New Sean Reid Article

[KJB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean wonderfully thorough review. But may I add that comparison of 100% crops of the train car scene while very informative seem a bit incomplete without including the full image. The full images of the church scene really showed the character of the individual lenses in my opinion. The less microcontrast and greater macrocontrast combo of the leica lenses certainly gives a "punchy" look when viewing the entire image.

 

It would be intersting to see if the VC images can be postprocessed into a Leica like image. I'd venture to guess the it'd take a bit of work to get from the VC lenses what can be had from the Leica straight out of camera though this may seem a bit restrictive. Call me lazy but I value not having to do a lot of postprocessing to get the look that I want. This coming from someone who owns zero Leica lenses (though I do have my eyes set on the Noctilux)

[carstenw]

Sean, how about adding a link to the page in my sig to your review? There you will find all the currently known codes, as well as information and a template donated by Bob Blakley to help people code their own lenses.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'll have a new table of cyan drift up tonight that is better and should make it easier for us to judge these relationships. You know that you and I are already thinking along similar lines with respect to this topic.

 

Sean left some new vignetting studies on his site in the 28mm comparison article last night, so I chewed on them for breakfast this morning. This time the white wall is featureless, and very evenly illuminated. The files were all developed and white balanced so that the centers are 200,200,200. Values at the corners on the left and right are very close, but I don't know what contrast he selected in developing them, so the RGB values are just numbers, not stops or any absolute measure of light intensity. However, some interesting trends come out. In the plots below I try to separate the overall vignetting from the color shifts by looking first at the average of the G and B values at the edges for each lens and each aperture. Then I show the relative importance of the color shift by plotting the ratio of the R values at the edges to the average of the G and B values.

 

Finally, I would like to see what the influence of the exit pupil (as opposed to the focal length) is in accounting for the differences between these lenses' behaviors. But I don't have that information. However, the article gives the measured length of each lens from the front of the camera (the concern is primarily with how much the view is blocked). It is not likely that a CV28/1.7 Ultron can stick out 1.88" from the front of the camera (about 4.5 cm) and not have an exit pupil significantly greater than 28 mm from the image plane. So I plot the results against the external length of each lens, in increasing order. The data are in the following order: Canon 28/2.8, CV28/3.5, Leica Elmarit ASPH 28/2.8, Zeiss 28/2.8, Leica Summicron 28/2.0, Konica-Hexanon 28/2.8, and CV28/1.7 from left to right.

 

First the overall vignetting:

showing that the vignetting becomes less severe as the aperture gets smaller. Also the trend correlates with lens length, our stand-in for telecentricity.

 

Next the red vignetting by itself

Here the results do not depend much on aperture, but there are differences between the lenses, still correlating with telecentricity, which is important for the angles the light makes at the back of the lens, the other end from the IR filter. I may not have completely separated the two effects here.

 

Lens #2 and Lens #7 are the Cosina Voigtlaenders, and they seem to define the range of variation between lenses. Lens #3 (Elmarit) and Lens #5 (Summicron) are more in the middle. Applying the corrections that M8 firmware provides for them to the more symmetric lenses and the more telecentric lenses, respectively will capture most of the vignetting observed in these tests.

 

scott

[FastFashnReloaded]

All of these tests and such are SUCH fun, but a test of a white wall (etc) isn't a real world image. Look, your mom, your grandma, your agent at the gallery, aren't going to give a ____ if there is a 5% falloff of light in the corners of your picture. Does the image sell? Does it make Grandpa Joe look good? Will Vogue use the shot on the cover, or will National Geographic buy it?

 

These conversations remind me of why I left the Porsche Club. There were people who were only interested in driving their cars to dinners, and there were people who were only interested in racing. Both camps were PITAs.

 

Look, despite some "cyan fringing", or "over senstivity to IR", or whatever you want to call it this week, it looks to me like the cameras will take great pix. Stop overthinking the problems, take pictures, and for Pete's sake, stop whining.

 

You people sound like Trekkies wondering why sometimes the phasers come out of the connecting dorsal and sometimes the lower sensor array.

