18mm SE examples on M9 for interior

[RobertJRB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Robert, I infer from your words that you did shoot with the 18mm handheld, and therefore found the framing needed cropping in PP.

 

May I insist? If you work on that 120 houses project with the 18mm + M9 plus tripod, you will find, by error and trial (ie controlling via LCD), that the making of the pictures will be easy.

 

I am specialized in architecture, cityscape and landscape photography, and out of my experience of many years I am of the opinion that using the widest possible lens is not always the best approach: sometimes more is less...

 

 

And yes, of course, for the Leica 18mm you can have a lot more money than for the Zeiss 18mm.

 

Thanks you. I did use a tripod but still found my photo's to be not framed correctly many times. Maybe it has something to do with my finder, normally I don't have much trouble with it. The trail and error method is a good one. Actually never use that..

 

Your absolutely right about the wide angle. The 18 or 17 is mainly for those really small rooms were I now needed several stitched photo's.

[Richardgb]

First the quality is much higher. Shifted to the correct perspective U use the full sensor for the picture. With photoshop you always stretch the existing pixels meaning a loss of quality. And you almost all the time have to crop the picture with means loss of pixels.

 

 

Agreed. Speaking as someone brought up on film, it's invariably better to get as much right at the taking stage as possible rather than relying on post-production corrections. (Wouldn't this be Leica's philosophy, too?).

 

Nevertheless, small amounts of straightening usng post-production software are very useful, but this can result in a smaller effective viewing angle.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Agreed. Speaking as someone brought up on film, it's invariably better to get as much right at the taking stage as possible rather than relying on post-production corrections. (Wouldn't this be Leica's philosophy, too?).

 

Nevertheless, small amounts of straightening usng post-production software are very useful, but this can result in a smaller effective viewing angle.

 

I agree: the smaller viewing angle, and perhaps more importantly, the alteration of the format's proportion, are for me the only reasons for avoiding PP corrections of the image's geometry, and photographing instead with shifting lenses. But if that lens is not available, I will for sure make the photograph anyway.

 

Finding lately that I do correct often pictures made with the 3.8/24 (an amazing lens, BTW), I am considering the 3.4/21, in order to have, after correcting, the 24's angle of view.

[Double Negative]

As with any wide angle and especially ultra-wide angles, it's very important to have a level camera to avoid any geometric distortions (keystoning especially).

 

The 18/ZM is rather good at distortion. Anything visible in the final photo can usually be tweaked up pretty well in post. But naturally, the better the image is going in - the better it will come out.

 

A tripod and a bubble level(s) are mandatory for architecture/interiors, etc. IMO.

 

Though I hate to say it, a tilt and shift lens is really the way to go for the ultimate setup. An SLR would also offer better visualization (WYSIWYG) for framing, etc.

[RotarySMP]

Have you considered just buying a Voigtländer 12mm and doing the project on the M8?

[RobertJRB]

Have you considered just buying a Voigtländer 12mm and doing the project on the M8?

 

No

 

I don't really want to use an M body for this project since the SLR with live view is much better for the job.

Only thing that got me thinking is because I already have a 18mm and will buy a M9 sooner or later I might combine both and use that.

 

If I have to choose between M8 with 12mm and 5D with 17mm its an easy win for the 5D.

 

Still no comments if the job goes on however..... Don't hope I don't have to make this choice at all.....

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just to add to what has already been said, and reinforcing some practical points.

 

As a journalist and photographer, I specialize in houses. I used a film M for many house pics which were used in my book a few years ago.

 

Exteriors are fine, interiors are tricky. I have since used the M9 with 21 ZM and Elmarit 24-ASPH. Avoiding keystoning is damned tricky! Even with tripod and levels. LR3 has great tools for correcting distortion, but you really want to minimize the necessity as much as possible.

 

For extra pictures -- though not as high res -- I was also impressed with the little D-Lux 5. Live view and the grid pattern is certainly very helpful. There is also great DOF, exposure is pretty good, as is WB. You can also try an 18mm attachment for the D-Lux 5.

 

I have seen professional architectural pics taken with all sorts of cameras, from Phase One to 5D and smaller cameras. Quality varies and the expensive stuff does not always have the edge for publication. Much depends on composition and lighting! There is often no need to go ultra wide unless absolutely necessary.

 

Best,

 

David

 

David Killick | Freelance Journalist and Photographer