buttons and 85 page menus, but I’m still not really bonding with it... (Thank you for this therapy session, I feel much better now 😉
  12. Have always thought standard to short tele were the go-to lenses for food - the wide angle wide aperture option sounds intriguing - do you have any sample images (even from the ...ahem... Fuji? 😉
  13. I'm still on CS6/Mac - so generated the data in camera, simply to be stitched in PS. No problems with processing (about 3 minutes for the stitch with 16-bit files)
  14. This is a great question - at first glimpse it would seem straightforward and easier to shoot the 4x multi-shot. My lens choice was: 75mm APO Summicron-M, 50mm Summicron-M (v.3) or the Panasonic 24-105. 50 was perfect for the landscape 4-shot, 75 for the portrait 12-shot and the 24-105 could be zoomed to do either. All would be shot at f/11 to try for the best resolution and depth of field compromise - corners of all (especially the 24-105) can be ignored as the overlap for stitching effectively excludes any deficiencies. Knowing the final use, I did favour using one of the M-lens options. I think the easiest way to explain it is that the 4x multi-shot file is made up from four image circles and the 12x regular is made up from twelve image circles. Each landscape original is roughly equivalent to 3x portrait originals. Each multi-shot generates more digital information, but the 3x portraits generate more optical resolution. I did a test of both options in the field and the portrait orientated images looked better on the camera back - so the decision was made on the spot to do it that way. Bearing in mind this was being shot to a specific brief and to a short deadline, my choices were based on ensuring the best result to fit the client's brief and usage. The ulltimate would have been to do 12x portrait multi-shots, however this may be a project for another day 😉
×
×
  • Create New...