 

It has really, really, gone to far.

 

If the camera can't take great pix then please, go buy one of those overly loud and plasticy Sony Alphas or some Canon. Go buy a Hassy, at least I'll respect you. If it will take good pix, then be quiet, please? You are all so worried about the tech geekness of your computer with a lens that you can't see past the gee-whiz and your wouldn't it be nice if...

 

Reviews are nice, but just because you buy a 16 pound road bike doesn't mean that your extra sixty pounds of flab are magically going to vanish overnight, and whether you buy a Leica or a point and shoot, if you aren't any good, all the good reviews won't make a difference.

[marknorton]

It has really, really, gone to far.

 

Yes, Dad.

[sean_reid]

There is nothing wrong with trying to capture it in a file without going through tricks. (That's why I have so much lighting gear.) But I think you and most others may be working with one hand tied behind your back if you can't get your shadow detail looking the way you want it.

[/url]

 

I can't speak for others but I've said nothing at all about not being able to get shadow detail where I wanted it. I'm going to guess that you haven't read the article and perhaps have misunderstood what we're discussing here.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1) Sean wonderfully thorough review.

 

2) But may I add that comparison of 100% crops of the train car scene while very informative seem a bit incomplete without including the full image.

 

3) The full images of the church scene really showed the character of the individual lenses in my opinion.

 

4) The less microcontrast and greater macrocontrast combo of the leica lenses certainly gives a "punchy" look when viewing the entire image.

 

5) It would be intersting to see if the VC images can be postprocessed into a Leica like image. I'd venture to guess the it'd take a bit of work to get from the VC lenses what can be had from the Leica straight out of camera though this may seem a bit restrictive.

 

Call me lazy but I value not having to do a lot of postprocessing to get the look that I want. This coming from someone who owns zero Leica lenses (though I do have my eyes set on the Noctilux)

 

1) Thanks very much. It will be more thorough when it's done. This is just a working draft that I've made live because the information is very relevant for some photographers right now. But it definitely is a draft.

 

2) I think you may have missed that picture. The FF version is just above the F/2 crop section.

 

3) Yes, with the caveat that those examples are intentionally very flat in order to show effective DR. They're HDR workprints and so look different for that reason. They don't represent what a straight default conversion looks like.

 

4) The Leicas have fairly strong micro-contrast as well but the FF picture you're talking about (church and houses) was made by the little CV. Interesting that you thought it was made with a Leica lens.

 

5) Take a look at the article again and reread the discussion. I think that you may have misunderstood what you were seeing. Any of the lenses in that test could yield a file that required more or less post-processing depending on the subject, the lighting and the intentions of the photographer. A lens that has too much contrast can require as much, or more, post work than one that has the right amount (for a given photographer's intentions). The old myths about this will die hard but I hope to keep illustrating what's really going on in these lens tests.

 

In the short, a lens like the 28 Ultron will sometimes create a file that requires *less* post-processing work than the Summicron, not more. It would depend on several factors.

 

Speaking generally now:

 

Lastly, I often read the phrase "Leica look". I would argue that there is no one "Leica look". If one looks closely at the pictures made with these lenses, he or she can see that different Leica lenses (across time, focal length, type, etc.) have each their own looks. The same is true for CV lenses and, to a lesser extent, the new Zeiss lenses. Over the past few years, I've spent a lot of time looking closely at files made with all kinds of RF lenses and one thing that has struck me again and again is that many of the truisms and generalizations about various lenses often miss their marks. Very often, generalizations and pre-conceived notions are taking the place of close observation.

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean, how about adding a link to the page in my sig to your review? There you will find all the currently known codes, as well as information and a template donated by Bob Blakley to help people code their own lenses.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

Thanks. I'm thinking about how I want to add that self-coding info. into the article. Obviously, it's directly connected to this other work.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

All of these tests and such are SUCH fun, but a test of a white wall (etc) isn't a real world image. Look, your mom, your grandma, your agent at the gallery, aren't going to give a ____ if there is a 5% falloff of light in the corners of your picture. Does the image sell? Does it make Grandpa Joe look good? Will Vogue use the shot on the cover, or will National Geographic buy it?

