New overgaard page - Leica M9 in Los Angeles and Leica M9 "best practice"

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've updated my Leica M9 page with yet another page. This time with a short run-through of my "best practice" and current workflow. The software and all has changed since I started posting about this in September 2009, so this is the updated page:

 

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder Camera - Page 12: My Leica M9 best practice as of April 2010

[Advertisement]

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

[ashwinrao1]

Excellent article and philosophy, THorsten. I especially like your advice of picking a lens, learning its strengths (including aberrations, in some instance), so that you can see and predict the shot you hope for before hand. I may go out and do this more with my noctilux, as I hope to learn its eccentricies a bit more!

 

Thank you once again for a very helpful and informative article, not to mention: BEAUTIFUL and INSPIRING photos!

[ashwinrao1]

By the way, the "Singing Nerds" shot is priceless!

[ashwinrao1]

plus I do appreciate your comment about getting younger photographers into Leica. I am a 33 year old Leicaphile, but started with Leicas as a 29 year old. I have several friends below age 30 who would love to shoot Leicas, but only one who does use Leicas. (shooting an old M3, and to whom I sold my M8 for a very good deal once I had my M9). In contrast, I see many "kids" around with SLR's, as they are far more affordable. I do think Leica would be remiss to not offer a cheaper alternative (crop sensor camera that takes M lenses, priced at DSLR prices) to rope younger shooters in. I don't necessarily think that it's solely our responsability to hand down our goods (I hope to hand mine down to my kids, if I ever have them)....

[msk2193]

Thank you Thorsten. Great perspective.

[Bixi]

Great article Thorsten. Makes me feel even better having an M9. I'm considering myself as a one-lens-shooter. Hope to have more shooting adventures with you in the future.

Best, Bixi

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I don't understand some statements in this article:

 

"Say for example you are shooting group portraits. An f/1.4 lens is simply not suitable for this because if you stop it down to f/4.0 it will still not be able to get all three in an image 100% sharp. An f/2.8 lens will be able to at f/4.0 and perhaps even at f/2.8."

 

If this is about depth of field it is just not true: A f/1.4 lens has no less d.o.f. at f/2.8 or f/4 than a f/2.8 lens at the same apertures. If it is not about depth of field (or of focus, if you prefer), I just don't get what the author wants to say.

 

"I've always said I use the Auto mode"

 

and

 

"So I start out in A mode with the lens fully open and the ISO at 800 or 200. I can then see on the preview if I want to change the exposure. If I do, I simply change the shutter speed. Nothing else."

 

In "A mode" you don't have to change the shutter speed for different lighting at the same aperture and ISO, the camera changes the speed for itself. Therefore it's correct that the author takes "A" for "Auto". If you change the speeds manually you leave "A" mode and enter manual mode. So what does he use: "A" or manual settings of shutter speeds?

 

What does he mean when he says the 50mm Summicron from 1962 has "no coating of importance"?

 

Then:

"I'm not a fan of adjusting on the computer. I think it's amateurish and stupid to capture imperfect images that require adjustment on the computer. It's sloppy, and computers are not meant for adjustment."

 

O.K., but some lines later we read about editing:

"As you go you edit them, crop them and finalize them so you dont have to go back and forth in the imported images."

 

Why isn't cropping amateurish and stupid? Wasn't the capture imperfect, if it has to be cropped? Isn't the cropping done by a computer, i.e. a tool that was not meant for adjustment?

 

I admit that I cannot find any philosophy in the article, and this is o.k. for me.

[markowich]

I've updated my Leica M9 page with yet another page. This time with a short run-through of my "best practice" and current workflow. The software and all has changed since I started posting about this in September 2009, so this is the updated page:

 

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder Camera - Page 12: My Leica M9 best practice as of April 2010

 

very interesting. just a small correction: there is no Nobel prize in mathematics..---)))

peter

[Jeff S]

I'm often interested in reading about another photographer's methods. Whether or not I agree, there are points to consider and compare.

 

Just a couple of observations.

 

As far as choosing a lens for speed as the primary factor, I tend to look even more at the rendering, or 'signature', of the lens...how it draws. I own a 50 Summilux asph less for the one stop advantage it has over my former Summicron, than for my preference for its overall character. There is no problem with either lens rendering my intended subject in focus. I stop down as necessary for that purpose, with no apparent degradation in the final print, which is my end product, not a screen view.

 

Which brings me to my second point...and, I admit, a pet peeve. While I enjoy a wide open shot with beautiful bokeh, I prefer first and foremost that the shot has the critical subject element(s) in focus. Too often I see images shot wide open where the subject is in varying states of focus. And, the Noctilux is often the culprit.

