Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Going the R route is a good idea. Practically they are tiny cine lenses in the sense of build quality and focus throw. But in terms of witness marks, they are indeed no cine lenses. The first series is more robust than the second series and doesn't use these retractable plastic focus hoods. They have more character in rendering and flaring other issues than the second series, which is welcome in filmmaking. You should look elsewhere if you are looking for lenses sharp to the edges without vignetting and with dimensionality. But then you are entering the PL-zone, which can be very costly. Filmmaking is mostly about portraiture. These "portraits" vary from classic portraits (close-ups) to environmental shots (medium-close up, medium-long shots). Besides introductory long shots, mostly portraiture lenses from wider to closer are used in filmmaking. In the full-frame format and R lenses nomenclature, that means 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm. For wide long-shots, the 28mm Elmarit is meaningful, of course. However, to build up a set and get you going, I'd start with 35mm and 50mm. The 35mm Elmarit R isn't discovered yet. It's a tiny gem of a lens that vignettes open rose considerably. When shot open, it shows a distinct bent focal plane but changes at f 4 upwards to something more regular. These "issues" are what people call character and make them so favourable. The 50mm SummicronR is a bargain, too, because they've been the standard lens of the system and are not much valued. They are marvellous lenses for close-ups that render pretty flat (a vital part of a vintage cine look) and match the Elmarit well. Both are on the cooler side, which I prefer for skin tones. But I'm looking for a 28mm Elmarit too. In the end, I probably will be going the Japan route. But before the 28mm, I will buy a 90mm Elmarit. Probably, again, the first series. In filmmaking and full-format, f 2.8 is all you need in terms of speed. F2 and below will be the rare exception because chances are too high that the footage will become too soft and unusable. Please note that I argue from a professional point of view on a budget little prime set. These lenses will partly pay my rent (as did PL glass before ditching my Red package and switching to a much less expensive personal hybrid camera). Your mileage may vary, of course.
  2. It's beyond me why someone who buys into the Leica M system (camera only 8k+, and that's only the beginning) doesn't have the pennies or willingness to pay developers for a proper postproduction application.
  3. I use Capture One. But for many C1 is an overkill, so is Lightroom Classic. If you are using Apple Photos as you primary image hub, this app will be sufficient for all those who don't shoot 1k images per shooting day, who don't think in projects, and who don't need the latest shiny healing tools, layers, AI etc.. Other than that, RAW Power is as good as it gets for a plugin, and it's deeper than some would anticipate. Much recommended.
  4. I find that your work shows a consistency that is distinctively frame-it. Interesting blacks with some mushiness I really like, moody colours. You must look twice to grab the intent.
  5. That's a good reason why hot to have a consistent style. On the other hand, what determines the look of a picture? Besides colour rendition, often the contrast in the photograph. Shots at the magic hour, especially in Winter, are way different from shots under an overcast sky. What digital postproduction can do today is equalising such shots to a certain extent, making images artificially pop that aren't noteworthy under normal circumstances because the light is terrible. Such images look always over-sexed, artificial. Another topic is the ability to include the vast full dynamic range in one picture. We see that regularly. More often than not, the results look HDR-like, which I dislike. To avoid all of that and to find some consistency to understand what I'm shooting, I developed a workflow that mimics what film was able to bring to paper, to cine film or video back in the day. In the end, I mainly adjust just WB and Exposure. Very quick and straightforward. If a picture is bad, it remains bad. I leave it alone and don't try to rescue it. But I'm not talking about the so-called film looks here. I'm talking about a contrast curve that the best film stocks show. In the end, the images look somewhat similar to Kodak Portra photography but with Leica colours. Such a workflow makes the results resonate with me because film has been the medium I've worked a decade with. I also look out for texture in images (which film naturally incorporates.) But I don't shoot at ISO 50 and add digital grain to the texture-less pictures, but rather experiment with ISO settings that bring some texture to the images organically. That way, light and exposure in the field remain the defining factors and taking photos is less arbitrarily. I can say that results improved visibly.