 

These conversations remind me of why I left the Porsche Club. There were people who were only interested in driving their cars to dinners, and there were people who were only interested in racing. Both camps were PITAs.

 

Look, despite some "cyan fringing", or "over senstivity to IR", or whatever you want to call it this week, it looks to me like the cameras will take great pix. Stop overthinking the problems, take pictures, and for Pete's sake, stop whining.

 

You people sound like Trekkies wondering why sometimes the phasers come out of the connecting dorsal and sometimes the lower sensor array.

 

It has really, really, gone to far.

 

If the camera can't take great pix then please, go buy one of those overly loud and plasticy Sony Alphas or some Canon. Go buy a Hassy, at least I'll respect you. If it will take good pix, then be quiet, please? You are all so worried about the tech geekness of your computer with a lens that you can't see past the gee-whiz and your wouldn't it be nice if...

 

Reviews are nice, but just because you buy a 16 pound road bike doesn't mean that your extra sixty pounds of flab are magically going to vanish overnight, and whether you buy a Leica or a point and shoot, if you aren't any good, all the good reviews won't make a difference.

 

Dana,

 

I'm going to guess that you haven't read the review and don't understand why this information is important right now as we figure how various lenses, filters, coding, etc. are going work on the M8. There are important practical implications that come from figuring these things out. Since you don't understand that, please let those who do understand why this information is very relevant for working photographers discuss it. Right now, you're generalizing while apparently having no clue as to why this information is so significant. I say that it is important having been a working photographer for over twenty years and very well understanding the needs of clients, etc. including magazines, private clients, galleries, etc. You just don't get the connection yet, which is fine, but it would be better to acknowledge that and cut the editorials.

 

If you want to understand the connections, read the article. If you prefer not to because you don't subscribe and don't want to, that's cool too but then leave us be so that we can work this out. This stuff is very relevant for anyone who wants to use anything other than a coded Leica lens on his or her M8. Scott is using my work to try to isolate something that will have important implications for using non-coded lenses on this camera, including self-coding.

 

Scott, I need to work on getting a wedding out to a client but if you have time, perhaps you or someone else here can help Dana to understand why this information is very relevant for M8 photographers, especially right now as we're looking at self-coded lenses.

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean left some new vignetting studies on his site in the 28mm comparison article last night, so I chewed on them for breakfast this morning. This time the white wall is featureless, and very evenly illuminated. The files were all developed and white balanced so that the centers are 200,200,200. Values at the corners on the left and right are very close, but I don't know what contrast he selected in developing them, so the RGB values are just numbers, not stops or any absolute measure of light intensity.

 

The other wall was evenly illuminated as well but it turned out to have had a stronger bluish cast in the lower left corner (reflected light from a white van I think). The coded/uncoded table will be replaced as well. That's all related to this being a draft. The contrast was the default level set by C1, no changes. That does allow us to see relative differences among the lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[FastFashnReloaded]

help Dana to understand why this information is very relevant for M8 photographers, especially right now as we're looking at self-coded lenses.

 

Sean

 

Sean, I think your reviews and comments are great, as is Erwin's. I just don't think photography should be this "difficult". I understand the camera has some issues, but I've seen great M8 photos without all the worrying about filters, profiles, lens codings.

 

If it is truly, truly this difficult to get a properly exposed, color balanced image out of this camera then wait for Leica to fix it, or use the M7, M6 or MP (or use a DMC-L1).

 

Look... We all (non-Cannonites) want the camera to succeed, but if the current M-Mount digital RF with this level of current technology cannot turn out consistent images without a photographer getting a doctorate in Photoshop then maybe it's time to put it to bed. I don't think we are at that place, but some of these threads make it look that way.

 

Do you remember the old 'Trek episode, "The Ultimate Computer"? Dr. Richard Daystrom had built a computer, the M5. M1 thru M4 were not "entirely" successful, but the M5 works! Well... It didn't. It didn't act in a logically repeatable manner because it had design issues. The M8 doesn't exactly seem to work logically either.

