thighslapper Posted May 18, 2012 Share #21 Posted May 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 50/1.4 crop doesn't look in focus to me. My images are much sharper than this........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 18, 2012 Posted May 18, 2012 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here M9 vs D800E comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_livsey Posted May 18, 2012 Share #22 Posted May 18, 2012 The 50/1.4 crop doesn't look in focus to me. My images are much sharper than this........ post them ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted May 18, 2012 Share #23 Posted May 18, 2012 While I certainly appreciate the comparison, it doesn't really say much (to me anyway). Far off, hazy details aren't the best to judge by; let alone all the variables (zoom vs. prime, IS vs. non, ISO, etc.). In the end, it doesn't matter anyway. I'll keep shooting my M9 "for better or for worse." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted May 18, 2012 Share #24 Posted May 18, 2012 Thanks for sharing these comparison photos. I also encourage you to not be put off by bashing from those that never will get satisfied with real life experience. Yes, there are lot of parameters to consider but its great to see these actual photos. And its for all complaining to post photos with every so-called faulty issue fixed. I'm eagerly waiting . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted May 19, 2012 Share #25 Posted May 19, 2012 I think you have good intentions in this test and some differences in the color and tone range can be seen. . I can guarantee you that you missed the focus on 135 M shots . I worked my butt off to get this lens calibrated with DAG a few years back and it takes a real effort to get infinity and near infinity prefect . Because of the type of shot across the lake you can not find the plane of focus . The slightest movement in the focus (which you can not see in the RF ) can throw this off . Don t agree ...start with showing something in the center that is critically sharp with the 135M lens . Then find a target that recedes away from your position (can t missed because target is much larger than DOF and it has to be sharp someplace). The 135APO is one of the sharpest M lenses and produces deep saturated color ....not seeing that in the tests . I use that 135 on my M9 s and I know when it focused ..it incredibly difficult even at F8 when you get out near infinity . I generally bracket focus when the image is important ..try a hard stop at infinity and then back off a little . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted May 19, 2012 Share #26 Posted May 19, 2012 That the 135 is OoF. No, it can't be focused accurately with the M9 rangefinder (good reason for live view ), but that shot looks as sharp as any I've seen. You can't make up for 100% less pixels with marginally sharper glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted May 19, 2012 Share #27 Posted May 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) That the 135 is OoF. No, it can't be focused accurately with the M9 rangefinder (good reason for live view ), but that shot looks as sharp as any I've seen. You can't make up for 100% less pixels with marginally sharper glass. When a test is posted as anecdotal evidence .....you need to be able to confirm that the test images are in fact in focus . This can be done by shooting a target that clearly shows the plane of focus . The 135 is notorious for being hard to focus at or near infinity because of the short throw of the mount (at that end of the range) and the inherent weakness in a CRF . Based on my experience (as I have nothing else to confirm ) the images are out of focus . I did quite a lot of testing on this lens at distances from 100FT to infinity when working with DAG on calibration . You know DAG the independent repairman that services Leica in the USA . During this process we developed a testing protocol using evenly spaced mail boxes every hundred feet until infinity . We then calibrated the lens to a standard ,the body to standard and made slight adjustments to give the 135 accurate focus in the range 100ft to infinity . During this process I did thousands of tests shots ..both at measured targets and in field applications . At targets where I could easily see the exact plane of focus or at infinity where I could bracket the focus point. The point being that I have worked this issue to death . As to marginal differences in the lenses and twice the MP making the outcome obvious ? If that we true ....whats the point of the test? FYI I have both cameras and both lenses and tested extensively the D3X against the M9 and the S2 . It will take a dedicated period of time to get the most out of the D800E and to understand the differences ..but a good start is to get the images in focus . (see Diglloyd s website for a good reference or Sean Reid s discussion of his testing protocol ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 19, 2012 Share #28 Posted May 19, 2012 That the 135 is OoF. No, it can't be focused accurately with the M9 rangefinder (good reason for live view ), but that shot looks as sharp as any I've seen. You can't make up for 100% less pixels with marginally sharper glass.I don't think the number of pixels has anything to do with sharpness, but only with the amount of detail. If you put an unsharp lens on a 36 Mp sensor you will have a highly detailed unsharp image... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted May 19, 2012 Share #29 Posted May 19, 2012 We're tripping into the area of accutance vs. resolution. "Sharp" isn't actually a technical term. Indeed, there are some very 'unsharp' lenses with quite a bit of resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted May 19, 2012 Share #30 Posted May 19, 2012 Please direct all posts re: resolution:acutance:sharpness: to:-http://www.dpreview.com/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted May 19, 2012 Share #31 Posted May 19, 2012 We're tripping into the area of accutance vs. resolution. "Sharp" isn't actually a technical term. Indeed, there are some very 'unsharp' lenses with quite a bit of resolution. Exactly, Add contrast to the mix and you have the lens designers trade-off dilemna for achieving perceived 'sharpness'. One reason why Zeiss and Leica lenses render differently. .. H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiss leica fan Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share #32 Posted May 19, 2012 Thank you for all your comments. The M9 APO Telyt 135 / D800E 2.8 70-200 VR II photos provided in my post no 14 are extracts from the original full frame photos posted in no 1. Note that the distance between the camera and the house that is shown on no 14 is about 1.8 miles. (for comparison: The distance between the camera and the mountain peak as shown in no 1 is over 7 miles.) I estimate that the extract in no 14 is a 10 times enlargement of the original photo as shown in no 1. When I see the