  6. Das Leicaversum ist von Sammlern geprägt. Daneben werden R Linsen, besonders Summicrons und Summiluxes von Kameraleuten in der ganzen Welt aufgekauft, weil ihre "Fehler", wie Vignettieren oder softe Ränder bei kleinen Blendenwerten beim typischen S-35mm Kinoformat (ähnlich zu APS-C) kaum ins Gewicht fallen. Viele klassische Hollywood Objektive aus den 70er bis 90er Jahre basieren auf Leitz Canada Gläsern (Panavison Primos), was in dieser Szene den Mythos noch verstärkt. Alte Leica R Linsen zeigen viel Charakter und "Fehler" wie Flares usw., die beim Filmemachen aber gewünscht sind und bilden trotzdem mit angenehmer Schärfe scharf ab. Summiluxe aber auch gewisse Summicrons, wie das 35mmR, sind mittlerweile teurer als die meisten neuen, sehr guten Objektive im Markt. Das erwähnte Summicron 35mmR war vor 3 Jahren für 500 EUR zu haben und geht heute, wenn man evtl. eins findet, für 2k über den Tisch. Sie sind also nicht günstig. Ausnahmen, wie von @thowi erwähnt, gibts einige, die meisten günstigen Leicalinsen sind aber keine echten Leicaobjektive. Wenn man aber Qualität mit den typischen Vorstellungen von Fotografen, wie gute Randschärfe, geringes Vigenttieren sucht, sind viele alte R-Objektive in der Regel Underperformer im Vergleich zu modernen Objektiven (das ändert sich bei einigen mit der letzen Serie). Ich habe z.B. ein 64er 35mm R Elmarit, das bei Offenblende stark vignettiert und an den Rändern ziemlich unscharf ist. Dafür sorgt die gebogene Schärfenebene bei f2.8 für einen interessanten dimensionalen Ausdruck. Trotzdem werden Gesichter im Vordergrund ziemlich flach abgebildet, ähnlich wie das auch das 50mm Summicron R macht (total unterschätze Portraitlinse). Beide Linsen sind deutlich kühler als moderne Leica Objektive, was meiner Meinung nach Hauttönen gut tut. Das Bokeh des Elmarit ist busy und kreiert nicht nur am Rand cat eyes. Aus technischer Sicht ist die Linse also ziemlich schlecht, auch wenn sie im Zentrum gute Schärfe zeigt und mit direkter Sonneneinstrahlung für ein bald 60 Jahre altes Objektiv erstaunlich gut klarkommt. Aber sie macht wundervolle Portraits in Brustgröße, die die Umgebung mit einbeziehen. Kann mir da kaum was schöneres vorstellen. Für den 10-fachen Preis, ist z.B. das 24-90 SL Vario Elmarit bei ähnlicher Blende und Brennweite am Rand Lichtjahre schärfer, das Bokeh ist rund und "richtig". Aber die Gesichter werden für meinen Geschmack zu dimensional und macht sie bei der rel. kurzen Brennweite unattraktiv. Das Elmarit 35mm R ist noch unentdeckt, wie das 50mm Summicron und das 90mm Elmarit der ersten und zweiten Serie. Die ersten beiden bekommt Du in sehr gutem Zustand für unter 400 EUR., das 90er für 100-300 EUR mehr. Alle drei werden nur noch teurer.
  7. Yes and no. As stated above, the noise level is roughly the same with lower and higher resolving sensors when the higher resolving sensor's footage is oversampled to the lower resolving sensor's resolution. But, still, the lower re-saving sensor has an edge in colour, especially in the shadows. One of the significant advantages of film vs digital is that film has its juice in the shadows, whereas digital delivers the most saturation in the mids and highlights. Strong saturated highlights pay into a dreadful video look and make pictures look bad for the human eye, regardless of resolution and other technical features. But fortunately, today's colour science solves that nicely in most cases. But you can't find delicate juice in the shadows if it isn't much available. That's why in cinema land, Arri gets 90% of the jobs and 99% of the Oscars despite their "poorly" 3K/4K resolving cameras.