 

For years I've listened to people on here and Contax boards say they would never use a filter, but here it looks like we'll have to. People wouldn't buy the Contax G2 because it wasn't a "real" RF and who needs shutter speeds over 1k anyway? People were saying they would never switch from film. They have jumped on this new approach from Leica, like forsaking your wife of twenty years for a blonde in a Ferrari, and now you have filters and curves and lens codings and battery packs and multiplication factors.

 

I think it's sad. Sad that Leica was forced into making the M8 before the tech was perhaps really ready, sad that people have just jumped the shark after years of saying they never would.

 

Instead of simplicity you've gotten what looks like a good dose of technology backed anarchy. What's the point of photography, or any technology developed to enhance memory, like cameras, video cameras, paintings or even computers? The point is first of all to record something for posterity, and secondly to make it pretty and appealing, and third (or pehaps first) to make it (the external memory) easily accessible. The M8 can do the first, second and third, just not necessarily accurately or without work, and all that work is why I switched from scanning film to a digital SLR. If you have to know how to adjust several carbs to make the 440 "wedge" run well, how many people will buy that setup when one 4bbl Holley will do almost as well?

 

Is the M type and lensed RF really, REALLY a good fit for digital imaging? That's the real question.

[sean_reid]

Sean, I think your reviews and comments are great, as is Erwin's. I just don't think photography should be this "difficult". I understand the camera has some issues, but I've seen great M8 photos without all the worrying about filters, profiles, lens codings.

 

If it is truly, truly this difficult to get a properly exposed, color balanced image out of this camera then wait for Leica to fix it, or use the M7, M6 or MP (or use a DMC-L1).

 

Look... We all (non-Cannonites) want the camera to succeed, but if the current M-Mount digital RF with this level of current technology cannot turn out consistent images without a photographer getting a doctorate in Photoshop then maybe it's time to put it to bed. I don't think we are at that place, but some of these threads make it look that way.

 

Do you remember the old 'Trek episode, "The Ultimate Computer"? Dr. Richard Daystrom had built a computer, the M5. M1 thru M4 were not "entirely" successful, but the M5 works! Well... It didn't. It didn't act in a logically repeatable manner because it had design issues. The M8 doesn't exactly seem to work logically either.

 

For years I've listened to people on here and Contax boards say they would never use a filter, but here it looks like we'll have to. People wouldn't buy the Contax G2 because it wasn't a "real" RF and who needs shutter speeds over 1k anyway? People were saying they would never switch from film. They have jumped on this new approach from Leica, like forsaking your wife of twenty years for a blonde in a Ferrari, and now you have filters and curves and lens codings and battery packs and multiplication factors.

 

I think it's sad. Sad that Leica was forced into making the M8 before the tech was perhaps really ready, sad that people have just jumped the shark after years of saying they never would.

 

Instead of simplicity you've gotten what looks like a good dose of technology backed anarchy. What's the point of photography, or any technology developed to enhance memory, like cameras, video cameras, paintings or even computers? The point is first of all to record something for posterity, and secondly to make it pretty and appealing, and third (or pehaps first) to make it (the external memory) easily accessible. The M8 can do the first, second and third, just not necessarily accurately or without work, and all that work is why I switched from scanning film to a digital SLR. If you have to know how to adjust several carbs to make the 440 "wedge" run well, how many people will buy that setup when one 4bbl Holley will do almost as well?

 

Is the M type and lensed RF really, REALLY a good fit for digital imaging? That's the real question.

 

Hi Dana,

 

RF lenses and sensors are a tricky match, you're right, but the results can be breathtaking. People who wish the simplest path possible to excellent color performance from the M8 should use the filters and Leica coded lenses. Enable the lens detection, screw on the filter and get to work - fairly simple. At least, that's what I hope will be the case.

