Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

New to M8, old to Leica . . .

Guest Walt

By Guest Walt
in Digital Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest Walt

Guest Walt

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having spent the last 40 years photographing, mostly with M4's, I've now had an M8 for about three weeks and thought I'd briefly post my experience with it.

 

1. After many years struggling with other digital cameras, most recently Canon SLRs, I was amazed at how much a Leica the M8 is and how natural it was for me to pick it up and use it. It is a direct and very simple tool that hugely facilitates photography in the way I am accustomed to doing it. I have just hated the digital SLRs and experienced them more as an impediment to photography than anything else.

 

2. Doing only BW work, I've had no concerns or problems with the camera (the IR stuff, etc.). I find the technical aspects of the camera transparent and the image quality superb--leagues beyond anything that was possible with the film Leicas and Tri-X.

 

3. Having used 35 and 50 Summicrons and a 90 Elmarit for many years, I am very surprised by the changes in the current lenses. The current 35 Summicron "ASPH," which seems to be my standard lens on the camera, is completely usable wide open, which is a new experience for me and a very welcome one. If I have any concern about this lens it might be that it is too contrasty in hard light. So, this is an issue I'm working on. Having used Hasselblads and 6cm twin Rolleis, I am familiar with and an admirer of Zeiss lenses, and I'm going to try their 35/2 on the camera. I'm hoping for something a bit tonally softer than the Leica lens. I notice a lot of Leicaphilia on the forum, but Zeiss has, in my experience, always been a lens (if not camera) maker of comparable quality. In my memory, the Zeiss lenses have always been tonally smoother than the Leica lenses and I'm hoping this is still true.

 

4. I am using the camera routinely at ISO 640 and, with 13 x 19 prints, finding the noise just fine. I am also struck by the "tightness" of the noise at higher speeds--visible, but much more like film grain than what I have seen in other digital cameras, where the noise looks more like cottage cheese--loose and soft and ugly. So this relatively small sensor seems just fine to me: ISO 640 on this camera is a huge improvement over Tri-X and you get an extra stop of speed to boot. I might not have this take on the noise issue if I shot color.

 

So, I want to thank forum members for all the useful tips and input and I want to thank Leica for making this camera. Actually, I want to express my gratitude, gratitude, gratitude, gratitude to Leica for making this camera. It's a masterpiece.

 

If you want to see some of my old photography from the M4s, it is at:

 

Walt Odets Photography Home

 

(The square shots are from the Rolleis and Hasselblads, the rest from M4s.)

 

Good wishes,

Walt

Link to post
Share on other sites
peterv

peterv

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the link!

 

I love your portraits! Nice medium shots.(I'm not too keen on close-up portraits...) Well done, sir! The sixties... What an era that was!

 

... In my memory, the Zeiss lenses have always been tonally smoother than the Leica lenses and I'm hoping this is still true.

 

I come from the Contax G-series, nineties-glass made in Japan with Zeiss' name, and I find these lenses much more contrasy than Leica's

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted

Hi Walt,

 

Welcome to the forum. The Zeiss 35/2.0 is also a very high-contrast lens. To reduce macro-contrast a bit, try the 35/1.4 Summilux or the Voigtlander 35/2.5. To reduce even further, try the Voigtlander 35/1.7. This may be of interest: Luminous landscape

 

I like the work. I'd love to be able to move back and forth among the large frames with arrow icons so that I don't have to go back and forth to the thumbnail page. I also work primarily in black and white (for non-commercial work) and I agree that this has the bonus of eliminating (for me) concerns with filters, cyan drift, etc.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan States

Dan States

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My god, this guy is outstanding.

 

Walt, you need to start posting regularly...Obviously there is a lot you can teach people about photography regardless of the equipment.

 

On your topic...While my photography is rubbish compared to yours I have owned both the Zeiss and Leica 35 and I think if you have the ASPH you will not want to go to the Zeiss. Stopped down they render very similarly...that is to say very clear sharp images with not a whit of flare.

 

Wide open the ASPH is far ahead of the Zeiss, particulary in night shots and longer distances where Coma and field curvature is quite strong in the Biogon.

