M9 and CV15 at the Getty Center (Images)

[a.j.z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice pictures! Nice architecture.

 

You handle the lens very well.

 

I think I will get this lens, too (once I manage to get a M9 )

 

Andreas

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[UliWer]

I have neither enough knowledge of lenses nor of digital in-camera-processing to say that any theory about the red shift is right or wrong. When I first noticed it with the 18mm-Super-Elmar on the M8 I thought: strange that it's always on the left. I have made up my own simplistic theory that different lighting may be the reason for the left-edge issue: in most cases photos outside are taken under conditions where the sun comes from the right. Just look at Alnitaks photos at the beginning of the thread: in all cases there is sun from the right side - just one exception: picture No. 1 in # 2.

 

So I searched for my own "exceptional" photos with the sun from the left side, and I found some. They show no red shift on the left, but they also don't show it on the right side. Under "usual" condition with the sun from the right side, i notice the red shift on the left - darker - side at once. This backs Sandy's theory of decentration.

 

On the other hand: I have some photos taken under artificial light with no tendency to one side which clearly show equal red shifts on the left and right side. I have as well photos taken of grey cards, under artificial as well as natural lights where I was eager to avoid any difference of lighting from one side, which clearly show an equal red shift on both sides. This does not go in accordance with the "leftist" theory.

 

Now some examples (all taken with the 3.8/18 Super Elmar and the M8 and no postprocessing with CornerShift, whitebalance or de-vignetting):

 

First sun from the left side, no red shift on right side:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Equal red-shift on both sides with artificial light:

 

 

 

Grey card under natural light -lens detection on with UV/IR-Filter:

 

 

 

Grey card under natural light - lens detection off, with UV/IR-Filter

 

[ho_co]

... BTW, by my math, if the red/left drift I'm getting is caused by a miscentered sensor (or lens), it is out of place by about .5 mm. ...

Good work, Andy.

 

For sake of argument, as you see it, which direction would the sensor be off? Too far to the shutter release side or too far to the frame preview lever side?

 

Would that direction match up with Mark Norton's illustration that a full-frame M9 in the same chassis as an M8 would not be possible?

 

 

Just a theory--maybe they said "only half a millimeter--nobody'll ever notice."

 

Do I hear the same half-millimeter argument as in the M8's IR sensitivity? "It's only 37.5 percent under 'best' thickness; half a millimeter should do."

 

The same folks who gave us the M8 also gave us the M9, right? New problems are always unforeseen because they come from a new direction.

[ho_co]

... I was told by an in-house Leica expert in the US that he thought the design of the front element on the 24 lux would tend to avoid the cyan drift otherwise thought to exist on wide lenses when using IR/UV filters with this lens and the M9....

Doug, isn't that the same as saying "I can tell by the color of your car what kind of gas mileage you're getting"?

 

Do I understand that he's saying that the 24 Summilux could be used with IR/UV-cut filters on the M9 with no problem?

 

So the 25 Zeiss and the other 24 Leica lenses wouldn't be able to use IR/UV-cut filters on the M9, but the 24/1.4 would?

 

And he can tell by looking at the front element?

 

IMHO either Leica should hire him because he's a lens-design genius ("calculations? we don't need no stinking calculations") or he's got a great future as a spiritualist.

[doug_m]

Ho Co,

 

My understanding is that he was referring to the shape of the front element on the 24 lux. Like I say, I'm not an expert and do not really understand this but have not seen the cyan drift with the UV/IR on the lens mounted to an M9.

 

In addition to the lens changing hassle and filters when going from M8 to M9 and back, the UV series 7 B + W filter I bought from B and H rattles more in the filter holder than the Leica UV/IR filter. Anyone have a solution to this? I was thinking about putting a sliver of tape on two to four places symmetrically around the filter ring to se if this provided a cure. However, so far the UV/IR left on the 24 lux does not seem to be a problem and may be better for shooting black synthetics.

[Alnitak]

So, this has turned into more of a thread on the "red edge" issue than my photos, but who cares, this is fun. I have had the red edge with any type of lighting, but it can be worse under tungsten. It's clearly a case of over correction of some kind for the cyan drift issue, probably exacerbated or caused by decentering issues, whether it be decentering of the lens (most likely) or the sensor. The example photo I posted actually had the sun almost perfectly behind me. Here is a photo taken at f/22 with the 15mm, pointing straight up at the sky. The sun was to the left in this case. Note that I also have a red bottom; it shows in all of my images with that combo, its just not as strong as the left edge.

 

 

Again, its limited to just two of my lenses, and its quite easy to correct, so I don't get too stressed about it.

[Alnitak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alnitak,

 

Great shots,

 

Maybe I missed it, I was wondering if you coded the 15mm..? I shot quite a lot with mine coded as a WATE and leaving it at the default 18mm which seems to look pretty good, a little vignetting but I don't feel its quite as much as the first image you show. again I could easily be wrong as I have not actually shot a solid wall yet. :-)

 

Great shots, Im in LA, Beverly and Western, shoot me a email if you ever look for a excuse to have coffee and talk cameras.

 

.

 

Hey Bo, it's me, Jeff from Fred Miranda. I'll see you in about two weeks at the Getty Villa! As for coding the lens, it is coded as the WATE, set to the 16mm FL length. That setting worked very well on the M8.2 with the filter.

[ho_co]

My understanding is that he was referring to the shape of the front element on the 24 lux. Like I say, I'm not an expert and do not really understand this but have not seen the cyan drift with the UV/IR on the lens mounted to an M9. ...