 

Anyone who wants to successfully use a non-coded Leica lens for color work with 35 mm and wider lenses is going to need to do a bit of homework to make things work. That said, a little homework should pay off well. If the lens is made by Leica, self-coding should be fairly simple. If it is a non-Leica lens, collective knowledge will be very useful. What we need to figure out, systematically, is which Leica codes will work best for which non-Leica lenses. The work that I've done (that Scot is now playing with) should help us to do that. That's the point of all this white wall stuff.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[FastFashnReloaded]

Thanks for the info and work... It's hard to keep track of all the he said, she said, they said (there is a lot of extraneous noise in the system right now) and all the potential and imagined issues.

 

I've tried to stay away from the forums because it's all... Depressing or frustrating. I'm not rich enough to go door to door over the entire world and, looking up all the trolls, ask if they posted thus and such and then beat them up with a bat, so...

 

I'm hoping that this will all be worked out soonest. It would be nice to have a code for a Zeiss or Cosina lens, of course. If you can actually do that, more power to you.

[rvaubel]

Thanks for the info and work... It's hard to keep track of all the he said, she said, they said (there is a lot of extraneous noise in the system right now) and all the potential and imagined issues.

 

I've tried to stay away from the forums because it's all... Depressing or frustrating. I'm not rich enough to go door to door over the entire world and, looking up all the trolls, ask if they posted thus and such and then beat them up with a bat, so...

 

I'm hoping that this will all be worked out soonest. It would be nice to have a code for a Zeiss or Cosina lens, of course. If you can actually do that, more power to you.

 

You have to realize that the motivation for all this techhead stuff is to get the Leica to perform up to it's expectations. Although the results are just beginning, its pretty clear that ultimately everything will come together. The fact that success is likely just motivates the tinkerer in all of us even more. It's beginning to look like all the various workarounds will work for the people that want to us them, and the simple filter solution and Leica coded lenses for those who don't.

 

Maybe an M9 will take care of some of these issues but meanwhile, if you want a digital Leica now many of us feel the extra work is worth it. And, once it is figured out, it will probably not be such a big deal to implement.

 

Rex

[sean_reid]

Hi Rex,

 

I think Leica will sort out their own coded lenses (using the filters) on the M8 pretty well. My own motivation is help figure out:

 

1) What other lenses might work well with the M8?

2) How might owners of uncoded lenses (Leica or other) optimize the performance of those lenses with the M8 (ie: the "open system" aspect)

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[FastFashnReloaded]

The fact that success is likely just motivates the tinkerer in all of us even more. It's beginning to look like all the various workarounds will work for the people that want to us them, and the simple filter solution and Leica coded lenses for those who don't.Rex

 

I got tired of tinkering... That's why I sold my PCs and got a Mac. I have an old house that takes all of my tinkering time.

[sean_reid]

An old house can take all the tinkering a person would want in a lifetime.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[scott kirkpatrick]

All of these tests and such are SUCH fun, but a test of a white wall (etc) isn't a real world image. ...snip...

It has really, really, gone to far.

 

Sean has a unique skill of showing how the wide range of lenses available for the Leica M mount will perform in real world images, and doing it through pictures alone. His results, that there are many possible lenses of interest, not all made by Leica, has introduced the question of whether the corrections available in firmware in the M8 will also benefit the Zeiss, Cosina-Voigtlaender, and older lenses.

 

First, other threads in this forum have shown that non-Leica lenses can impersonate Leica lenses. So Leica now knows that it has some educated customers, and cannot keep its firmware closed to all but its newest, coded lenses. The process by which this forum reached that level of understanding was impressively quick, but it took multiple tries by several people to build up to the full code book of "dots" and a simple implementation. The benefit was obvious, so there was little sniping or ridicule along the way.

 

The second question of current interest is whether impersonating existing Leica lenses will bring any benefit other than putting the correct focal length into the EXIF fields. This will take more work, as two effects need to be understood -- overall vignetting, that occurs when the exit pupil of a lens is very close to the image plane, and a radial color shift which occurs when an IR-cut filter is used to eliminate unknown false colors. The M8 firmware already contains routines that correct overall vignetting, and the color shifts are seen to be handled in the DMR firmware as well as in the "lens cast" corrections and calibration that Capture One offers for users of PhaseOne digital backs (which have no built-in IR filtration and often use IR-cut filters in front of the lens). As customers who want to be educated about what we should expect, we first need to ask how big are these effects, and second what is Leica already capable of doing to correct them for its own lenses. There is little published about this particular bag of tricks, so simple experiments are needed.