 

I see some fine shots in the article with the Noctilux. But, others drive me nuts. The fire hydrant is one example. Perhaps it's just what the photographer intended, but I can't find the point of subject focus. At least not a point that I find compelling. I mean no disrespect, and others may love the effect.

 

I, on the other hand, think the photographer does a consistently better job with the 50 Summicron in terms of isolating the subject in an interesting way, without confusing focus elements.

 

But, each of us has our own "best practices"...and opinions.

 

Jeff

[Guido]

Interesting page. But there's one thing I don't seem to understand right now (maybe haven't had enough coffee yet). Could someone briefly reiterate to me exactly why a f/1.4 lens at f/4 provides less depth of field than a f/2.8 lens at f/4?

[Per P.]

Thorsten,

Excellent page. Whether I agree or not is less relevant, but by putting your way of working on the table it gives lots of food for thought and for (re)considering my own way or working.

 

One question re. WhiBal: Do you hold it parallel to the ground when you expose it, or do you hold it more like parallel to the body? This has always confused me....

 

KR Per.

[Julian Thompson]

Whether I agree or not is less relevant, but by putting your way of working on the table it gives lots of food for thought and for (re)considering my own way or working.

 

A great point to make and a great article to read.

 

I personally do not like the shooting philosophy, especially since beginning to work with a film MP alongside the M9, where stopping down is often necessary for correct exposure. (Not into filters).

 

Additionally the usage of Auto mode has consistently returned worse results for me in difficult lighting than learning how to manage a manual setting and then using the aperture ring to instantly tweak it on the fly according to the conditions.

 

One point I would like to make which is less a personal viewpoint, though, and that is that by not stopping the lenses down you are missing out on some fantastic sharpness and another, very large part of photography. Learning to compose without the benefit of selective focus is a tricky skill.

[Julian Thompson]

Learning to compose without the benefit of selective focus is a tricky skill.

 

....which I have not mastered yet

[Fotomiguel]

They way you use your camera in combination with the way your brain/eyes look for images will give you the final result. Technique and creativity must be balanced. Photographer resources go further than a unique way of working. The more different techniques that one own will be able to increase creativity.

one has to adapt to different conditions and situations and use different ways of taking pictures. Use the different apertures is one of the main weapons of a photographer and his creativity.

Using different lenses is like seeing with different eyes and every lens has to be learnt. I agree ,but may be changing the concept, that using just a 50mm is much easier to capture the "Instant" and when you are really quick with a 50mm and you use a Rangefinder camera in the correct way, you'll get the possibility (if you are enough lucky) to get a good shot. For this kind of shots I use always a 50mm cron as well but I select the aperture depending what I want to get. The sharpness of a good leica lens is really good wide open but really good as well in f8 and even f11. The different apertures will give you different pictures. So you can choose and create different pictures with the same frame:eek:

The iso you need for low light just depends on how good is your technique. So how slow can you shoot without shaking, how much DOF you need and if your subject is moving or quiet.

Even when I agree with some of your theories others are not my liking.

Regard

Miguel

[viramati]

very interesting read. Thanks

[vintola]

Interesting page. But there's one thing I don't seem to understand right now (maybe haven't had enough coffee yet). Could someone briefly reiterate to me exactly why a f/1.4 lens at f/4 provides less depth of field than a f/2.8 lens at f/4?

 

That's interesting. I'd like also to know this. I am thinking of buying either 50 mm Summilux or 50 mm Noctilux and that's why this will be most interesting to know, because I can't afford both. So if I decide to buy Noctilux, it will be also an all-rounder 50 mm (and of course special lens for dark evening nights).

[diogenis]

Nice work Thorsten, beautiful workflow. Great simplicity also!

[RoySmith]

Excellent article Thorsten. I really appreciate the time you take to document your M9 use. Regarding the WhiBal on the M9, does one have to fill the entire frame with it - or just the centre of the viewfinder? I presume focus doesn't matter too much for this.

Roy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[llorenz]

Bien, muy bien;)

[jonoslack]

Hi There Thorsten

A fine and thought provoking article - lots to think about, and some things to disagree with!

 

The fact is that Leica lenses are quite unique. They're developed and produced to perform optimum fully open. . . . . . .Hence, I always use Leica lenses fully open.

 

Whilst I agree that they are designed to perform optimum fully open - that does not mean that they perform best fully open. They're designed surely to perform best at all apertures (as the MTF curves suggest).

 

So, I would have said that a decision to only use the lenses fully open may be absolutely valid from an artistic or practical point of view . . . . but not on the basis of the performance of the lenses.