IWC Doppel Posted July 28, 2012 Share #41 Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 3d-Kraft Give it up mate........ SLR Magic have lost all credibility and started with none, they have proved beyond doubt their lack of credibility and integrity from a customer, engineering and product perspective. Whilst you state independence from SLR Tragic, your interest has only been on this lens. The less said about SLR IMO the better Edited July 28, 2012 by IWC Doppel 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Hi IWC Doppel, Take a look here SLR Magic 50mm f0.95 M Lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 28, 2012 Share #42 Posted July 28, 2012 Whilst you state independence from SLR Tragic, your interest has only been on this lens. If you actually had checked my site you would have seen the real range that I have been working with (including several Noctiluxes). The CINE T0.95 is just one of many - but one of the most interesting and polarizing (not in an optical manner). Some people seem to need a label of a more famous brand on their equipment in order to feel good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 28, 2012 Share #43 Posted July 28, 2012 ... ... Some people seem to need a label of a more famous brand on their equipment in order to feel good. It's more like, some people feel good that they've a beautifully manufactured product which can be professionally fixed if something had to crop up, IMO ! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 28, 2012 Share #44 Posted July 28, 2012 It's more like, some people feel good that they've a beautifully manufactured product which can be professionally fixed if something had to crop up, IMO ! As I am not a collector, I prefer the look of the images that come out of a lens and not the beauty of a lens itself. So far SLR Magic offered repair or return for all non satisfied customers. How can you judge their professionality when you never dealt with them by yourself? The answer, if a lens can be fixed by that manufacturer still alive in 10 or 50 years can be given only in 10 or 50 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 28, 2012 Share #45 Posted July 28, 2012 ... ... How can you judge their professionality when you never dealt with them by yourself? The answer, if a lens can be fixed by that manufacturer still alive in 10 or 50 years can be given only in 10 or 50 years. Leica has been around, just like other professional manufacturers! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 28, 2012 Share #46 Posted July 28, 2012 If you calibrate a camera to one lens it could cause other lenses to be out of calibration with that specific camera. From my experience it is best to have all lenses and cameras calibrated to tolerances Leica deems as acceptable. This works for me with the 50/1.0 and the 50/0,95. It depends on your subjective tolerances if you still can live with that in an age where the pixel resolution of fullframe camera sensors is going up to 36 MP (D800E - let us see what the M10 will come with) and more. A good understanding of how all these tolerances interact and where you find the limits gives this article from Erwin Puts. Leica has been around, just like other professional manufacturers! Any discussion about the financial situation of Leica as well as success and failures of other professional camera manufacturers during the last 40 years would blast this thread and not help in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 28, 2012 Share #47 Posted July 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you actually had checked my site you would have seen the real range that I have been working with (including several Noctiluxes). The CINE T0.95 is just one of many - but one of the most interesting and polarizing (not in an optical manner). Some people seem to need a label of a more famous brand on their equipment in order to feel good. 3D-Kraft My comments are not about Leica snobbery or badges. If you had read my posts regarding the SLR you would be aware I WAS genuinely interested. People do make mistakes, this IMO was a very big one, sufficient to question their engineering quality from my perspective. All can read how they dealt with customers and the market and their integrity on that front, I am comfortable with my comments. I don't need to buy a lens to find it falls apart or be told that packaging is difficult before concluding. If someone does produce a more affordable M mount high speed 50 or 35 I will take some interest. But most will know and certainly anyone who has read publications like Erwin's analysis and books that it aint easy The only Polarisation is the fact that it was put up against the Noctilux as a genuine competitor at 1/3 of the price then the reality of SLR and this product hit home. I do think that the Noctilux is over priced in many respects, BUT you get what you pay for. I note one SLR magic on ebay again not selling at a fraction of the new price, happy customer ? A more reliable SLR Magic product perhaps SLR Magic x Toy Lens 26mm f/1.4 lens w/ Macro EPL2 GF2 | eBay Rgds 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 28, 2012 Share #48 Posted July 28, 2012 ?? Some people still live in the Mp wars. 36 Mp or 8 Mp, on a print it will not make a single bit of