Doug, I shouldn't have butted in. My knowledge certainly isn't special, but sometimes I guess my posts look as if I think I know something.

 

I envy you the 24 Summilux! And if you're not getting ill effects from the UV/IR-cut filters, more power to you! That's a good thing to know, whatever the reason!

[adan]

Uli - just to check, in your ocean shot (sun left) I see red drift in the ocean on the left - ocean goes from green to gray. I also see a touch in the area of the clouds on the right.

 

Howard, since there are some cameras that either show no red-left problem (the demo cam I tried on 9/9, e.g.), or a red drift that is centered (Uliwer's), I can't see it being a physical restriction due to the battery location - or all cameras would suffer. The apparent variation among cameras makes me think it's an assembly issue - sensors onto boards or boards into cameras.

 

But the "tight fit" may contribute to the problem if a sensor is mounted a bit to the right (shutter button side) on the circuit board, preventing the board from being nudged a little further toward the battery to compensate (if that is even the issue).

 

Alnitak - I do like your architecture shots - and the c/v 15.

[UliWer]

Uli - just to check, in your ocean shot (sun left) I see red drift in the ocean on the left - ocean goes from green to gray. I also see a touch in the area of the clouds on the right.

 

....

 

You are certainly right for the left edge. On my usual monitor, it was not significant, now using another monitor it's quite obvious. Though I still don't notice it on the right side.

 

I hope we can forget the whole issue soon with a new firmware, so we can concentrate again on the pictures.

 

Sorry, Alnitak, for detracting from your photos!

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Andy,

 

What you said brought a more sinister though to my mind, forget the sensor being in cricket.

 

I could vaguely imagine the sensor and microlenses being ever so slightly off alignment, this would only affect extreemely wide lenses and being off would mean that the camera processing would not treat the ultrawide lenses correctly... in a very small degree... maybe. This could account for the variation in experience of this issue.

 

Can't wait to see what happens after the first firmware upgrade is released, i am sure Leica is going to be packing a bunch of tweakes and bug-fixes into that one.

 

.

[ho_co]

... Howard, since there are some cameras that either show no red-left problem (the demo cam I tried on 9/9, e.g.), or a red drift that is centered (Uliwer's), I can't see it being a physical restriction due to the battery location - or all cameras would suffer. The apparent variation among cameras makes me think it's an assembly issue - sensors onto boards or boards into cameras....

 

Agreed. I hadn't realized that it's camera-specific. Boy, that's good news!

[adan]

Bo - as I said, it is possible for the microlenses to be out of position, and it would only take a tiny amount. OTOH chip makers routinely work to tighter tolerances in positioning chip elements, so it would seem unlikely. But it a suspect until we learn otherwise.

 

My understanding is that sensor microlenses are created by the same photolithography engraving techniques used to build up all the other "bits" of silicon devices. A thin layer of optical stuff - glass or some transparent mineral or transparent polymer - is deposited on the surface in an even layer (like lens coatings only a bit thicker), then masked and engraved, leaving a little chunk over each pixel (or offset, for the Leica sensors). Then run through an annealing oven to melt the optical stuff, which forms a dome like a water drop on glass due to surface tension, and then cools and hardens.

 

Although I gather a molding technique is also used.

[Guest mc_k]

...These are very nice images. I wonder how the 21 or 24 lux would do with the same subject matter?

 

21 or 24 is more the focal length I think of for M architectural photography. I think the convergence in the first photo is too exaggerated but I'm sure that is just me, and I think the rest are fine. And some of these shots are made for the 15, like the handrail or skyline.

 

When the 28mm came out in the 30's it was marketed as a breakthrough superwide lens for architecture:

 

"We have now introduced a new Leica lens of even shorter focus and greater image angle as repeated enquiries have shown us that for many purposes, such as in the old-fashioned streets of ancient towns as much as for the huge piles of ultra-modern buldings, an angle of 64 degrees is not enough."

[Alnitak]

Yes, the 15 wouldn't be my normal choice for architecture. Typically I would use a 24 for architecture; however, I was having fun with the 15 that day.

[Guest mc_k]

p.s. thank you for posting these, there are hardly any samples in the Photo section for such a popular lens. Apparently you have a WATE and maybe some other very wides, so I hope you can do some comparisons and post the results.

[ho_co]

Yes, the 15 wouldn't be my normal choice for architecture. Typically I would use a 24 for architecture; however, I was having fun with the 15 that day.

 

And as your pictures show, the Getty is the perfect place for it. Nice shots indeed.

[sandymc]

Agreed. I hadn't realized that it's camera-specific. Boy, that's good news!

 

Really bad news for firmware correction, though; it's awfully difficult to correct for an infinite possible number manufacturing variations in a single standard piece of firmware. About all you can do is to tune the results to under-correct rather than over-correct.

 

Sandy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Alnitak]

Really bad news for firmware correction, though; it's awfully difficult to correct for an infinite possible number manufacturing variations in a single standard piece of firmware. About all you can do is to tune the results to under-correct rather than over-correct.

 

Sandy

 

If that's the case, there could be another, albeit more complicated solution. You could use a software like your CornerFix package that could profile you lens-camera combination and then load that custom correction algorithm into the camera to replace the "stock" profile.

[ho_co]

Gee, I hadn't thought of that side. Bummer.

 

Maybe Leica should forget about Lightroom and send a "Profile your M9" software app with the camera, as Alni says.

 

Or a D700.