extract on my 27 inch monitor this would be equivalent to a full frame print that is over 7 feet wide. I think that both the M9/APO and the D800E/VR II shots are impressive. In the background half way up the hill you can even see the power poles of the railway line on the extracts. The technical description of the APO Telyt suggests that at an aperture of 8.0 the DOF is 70,34 meter - infinite when (perfectly) focused to infinite. I know that the DOF tables are not much helpful for digital though for an object that is in a distance of 1.8 miles it is hard to believe that there are focus issues at 8.0. However, I trust the more experienced photographers who have done extensive test runs with the APO Telyt. As some of you suggest that the APO Telyt can and should do even better, I take this as an encouragement to make further test shots as soon as the weather will clear up. Note that the lack of color saturation and resolution some of you were complaining abut may also be a result of the haze over the lake and not necessarily linked to focus issues. Once again thank you for sharing your opinions. Kind regards Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 20, 2012 Share #33 Posted May 20, 2012 At 100 % crop the DOF is zero, not 70 meters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 20, 2012 Share #34 Posted May 20, 2012 Taking your figures above: at 10x (linear) enlargement, the crop factor is 0.1, so the CoC is 3.1 micron (10x less), and then the DoF focussed at inifinity becomes 733m - infinite (without diffraction correction), 265m - infinite (with diffraction included). At F8 a lens will always be a bit fuzzy so you get a bit more leeway in the DoF. If we add the usual 1 stop extra for digital pixel peepers, then we get a DoF of 1045m-infinite or 505m-infinite, 2 stops for the ueber critical 1458-infinite & 890-infinite (all ranges without/with diffraction included). This is sufficient to make something at 1.5 miles away to be slightly off "tack sharp". Executive summary - do not crop by a factor 10. (To do your own sums see here). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted May 20, 2012 Share #35 Posted May 20, 2012 Taking your figures above: at 10x (linear) enlargement, the crop factor is 0.1, so the CoC is 3.1 micron (10x less), and then the DoF focussed at inifinity becomes 733m - infinite (without diffraction correction), 265m - infinite (with diffraction included). At F8 a lens will always be a bit fuzzy so you get a bit more leeway in the DoF. If we add the usual 1 stop extra for digital pixel peepers, then we get a DoF of 1045m-infinite or 505m-infinite, 2 stops for the ueber critical 1458-infinite & 890-infinite (all ranges without/with diffraction included). This is sufficient to make something at 1.5 miles away to be slightly off "tack sharp". Executive summary - do not crop by a factor 10. (To do your own sums see here). Stephen Good luck with that type of logic verse actually having used the lens in question for thousands of images . If the camera lens never achieves true infinity you can get mush ...even at F8. But please feel free to draw conclusions based on these test images . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 21, 2012 Share #36 Posted May 21, 2012 At f/8 the crops of the test images do not seem to show any DoF loss of sharpness for objects "closer by" compared to objects "much further away", in accordance with the theory. Probably doing image analysis would make sense (.... well maybe not, whatever takes your fancy). Anyway at f/8 I would be surprised if there would be any major differences between "good" lenses. Wide open is a different matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiss leica fan Posted May 29, 2012 Author Share #37 Posted May 29, 2012 Dear Leica friends Once again thank you for your comments and recommendations on my previous test drive. Today the weather was nice and in the evening sun I have done further comparison photographs with M9 & APO Telyt 135mm and D800E & 2.8/70-200 VRII. This time I used a tripod, same ISO 160 and same aperture/time combinations on both cameras. I made several test shots with the same aperture/time combinations and slightly varied the focus to compensate for focus inaccuracy of the rangefinder/autofocus systems. I selected the best photographs of each combination for display. The photographs displayed below are crops with 10x linear enlargement. This is the same enlargement I used in the comparison 10 days ago. However, this time the object was in the center of the photograph while on the previous photos is was off center. The object is a house that is located in 1.8 miles distance from the camera. Below are the results. Kind regards Andreas 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! Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (5.6, 1/250, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (5.6, 1/250, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (4.0, 1/500, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (4.0, 1/500, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (3.4, 1/750, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (3.5, 1/640, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (5.6, 1/250, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (5.6, 1/250, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (4.0, 1/500, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (4.0, 1/500, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) Above is the M9 & APO Telyt 135 (3.4, 1/750, ISO 160, DNG, Lightroom 4) Above is the D800E & 2.8 70-200 VR II (135mm) (3.5, 1/640, ISO 160, VR off, Mirror up, RAW, Lightroom 4) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/179713-m9-vs-d800e-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2026524'>More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 30, 2012 Share #38 Posted May 30, 2012 Doing the sums for 135 mm, f/3.4, CoC 3.1 micron (10x crop) I get a DoF range of: 1096 m - infinite (focussed at infinite) 803 m - infinite (focussed at 3 km ~ 1.8 miles) Adding a 2 stops correction for the digital age (calculate at f/1.8 or so) still keeps the house and infinite in the DoF range, in both cases. Add some haze and air turbulence & everything is even less certain. I must admit, I am not quite sure what it is we want to demonstrate here, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted May 30, 2012 Share #39 Posted May 30, 2012 It looks like one can take nice pictures with both cameras... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 30, 2012 Share #40 Posted May 30, 2012 A possible conclusion is that at those distances, with lot of air in front, the pixel count is not so significant : apart the different color balance within the two lenses (which is a matter of taste) the differences are low, and surely "dampened" by distance. Can you make a test in the same manner (same ISO, aperture) but with a subject much nearer, to say in the 8-15 meters range ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.