  8. For me, this resolution race is heading nowhere meaningful. Sure, there are reasons to buy a high-resolving full-frame camera above 8k, such as larger than life prints with a breath-taking resolution when examining the image closely. Or the wish to punch in ludicrously deep for re-framing and still getting an acceptable image (albeit punching in always sacrifices dimensionality and deepens DOF when linking DOF to the field of view). But only a tiny fraction of photo-taking people have these requirements. And if you have, why not swallow the blue pill and switch to larger formats? With the inevitable small pixels that come with high-resolution sensors, you will lose a few things that I consider somewhat critical. First, the dense pixel pitch won't resolve colour in low-light situations as good as a 6K camera, albeit the noise will be similar when oversampled to 6K. Second, the texture is too fine to be taken advantage of. When it becomes visible, it's already ugly noise. And lastly, you get absurd large files. The required storage size and the computational power must be adjusted to such file size. I recently got the new MacBookPro M1 flagship. Finally, the SL2-S DNGs can be handled like JPEGs in Capture One. It's a revelation in performance and snappiness and a huge time saver. Don't want to go back to square one with 10K DNG camera files exceeding 90MB per image. If the chemical film is a measure, 24 MP on full-frame sensors is the sweet spot, at least for me. If you are looking for a new experience and understand digital as a medium in its own rights and not only as a modern version of Kodak Portra, 60 MP and beyond might be interesting. I just don't see the application in my line of work yet.
  9. I’d try to cheat the camera by choosing a 90mm profile in the R lens menu.
  10. @Romius, You can contact me offline at hans at von sonntag.com. I'm German, that will solve some problems You are right, I posted the wrong link. Here you are: https://jubelmeldung.de/nextcloud/index.php/s/SqM975LFKtWYxss With the Sl2-S, the Alexa, and many more cameras you basically film automatically in HDR mode when you use their log profiles. Grüße, Hans
  11. @Romius, here you go: https://jubelmeldung.de/nextcloud/index.php/s/Sp4cMLzB2etzSsr And here you find a Rec2020 to Rec709 LUT which is for most of us the most meaningful LUT. Unfortunately, Leica doesn't provide that to its users (why?): https://jubelmeldung.de/nextcloud/index.php/s/aF9CY4aytmqLJmx ---- The SL2-S LUTs do an okay-ish job with caveats. As you will find out, the SL2-S’ video colour space is Rec2020. That has the significant advantage that the camera’s colour works nicely in Rec2020 with the full glory of its vast dynamic range (DR) (because Rec2020/HDR can retain the camera’s DR), but not so in the regular Rec709 colour space most of us work within. Rec2020/HDR workflow: To get the most out of the camera you have to film in L-log and work colour managed in your preferred NLE. Set the input to Rec2020 and the working space to Colour Managed (Resolve), HDR (FinalCut), or Rec2020/HDR in Premiere Pro. Then, you can use the Rec2020 LUT at the pipeline’s end. It won’t give you the contrast you might expect. However, it’s an accurate foundation for further grading. Or you grade off the flat log, which is working ok when you are used to that. Rec709/SDR workflow: Because Leica’s L-log lives in Rec2020, it will show the wrong colours in Rec709, except when using the two Leica LUTs (Natural and Classic) in their respective Rec709 flavours. Unfortunately, the two Rec709 LUsT aren’t only colour space conversion LUTs but also add some contrast. Whilst the former gives you the right colours, the latter will sacrifice the camera’s mighty dynamic range to Rec709’s limited contacts range. To avoid that, I supply you with the Rec2020 to Rec709 LUT, which only transforms the colour spaces but doesn't add contrast. That way, highlights and shadows are retained. However, the picture's flat log look will remain, albeit with the right colour. --- Perhaps you might find my short review on the SL2-S for useful:
  12. Good choice! I'm interested how you will be experiencing the SL's colours compared to the Z6's colours. The colours were my overriding reason to get the SL2-S. In Terms of colours the SL is as favourable.
  13. Even on the Mac, the 10Bit Mov files can't be viewed with the finder or Quicktime. You need a more versatile application such as VLC Player, or on the Mac IINA. The usual editing programs don't have issues with these files.
  • Create New...