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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yea, apertures are there to use them, but I fully respect his point of view

[Rick]

Nice article, Thorsten. It is interesting to get into your mind and see your work flow philosophy and your creative approach to the mechanics of your camera and lens.

 

Basically, your's (approach) is mine, except, I very often change aperture as another facet of my minds eye. Also, I always shoot base ISO (160) as a start and have never thought about doubling, halving or quarter steps being more than a second thought (i.e. 160-320-640-1280...). I understand that a good picture has less to do with the difference between 160 and 200 and more to do with the creative aspects, but I'd like to start with an edge in dynamic range and ISO if, I can. Just like I shoot uncompressed because, like you mentioned, storage is not a worry and in the future I'd like to have access to the most information in the file.

 

Like you, I really like LR and find it more than acceptable and best for quantity production.

 

I saw the link at the very bottom of your article for the ChromaSoft RAW develop profile and tried it but, found the color not to my liking. Do you really use this? So far I like the Adobe RAW profile for the M9 the best. And, I have been playing with Chris Tribbles' preset when a develop and have been liking the results - thanks Chris.

 

Best pearls of wisdom from the article for me - the M9 defaults to "off" on the setting: "Auto power off." I did not realize this. So, mine is now set to "1-min" like my M8. Now, I can stop wondering why the M9 is always going through battery charges - thanks!

 

Second pearl; hit "set-set-scroll" then to "manual" and then shoot WiBal card for fast manual white balance - thanks!

 

Again, I liked reading your article and enjoyed seeing all those 50mm picture. I have been shooting mainly my 50 lux on my M9 lately. I think that 28 and 50 are what I'm carrying around right now. I don't have a 35 right now, but I like the look of your pictures shot at 1.4 with your 35 very much. Take care and keep posting.

 

Rick

[Overgaard]

Thanks.

 

No, I don't use the ChromaSoft profile anymore. It was helpful in the beginning till Lightroom came up with a profile for the M9.

[Skip Heitzig]

Hi Thorsten,

 

I've long admired your work and would love to take your online course. But my immediate question is regarding ND filters. I just ordered a 1.8 (6 stops) for my Noctilux 1.0. I will shooting in 2 weeks in Israel where the sun is bright. I also have a summilux 1.4 35mm lens. Do you recommend the same kind of filter (a 1.8) or do you use one that is less light restrictive (say 3 to 4 stops). Any insight would be helpful.

 

Skip Heitzig

[Ed_K]

Another great article to read, thank you Thorsten, for sharing again your insight and knowledge with us.

[nryn]

Thorsten,

 

Thanks for the excellent article. I have to say that I've spent some considerable time away from this forum and other Leica information resources, largely because they seem to focus on the gear.

 

I'm much more interested in technique, approach, and style, and this latest installment in your series was superb in that regard.

 

Cheers!

[mikenic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the great article Thorsten.

Mike

[NB23]

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?

 

There is no such thing. You can drink 897,885,744 litres of Coffee and still not understand it. Only Vodka can make one write or understand that a f1.4 lens at f4 provides less DOF then a f2.8 lens at f4.

[Overgaard]

Hi Thorsten,

 

I've long admired your work and would love to take your online course. But my immediate question is regarding ND filters. I just ordered a 1.8 (6 stops) for my Noctilux 1.0. I will shooting in 2 weeks in Israel where the sun is bright. I also have a summilux 1.4 35mm lens. Do you recommend the same kind of filter (a 1.8) or do you use one that is less light restrictive (say 3 to 4 stops). Any insight would be helpful.

 

Skip Heitzig

 

I used a 3 stop filter in Los Angeles, 80 ISO and fully open in sunshine. So that will do, but the 6 stop will be the dead-sure solution. You can always turn up the ISO if needed, but 6 stops in sunshine fully open you should stay around 1/1500 which is plenty.

 

Remember to take it off in the evenings and indoor (and have a pocket or something for it. I used my back pocket in the trousers for it and it didn't break).

[Overgaard]

There is no such thing. You can drink 897,885,744 litres of Coffee and still not understand it. Only Vodka can make one write or understand that a f1.4 lens at f4 provides less DOF then a f2.8 lens at f4.

 

I've changed the article in that regard. One can download lens info on the various lenses and can see how 50mm will have same DOF throughout the f-stop range.

 

And so, if one want a depth of field for say group portraits, a 28mm f/2.8 will do the job better than trying to use a 50/1.4 to do the same, stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.0.

 

So I hope that has been clarified now.