difference as far as focussing accuracy is concerned, and at sensible sizes - or large sizes at a sensible viewing distance not a whit of difference at all. Everything else is pixel peeping. It depends on your subjective tolerances if you still can live with that in an age where the pixel resolution of fullframe camera sensors is going up to 36 MP (D800E - let us see what the M10 will come with) and more. A good understanding of how all these tolerances interact and where you find the limits gives this article from Erwin Puts. Any discussion about the financial situation of Leica as well as success and failures of other professional camera manufacturers during the last 40 years would blast this thread and not help in any way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 28, 2012 Share #49 Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) :confused:If you mean an SLR by a "TTL finder", it will certainly be affected by focus shift, as it will be focussed at full aperture and stopped down for exposure. With an EVF or TTL finder, focus shift is not an issue for a lens with a manual aperture. You focus at the aperture in use. It is a problem for an RF camera. . I stated for lenses with manual aperture. The SLR magic lens does not have an Automatic aperture. "Auto-Aperture", "Pre-Set Aperture", "Manual Aperture"- terms not used much anymore outside of users of older type cameras. "TTL" Through The Lens. EVF, Mirrorless on the LCD, reflex Mirror cameras. Lenses with auto-aperture are an issue. Until SLR magic has a well-respected camera repairshop take delivery of a production lens and do a complete break-down report, this lens is best avoided. Based on the postings by unsatisfied customers in the now closed thread, I doubt anyone on this forum will be convinced by pictures of Leica products using adhesives in appropriate places. Edited July 28, 2012 by brianv 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 29, 2012 Share #50 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) ?? Some people still live in the Mp wars. 36 Mp or 8 Mp, on a print it will not make a single bit of difference as far as focussing accuracy is concerned, and at sensible sizes - or large sizes at a sensible viewing distance not a whit of difference at all. Everything else is pixel peeping. You never needed to crop your images (even when using primes?) or print on 120x80 cm? Why should people spend 8000$ or more on a MM (whose CCD resolution is comparable to a 24 MP Bayer sensor) or 6000$ on the latest 50mm Cron if 8 MP are enough? You think the M10 will stay at 18 MP? Until SLR magic has a well-respected camera repairshop take delivery of a production lens and do a complete break-down report, this lens is best avoided. Based on the postings by unsatisfied customers in the now closed thread, I doubt anyone on this forum will be convinced by pictures of Leica products using adhesives in appropriate places. Unless those unsatisfied people "reporting" in forums their alleged experience do not open up their entire conversation and as long as the other side can not comment on that, you only see one side of the medal. People tend to report negative experiences (even if they did not make them theirselves) but rarely go to public when satisfied. For me the question is not if such a lens should be avoided. It is more about if such a kind of biased threads should be avoided. Edited July 29, 2012 by 3D-Kraft.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 29, 2012 Share #51 Posted July 29, 2012 It depends on your subjective tolerances if you still can live with that in an age where the pixel resolution of fullframe camera sensors is going up to 36 MP (D800E - let us see what the M10 will come with) and more. .... ... 36 Mp or 8 Mp, on a print it will not make a single bit of difference as far as focussing accuracy is concerned, ... You never needed to crop your images (even when using primes?) or print on 120x80 cm? ... With due respect I think you've missed Jaap's point. If the subject in an image is out of focus then no amount of extra megapixels will rescue it. Cropping and resampling an image won't restore focus. Pete. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #52 Posted July 29, 2012 Unless those unsatisfied people "reporting" in forums their alleged experience do not open up their entire conversation and as long as the other side can not comment on that, you only see one side of the medal. People tend to report negative experiences (even if they did not make them theirselves) but rarely go to public when satisfied. For me the question is not if such a lens should be avoided. It is more about if such a kind of biased threads should be avoided. The best thing for this company to do is supply a production lens to someone like DAG or Sherry and ask them to disassemble it and do a report on it's construction. Until then, the testimony is from users that looked forward to using the lens and ended up demanding a refund. These people were not baiased, they were unhappy with the quality of the lens. At this point, all those that own and use this lens, and are happy with the M-Mount version of this lens now have an open thread to post their experience. No one has. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 29, 2012 Share #53 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) If the subject in an image is out of focus then no amount of extra megapixels will rescue it. I think we all know that it is the other way around. Blur caused by misfocus becomes less visible with less resolution. That's why depth of field is no absolute value and depends on your tolerance for a circle of confusion. The tolerances of rangefinders and the limitation of human eyes using it will simply not be able to catch up with the requirements of future's camera sensors - not speaking of tele focal lengts etc. If you can live with that - fine. But do not expect that from anybode else. Until then, the testimony is from users that looked forward to using the lens and ended up demanding a refund. These people were not baiased, they were unhappy with the quality of the lens. The question is if the testimony of these users is objective (which could only be judged if their whole case is neutrally reported and also the other side (SLR Magic) has the chance to comment on that). The next question is if their expectations were realistic. If you expect focus accuracy on any M9 at F1 it is simply not realistic. If you expect sharpness at F2.8 from edge to edge from an effect lens like that which is opimized for open aperture usage, it is simply not realistic. And the other question is in which degree you can project that on the company and their products in general. At the moment a lot of discussion is going on about the quality of the latest cameras from Nikon (D800/D800E/D4) because a certain percentage of it (production - no prototypes!) has an issue with the accuracy of one (the leftmost) of the 51 AF fields when fast wide angle lenses are used. The internet became a large amplifier for that because the voice of those who have an issue is by powers louder than those who do not have that issue. Some users still had that issue even after a first repair attempt. Many users thought, they had an issue with their camera as well just because they read about that it and started bashing on Nikon and all other camera manufacturers without applying tests on their particular sample. Physicians have a tellingly term for that... So we must think now that the D800(E) is a bad camera and Nikon an incapable company? At this point, all those that own and use this lens, and are happy with the M-Mount version of this lens now have an open thread to post their experience. No one has. I guess, you mean the LM-Version because the CINE version that I own has an M-mount (but no RF-coupling) as well. And you really think, when no one reports positive experience with the LM-version here in this forum that this is representitive? Edited July 29, 2012 by 3D-Kraft.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 29, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 29, 2012 I think we all know that it is the other way around. ... Regrettably "we" don't if you're including me. Are you now presuming to speak for everyone? ... Blur caused by misfocus becomes less visible with less resolution. ... But you've been talking about more resolution from more megapixels. If you were to take it to extremes then I suppose that blur would be invisible in a 2 pixel by 2 pixel (note: not megapixel) picture. But then you'd only have black and white squares so blur or image becomes irrelevant. Pete. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 29, 2012 Share #55 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) And you really think, when no one reports positive experience with the LM-version here in this forum that this is representitive? Yes, I firmly believe if someone owned and used the RF coupled lens on their Leica M Mount camera, and were happy with it, they would report back to this forum, on this thread, with many images taken with the lens. I do not own one, you do not own one, so we are left with the testimony of the owners that are unhappy. Most people will take their testimony to heart, and not waste their money on this lens. If you feel so strongly about this lens, buy the RF coupled version of this lens. Use it for 6 months to a year, report back on a regular basis. Until then, you are in no position to judge it or those that are unhappy with their purchase. It's up to the company to prove that the lens is well made, give a production unit to a qualified shop to do a full and professional report. Until then, no one should waste their money. Of course if someone is really a firm believer, they could buy one and send it to DAG or Sherry for evaluation. Edited July 30, 2012 by brianv 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 30, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 30, 2012 But you've been talking about more resolution from more megapixels. If you were to take it to extremes then I suppose that blur would be invisible in a 2 pixel by 2 pixel (note: not megapixel) picture. But then you'd only have black and white squares so blur or image becomes irrelevant. Pete. You implied I had argued that more resolution will rescue misfocus. That is a misrepresentation. Those who read what I wrote about tolerable COFs (circles of confusion) propably understand better, what I mean. Yes, I firmly believe if someone owned and used the RF coupled lens on their Leica M Mount camera, and