 

Sean's white walls tackle these two shifts together, purely as pictures. You can mentally take any of his white walls with pale green edges, place them over the scene that interests you, and see if it would be a distraction. He also gives numbers, and my two graphs analyze those numbers to see if there are some simple trends contained. When I present something like this, I know that some forum members will be interested, and others will feel their eyes glazing over, so I try to be very brief. But it seems that we are on the path to a sensible discussion of how big the effects are, what factors in the lens design they depend on, and whether mapping other lenses into the firmware designed for a similar Leica lens will leave only errors that we can tolerate.

 

This is a discussion that needs some exchange of ideas, and may not be of interest to everyone, so I will move it to a separate thread.

 

regards,

 

scott

[Jean LeBlanc]

Dana,

 

If you want to understand the connections, read the article. If you prefer not to because you don't subscribe and don't want to, that's cool too but then leave us be so that we can work this out.

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

If you want to discuss the connections here on the Leica forum, why don't you post the article in question? Telling people to read your article, in effect, telling people to subscribe to your service, is a promotion of your business, which the forum rules specifically prohibit. Please post the article.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[woodyspedden]

Sean,

 

If you want to discuss the connections here on the Leica forum, why don't you post the article in question? Telling people to read your article, in effect, telling people to subscribe to your service, is a promotion of your business, which the forum rules specifically prohibit. Please post the article.

 

I can't stand it anymore. I just have to respond.

 

Most of the whining that is going on comes from folks who do not own an M8 and are thus doing no work to turn it into a product that reaches its' full potential. However these will be the people who get the full benefit of the serious work being done by Carsten, Scott, Guy et al under the solid leadership of Sean Reid. It is just stupid, IMHO, to criticise the people doing the real work while adding nothing of value to those trying to use the M8 to its fullest. I don't suggest you leave the forum...it is your right to be here. I do suggest that if your only purpose is to create noise while denigrating the valuable work done by real users and experts, then it would be better for all if you just keep your comments to yourself.

 

I suggest that you look hard at the value of Sean and others work from an economics perspective. If you buy an M8 and use say five of the Leica lenses (at an average of $3K per lens) you will spend nearly $20K for the system. However you will have the full value of the corrections made possible by the coding and firmware. On the other hand if the CV or Zeiss lenses can be made to use the already embedded code for the Leica lenses it may be possible to use these much lower cost, but fine, lenses to get much of what is possible from the Leica products.

 

Now if you were to buy the M8 and five of the CV lenses at an average of $400 per lens, you would have invested less than $7k for a savings of $13K! I think that this effort by Sean and others should be getting applause, not nasty innuendos. I don't say that an M8 and CV lenses will ever be as good as the M8 Leica lens system from an absolute perspective, but it comes at a price that allows many more people to come to the M8 party than would otherwise be possible. Over time I believe that those who bought the CV lenses for the M8 will begin to buy some of the Leica lenses as they see the differences. But even if they don't, Lieca has sold many more M8 bodies as a result.

 

So this effort, it seems to me , is productive both to Leica and to the consumer. I don't think Leica can or will support these efforts as this could leave them liable for any issues that arise from using leica lens codes on third party lenses. But surely I find it hard to imagine that Sean and others who are trying to provide the consumers with choices not now available, can be faulted for their efforts. Frankly he spends far more time fielding questions here than he does on writing his articles. If it were me, I would open a forum of my own and available only to his subscribers rather than be subjected to the flak he is getting here. But thankfully for us on this forum he is not me and thus he continues to help the folks here at no cost to us, in spite of the noise, criticisms and flak.

 

Come on people. How about some ":Atta Boys" for the people who truly provide helpful information on these threads. And if you have nothing helpful to add, how about silence from the rest!

 

Woody Spedden