[luigi bertolotti]

Compliments for your site, Thorsten !!! Navigating into, I was delighted to see what seems to me a photo that I posted in the forum times ago (it's the Telyt 400 into is box, dismounted) : tell me, is it really my pic ? I do not remember where I have it and can't check... ... if so, I'm really pleased of this....

[Overgaard]

Compliments for your site, Thorsten !!! Navigating into, I was delighted to see what seems to me a photo that I posted in the forum times ago (it's the Telyt 400 into is box, dismounted) : tell me, is it really my pic ? I do not remember where I have it and can't check... ... if so, I'm really pleased of this....

 

Oh yes, it's is yours. If I recall correctly I even got it from you. In any case, if you can't find it I can send it to you

 

Amazing lens by the way, still. Uncomplicated, simple and yet sharp and detailed.

[luigi bertolotti]

Thanks, I suppose that at home I can find it if I search... ... happy that a pic of my equipment has been appreciated and published...

[plasticman]

Really excellent article (with lessons that don't need to apply only to the M9) and beautiful images, as always.

[Guido]

And so, if one want a depth of field for say group portraits, a 28mm f/2.8 will do the job better than trying to use a 50/1.4 to do the same, stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.0.

Thanks for the clarification!

[wattsy]

Some fine images (from my favourite city) and an interesting article. That said, I cannot agree with a philosophy of sticking rigidly to using lenses wide-open nor to the proposition that Leica lenses are designed to be optimum at the widest aperture.

[zlatkob]

I gather from the article that Thorsten defines "optimum" from an artistic perspective and for some types of photography. I think this paragraph explains it:

 

"It's at that aperture value [1.4] that is needs the least light, has the most unique and pleasant bokeh (how the out-of-focus areas take shape), the most interesting and playful depth of field (or selective focus if you will: only a thin layer of the image is in 100% focus while the rest is blurred and unsharp; forming the sought after bokeh)."

 

What may be confusing is that "optimum" usually refers to measurements such as MTF, which show that Leica lenses do offer improved performance when stopped down. Photodo measurements for weighted MTF show that Leica lenses improve when stopped down, just as Nikon, Canon and other lenses do:

35 mm Summilux: f1.4 0.54 | f2 0.65 | f2.8 0.75 | f4 0.75 | f8 0.83

50 mm Summilux: f1.4 0.60 | f2 0.69 | f2.8 0.76 | f4 0.80 | f8 0.85

75 mm Summilux: f1.4 0.61 | f2 0.73 | f2.8 0.81 | f4 0.84 | f8 0.86

 

Even the phenomenal Canon 200/1.8, which is often considered optimized for wide open, improves a bit when stopped down:

200 mm 1.8: f1.8 0.82 | f2.8 0.89 | f4 0.90 | f8 0.87

[Jamie Roberts]

Some improve a lot stopped down, depending as Zlatko says, on what you mean by improvement.

 

But these are qualitative things, not easily quantified.

 

PS--Zlatko, if you want MTF charts for Leica lenses, try to find E. Puts work on the lenses, not Photodo; the problem is you never know what version of the lens they're testing.

[elgenper]

Excellent reading, as usual, and remarkable images to illustrate it.

 

However, I had one of those "read but not understood" moments towards the end (maybe because I didn´t drink vodka...).

 

Thorsten, you talk about compression of DNG files, and state: "...don't use Adobe's offer of saving space by compressing your DNG files. You don't want that because one day you will get to experience that no one supports reading those compressed DNG files. The compression in the Leica M9 is not the same as the Lightroom compression."

 

They´re different algorithms, no doubt, but why should the risk of Adobe´s own algorithm running out of support be bigger than for Leica´s own algorithm? After all, DNG is Adobe´s own child, and Leica´s method is a non-standard addition.

 

Besides, Adobe´s compression is lossless; Leica´s isn´t. Whether this is important for real life images, I don´t know; there are totally conflicting opinions out there. I haven´t had the time to really compare them in a controlled but still realistic manner.

 

Thorsten, I see your own answer is i the last sentence of that paragraph: "...It makes the camera faster and I can't tell the difference...". Likely then, I won´t be able to see the difference either, and suddenly doubling the capacity of my SD card collection would be a bonus indeed (speed has been no problem for me). Only, if I go this way, do I really INCREASE the chances that my files would remain readable with future software?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zlatkob]

Oh yes, Photodo is now very out of date. It just illustrates the principle. I think they stopped testing about 10 years ago, so those may be older versions of the lenses.