lct Posted August 5, 2012 Share #141 Posted August 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why 1/4000s for the Nikon and 1/2000s for the Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Hi lct, Take a look here disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
frogfish Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share #142 Posted August 5, 2012 The second is 1/4000s. Sorry, 1/4000 for the Nikon 1/2000 for the Leica don´t know why that happened, but I tested also different exposures, made no difference at all. Heiko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share #143 Posted August 5, 2012 OK, apparently the different exposure causes quite a bit of confusion. If it´s not cloudy tomorrow I will take the shots again. Same exposure, same aperture, same angle, same light. But sorry folks, one is a Nikon and a 28, the other one a Leica and a 35, nothing I can change here. But don´t you think you miss the point here? Aren´t you as astound as I was when I saw the results? "proves nothing"? I don´t think so. Here another picture from the Nikon, in my opinion optically great, then a Leica one in a church, even the window light from a cloudy day produced the problem + a crop for better visibility. (grain added) cheers, Heiko 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2080180'>More sharing options...
lct Posted August 5, 2012 Share #144 Posted August 5, 2012 ...Same exposure, same aperture, same angle, same light... Yes please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted August 5, 2012 Share #145 Posted August 5, 2012 I see from a few responses in this thread, it seems that the degree of chromatic aberration in blown out highlights varies from camera to camera and some M9 sensors seem more afflicted than others. If this is a M9 sensor issue that is not equal in all M9 camera's is there any solution offered by Leica by sending the camera in for adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share #146 Posted August 5, 2012 I am not sure that this is a senor problem. It is most pronounced with open aperture. The more the aperture is closed the better the result gets. By 5.6 it starts to be usable, better at 11. The amount of light hitting the sensor stays the same (with adjusted exposure time of course) heiko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted August 6, 2012 Share #147 Posted August 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I understand it is most noticeable with the newer summilux lenses wide open at 1.4 and diminishes with each stop down but it also seems related to the M9 sensor and it does not seem that every M9 has the problem to the same degree from some of the posts here 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2012 Share #148 Posted August 6, 2012 It varies with the raw converter as well - ACR is much better than Aperture and C1 beats both. The better the lens responds to microcontrast, the more one will see this kind of effect. A tradeoff I fear. Get a softer lens and you will see less of these edge effects. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted August 6, 2012 Share #149 Posted August 6, 2012 I see from a few responses in this thread, it seems that the degree of chromatic aberration in blown out highlights varies from camera to camera and some M9 sensors seem more afflicted than others. If this is a M9 sensor issue that is not equal in all M9 camera's is there any solution offered by Leica by sending the camera in for adjustment. I sent mine for this issue. The reply is not what I would expect from Leica then: "We suggest not to shoot against the sun at wider aperture" and I got my camera back. Anyway, I repeat once again that purple fringing is a sensor issue, and it shows more evidently with fast and high contrast lenses (in high contrast scenes). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 6, 2012 Share #150 Posted August 6, 2012 But sorry folks, one is a Nikon and a 28, the other one a Leica and a 35, nothing I can change here. The Leica lens is just too sharp, has too much correction for what you want. Oh, and the tattooed girl really does have purple fringe in real life. Have you tried a Softar filter or a soft lens? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #151 Posted August 6, 2012 Ok, here are the two photos I promised to take. Same angle, same object. same ISO, same aperture, same exposure. See for yourself, judge for yourself. both ISO 200, aperture 1.8, 1/4000 of a second shot directly into the sun, with the sun in the upper right corner 1: Leica 35 Summilux FLE 2: Leica crop 3: Nikon 28/1.8 4: nikon crop cheers, Heiko 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182785-disappointed-by-summilux-35-fle/?do=findComment&comment=2080917'>More sharing options...
frogfish Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #152 Posted August 6, 2012 Hi I am still not sure if it is just a sensor thing. It is postulated that the FLE is too sharp, good, corrected etc... but my Voigtländer produce far more CA then the FLE on the same body. (50/1.1 and 35/1.4 MC) Heiko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted August 6, 2012 Share #153 Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Ok, here are the two photos I promised to take. Same angle, same object. same ISO, same aperture, same exposure. See for yourself, judge for yourself. The Leica picture is sharp as tack, has magenta fringes in the foreground (which are easy to remove in post-processing) and virtually no fringes in the background. The Nikon picture is sharp as Lomo, has orange fringes in the foreground (which are harder to remove in post-processing) and lots of green fringes in the background. I'll take the Summilux, you can keep the Nikkor, thank you. The Nikon picture may look better at first sight—but when properly post-processed, the Leica picture will turn out better by an order of magnitude. Umm—the flare ... okay, that's not so nice but in the next picture, the Nikkor may flare more and the Summilux less. Flares come and go with tiny changes in the angle of light. Generally, my Summilux-M 35 mm Asph is very resistant to flare (albeit not totally immune—no lens is). Edited August 6, 2012 by 01af 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted August 6, 2012 Share #154 Posted August 6, 2012 Interesting I have to say if I had to choose a lens/camera combination to shoot that image I wouldn't take the M9 and 35mm Summilux ASPH.FLE, post processing in mind or not. I guess the reality is either your M9 has sensor issues or the combination is inherently problematic. I'd value Leica's thoughts. It may well be the circumstantial combination in which case perhaps a softer lens might be better ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 6, 2012 Share #155 Posted August 6, 2012 Indeed this is not satisfactory at all to say the least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 6, 2012 Share #156 Posted August 6, 2012 My first thought is why one would want to take an image like this in the first place? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 6, 2012 Share #157 Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Do you mean these ones? Because they are nice, or rather they should be. Edited August 6, 2012 by lct 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #158 Posted August 6, 2012 Hi Jaap, have a look on my web side if you got the time. schmidt-weddingphoto.com I shoot a lot against the sun wide open, just like the look. cheers, heiko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 6, 2012 Share #159 Posted August 6, 2012 My first thought is why one would want to take an image like this in the first place? That was my thought as well. If you want purple fringing, try shooting a Noct wide open against the light, or with highlights. I can't really think of a circumstance where I'd want to shoot wide against a strong light source - the two images above are not really pictures I'd ever take. Fringing is a fact of life to be managed and avoided - so much of the rest of the Summilux image is really good. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 7, 2012 Share #160 Posted August 7, 2012 So Leicas are limited tools which are not made to shoot against the light whilst Lomos can do it? Hard to believe, folks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now