 

Before anyone jumps on me as a Zeiss basher I'll say I have the 21, 50 Planar and a Hasselblad kit and love those lenses to death. It's just on the 35 Biogon that I think Zeiss did not catch up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Guest guy_mancuso

Posted
Posted

Walt beautiful body of work there and welcome to the forum and congrats on the M8.Hopefully it will serve you well. Hopefully we will hear more from you and your experiences with it

Link to post
Share on other sites
deltoid1

deltoid1

Posted
Posted

Sean,

 

Isn't there some way to lower the contrast of a lens? For instance, using a filter, particulates on the filter will scatter a bit of light and lower contrast. I am surprised that there is no similar commercial solution. Or is there?

 

Hi Walt,

 

Welcome to the forum. The Zeiss 35/2.0 is also a very high-contrast lens. To reduce macro-contrast a bit, try the 35/1.4 Summilux or the Voigtlander 35/2.5. To reduce even further, try the Voigtlander 35/1.7. This may be of interest: Luminous landscape

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted
Sean,

 

Isn't there some way to lower the contrast of a lens? For instance, using a filter, particulates on the filter will scatter a bit of light and lower contrast. I am surprised that there is no similar commercial solution. Or is there?

 

Probably, but doing it that way is also likely to introduce other qualities that one may not want. I suggest matching the lens to the light (with respect to what kind of drawing one wants the lens to do).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
scott kirkpatrick

scott kirkpatrick

Posted
Posted

EZ folks, I do hope we hear more from Walt Whitman Odets, but based on a short Google exploration, he is not especially outspoken and photography is only one part of his life. The interview with him in the Lincoln Center magazine is particularly interesting. But you could have told that from the pictures.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites
robertwright

robertwright

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty gobsmacked by the work, basically I am crawling out of my skin to get the M8 back from exchange and get out there!

 

This is the kind of work I would give a kidney for to see in editorial these days, but it just doesn't exist anymore.

 

Thanks for sharing this, made my day.

 

My fav besides Shirley M, is the double portrait of Keith and Rosemary, it just kind of jumps off the screen (I wish I could say page).

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
charlesphoto99

charlesphoto99

Posted
Posted

Great images. I'm a sucker for Rollei portraits. Mine's going in for repair today.

 

"Quite contrasty in hard light." Welcome to digital vs easy to beat up Tri-X.

Are you working from RAW? Try the new recovery feature in PS3 ACR or Lightroom. Also the Photokit plug-in might have something that works. And the new shadow/highlight works well in PS3 finally. Digital doesn't dispose of the need for those "darkroom" skills, in fact it calls for just as much if not more, esp dealing with harsh lighting situations. Nice thing is that you're not stuck in a stinky room. The Martin Evening Photoshop for Photographers book is great. Also, a Wacom pen and tablet is a must for dodging and burning. I use layers with soft light selected and opacity turned down to 20% or so and then build up with a soft brush through several layers. And keep in mind it's best to expose as you would for slide film - you can always open up the shadows but if there's nothing in the highlight then there's truly nothing there.

 

Enjoy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maciel

Maciel

Posted
Posted

Wide open the ASPH is far ahead of the Zeiss, particulary in night shots and longer distances where Coma and field curvature is quite strong in the Biogon.

 

Walt,

thank you for sharing the link to your photos. Outstanding.

 

Just want to add another twist on 35 asph 'cron vs. biogon.

While I agree that the 35 asph 'cron is great at night (better than the 35 asph lux, funny enough), it does have problems with flare that the Biogon has not whatsoever.

I find the Biogon as good as the cron wide open, but clearly better at the the edges. More info on this forum on flare and experiences of Don Dudenbostel and others. Numerous examples of flare from various contributors if your are interested. Mr. Puts has written about them used with an M8 as well. Same results, Biogon better at the periphery.

I used them both side by side for 48 hours on a M6 and MP. I was ready to by the 'cron, but ended up with the Biogon. Works better for me (exclusively B&W, 70% low light), others might find different results.

 

Both great lenses.

 

Good Luck and Welcome,

Andreas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...