were happy with it, they would report back to this forum, on this thread, with many images taken with the lens. I assume checking this flickr group with samples of the LM version and talking to their members might be more helpful than waiting here for comments: Flickr: SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm T0.95 LM If you feel so strongly about this lens, buy the RF coupled version of this lens. Use it for 6 months to a year, report back on a regular basis. Until then, you are in no position to judge it or those that are unhappy with their purchase. I already explained why I would not buy the RF coupled version and that this position has nothing to do with that lens. But as I recognized how people especially in this forum react on critical discussions about limitations of that technology, it will make no sense to continue with that. I do not judge the comments of those who are unhappy more than you. It is just a question on how complete these informations are given. I think anything that must be said, has been said and wish you a good time with your 0.95s for whatever you already have decided or may decide in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 30, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 30, 2012 I am not going to spend $5000 to find out if this lens is good or bad, would not spend that much on a new lens at all. I've bought some lenses just because the reports on them were so bad. The Canon 50/0.95 was described as "worse than using a coke bottle for a lens". I bought one for $200, found it was quite good. Very little vignetting, of course it used a 72mm filter ring and the front element was massive. I also bought several Russian lenses, especially Jupiter-3's. Found out they were quite good after some adjusting. The turn-off for this lens is the statement that Loctite was used in place of screws in critical parts of the mechanism. It just does not hold up on a large and heavy lens, under heavy use. The Canon 50/0.95 focus mount is still solid after 50 years. It has room for screws and retaining rings in all of the proper places. The optical module is very heavy on this lens. The SLRMagic needs to redesign the mechanics of the mount to match the quality of the optics. This is especially critical for an RF camera where tolerances need to be tighter than 0.01mm for a lens of this speed. SLR and Mirrorless cameras: not as critical. Proper operation on an RF camera is not going to occur with a mechanical fixture that does not use guide rails, retaining rings, set screws but rather relies on Loctite. This is where the company could enlist the services of some long-time RF technicians to make suggestions for correcting the design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 30, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 30, 2012 You implied I had argued that more resolution will rescue misfocus. That is a misrepresentation. Those who read what I wrote about tolerable COFs (circles of confusion) propably understand better, what I mean. ... It's perhaps a misinterpretation not a deliberate misrepresentation. If I (and others) have misunderstood the point you're trying to make then I'd be grateful if you'd re-state it more clearly. (I'm familiar with CoC and the Puts writing in the link you provided but I regret that it hasn't illuminated your point for me, which leads back to Algrove's point about the folly of calibrating a camera's rangefinder to a specific lens.) Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted July 31, 2012 Share #59 Posted July 31, 2012 I've bought some lenses just because the reports on them were so bad. The Canon 50/0.95 was described as "worse than using a coke bottle for a lens". I bought one for $200, found it was quite good. Very little vignetting, of course it used a 72mm filter ring and the front element was massive. I also bought several Russian lenses, especially Jupiter-3's. Found out they were quite good after some adjusting. You and anyone else located in the northern part of Germany is invited for a comparison shoot of these lenses with the HyperPrime T0.95. I am quite sure that these lenses can not catch up even with a Nokton 50/1.1 and how much of a difference between a Nokton 50/1.1 and the HyperPrime still is, was shown already by Steve Huff. Although not targeting at, the only serious competitor for the T0.95 is the Noctilux. The SLRMagic needs to redesign the mechanics of the mount to match the quality of the optics. This is especially critical for an RF camera where tolerances need to be tighter than 0.01mm for a lens of this speed. ... This is where the company could enlist the services of some long-time RF technicians to make suggestions for correcting the design. As said, I can not speak for the RF (LM-)version which is not of interest for me due to the limitations of that system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricC Posted August 1, 2012 Share #60 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) As said, I can not speak for the RF (LM-) version which is not of interest for me due to the limitations of that system. Please forgive me for such a naive question, but why are you posting on this forum then? Edited August 1, 2012 by EricC 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts