Overgaard Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share #21 Posted June 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Peter, All my Noctilux photos are wide open at f/0.95. Only if I had to do a group portrait or something would I change it to get all faces in focus. The usual concern is that you miss focus, and one can be sure that one some times. Just as you will with most manual focus lenses. The subject move, or you move. It happens with all lenses. The photo of Peter Karbe is with the old 50mm Summicron-M f/2.0 Version II (1964) which Peter actually say was really good, when we spoke of the new 50mm APO-Summicron (good to hear him say that). The 50mm Summilux-M ASPH has never appealed to me. I see it is good, but it is not my look somehow. Next article will be up in a few days, and then we move onto R lenses for the M in the third article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2013 Posted June 2, 2013 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here New Leica M 240 article at overgaard.dk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IWC Doppel Posted June 4, 2013 Share #22 Posted June 4, 2013 A very nice read and one that gives me some comfort in Leica's decision to move away from CCD. These are the first set of pictures where no 'jarring' occurred when looking at the images. I can only assume you have spent the time to understand the M and adapted post processing accordingly. Perhaps the choice of lens assists here too ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 4, 2013 Share #23 Posted June 4, 2013 Thanks, a very appreciable reading, and a comfortable message on colors, too... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFH1022 Posted June 4, 2013 Share #24 Posted June 4, 2013 I am very disappointed that Thorsten side-stepped the issue of color. Of the entire set by him, the only one i found appealing was the first shot, of his daughter in front of the Eiffel Tower. Mainly because its palette was somewhat similar to what I can get from the M9. Both M8.2 and M9's colors are particularly lovely under bright sun. I have not seen anything that can convince me of the superiority of 240 over the 9 in terms of image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #25 Posted June 4, 2013 A very nice read and one that gives me some comfort in Leica's decision to move away from CCD. These are the first set of pictures where no 'jarring' occurred when looking at the images. I can only assume you have spent the time to understand the M and adapted post processing accordingly. Perhaps the choice of lens assists here too ? What do you mean by 'jarring' ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #26 Posted June 4, 2013 I am very disappointed that Thorsten side-stepped the issue of color. Of the entire set by him, the only one i found appealing was the first shot, of his daughter in front of the Eiffel Tower. Mainly because its palette was somewhat similar to what I can get from the M9. Both M8.2 and M9's colors are particularly lovely under bright sun. I have not seen anything that can convince me of the superiority of 240 over the 9 in terms of image quality. I think if you read the article, there is no talk of superiority in colors. Just that these are the colors, so you deal with what is. You look for tools that works for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 4, 2013 Share #27 Posted June 4, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) .... I have not seen anything that can convince me of the superiority of 240 over the 9 in terms of image quality. Neither do I, to be honest (*): but anyone, I think, has a perspective of his own : in my case, having not a M9, but only the good old ( digitally speaking...) M8, my real point is if I can expect from M, besides its obvious pluses given by LV and EVF (I am a longtime Visoflex user...) , also a certain step in IQ towards M8 : I'm fairly convinced about this (and also about a step in usage above 640 ASA), while admit that if I had a M9 my view could be different... I do not know if the capability to use more comfortably my Teles / bellows etc would be sufficient to take an anyway costly decision. (*) with the important detail that my M9 to M "comparision" is based ONLY on PC views and not any print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted June 4, 2013 Share #28 Posted June 4, 2013 First of all I, for one, appreciate the emails. They alert me to something new on the site and save me wasting time going there if nothing is new. Thorsten's insights are appreciated. In the YMMV catagory I've found the Noct rendering to not be my cup of tea but the Lux ASPH is just the ticket. I also see the size and weight of the Noct as a detriment, most especially in street shooting. But the bottom line, is Thorsten does all of us a favor by making his experiences available on the internet at no charge. There are some who offer much less and charge for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted June 4, 2013 Share #29 Posted June 4, 2013 I am very disappointed that Thorsten side-stepped the issue of color. Of the entire set by him, the only one i found appealing was the first shot, of his daughter in front of the Eiffel Tower. Mainly because its palette was somewhat similar to what I can get from the M9. Both M8.2 and M9's colors are particularly lovely under bright sun. I have not seen anything that can convince me of the superiority of 240 over the 9 in terms of image quality. I have read and enjoyed all of the M240 reviews posted by pro's shooting with M's, and I believe it is accurate to infer that not ONE of them has suggested that IQ is superior from the M240 versus the M9. Not one. The common thread is that the M240 is a comfortable body to work with, even if OVF is all one ever uses. Thorsten's review presents this conclusion very well, in a personal yet expert tone. I found that his lovely Noctilux portfolio served as a fine, indirect answer to complaints about M240 color rendering vs. M9... he shows that the M240 delivers a broad, workable palette just like the M9 did (and IMHO certainly broader than my M8u). The point of all of the reviews is that one should find a personal fit of M body and selection of lenses by shooting them. Thorsten's comments, for example, serve only as starting point to plot your own sampling of what you should try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 4, 2013 Share #30 Posted June 4, 2013 I have not seen anything that can convince me of the superiority of the M (Typ 240) over the M9 in terms of image quality. The question whether the M (Typ 240) is superior to the M9 in terms of image quality is totally irrelevant. I always feel that people who ask this question never have actually used a camera. In the meantime, I have read Thorsten's new M article—not via newsletter but on his website, i. e. in the old-fashioned way which I prefer. As usual, there are a couple of points I disagree with, many points I agree with, and a few points I tremendously enjoyed reading. Thank you, Thorsten, for bringing it to us! One of the nicest points, to me, was a side remark about the new Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm 1:2 Asph lens. Thorsten says, "the main quality, in my opinion, is that there seems to be no lens. You simply get the scenery in front of you, without alterations, without anything missing." This made me smile because it's exactly what I said about this lens one year ago: no lens, just picture. I also love Thorsten's aphorism, "It is not so much about what the camera can do, but what you can do with the camera." So true. And this immediately leads to the "one photo at a time" thing and how a camera is supposed to support a photographer's style, intentions, efforts, motivation, and enthusiasm. If it does then it's a good camera. If it doesn't then it's a bad camera. As simple as that. A camera is not better than another just because it has more megapixels, more bells, and more whistles. (A corollary to this, by the way, is that one person's good camera can, and often will, be another person's bad camera ... but I digress.) And that's why DFH1022's comment is so far off the mark. In order to decide if you want the new M (Typ 240)—or any new camera for that matter—the question is not whether the image quality exceeds that of the previous model. The question is, does it offer features, characteristics, and functions that will help you getting the pictures that you want to get. To me, video does not but faster buffer, smoother operation, better high-ISO performance, and live view definitely do. So ordering the new M (Typ 240) was a no-brainer for me, entirely independent from what the image quality will be (assuming, of course, it won't be rotten). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 4, 2013 Share #31 Posted June 4, 2013 A few comments 1. Thanks much for posting, a great read as usual 2. The problem with you, is that you can make awesome pictures with any camera - so have to focus on your handling points 3. Be careful saying you hate video. Many "profs" now integrate it with their work. I agree on the overhead and also that the M240 implementation leaves something to be desired but this could generate some negative heat 4. Its good to see you like the M240 - are you going to still use M9s, or is it M240 all the way now for you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #32 Posted June 4, 2013 A few comments 3. Be careful saying you hate video. Many "profs" now integrate it with their work. I agree on the overhead and also that the M240 implementation leaves something to be desired but this could generate some negative heat 3. But I do actually hate video. It's too much equipment and too many hours of editing work doing it properly. I don't hate the M240 video, just video making in general. The videographers was very angry about that when the first article (page 35) was released, because that is what they do and of course want to know how the M240 works for them. So that's why the next article (page 36) is M240 used by a videographer to make video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted June 4, 2013 Share #33 Posted June 4, 2013 I also love Thorsten's aphorism, "It is not so much about what the camera can do, but what you can do with the camera." So true. …and so JFK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFH1022 Posted June 4, 2013 Share #34 Posted June 4, 2013 The question whether the M (Typ 240) is superior to the M9 in terms of image quality is totally irrelevant. I always feel that people who ask this question never have actually used a camera. ...... Of course image quality matters in photography! Especially when comparing cameras. Although that is not to say that a blurry picture can not be very artistic. Humans are tremendously adaptive. If a camera offers genuine advances in image quality, then people will adapt and ignore some design shortcomings in order to use that camera. That's why many people are willing to sacrifice portabilty for a full-frame 35mm cam, or even a medium format cam. While i appreciate Thorsten sharing his views on M240, I am indeed disappointed in seeing that he spent an entire section talking about the gain from 2 to 3 fps, while there was so little discussion of what many M9 users eagerly want to know: is there a difference in color rendering. I care about his view on this matter precisely because I respect his views on such matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delcredere Posted June 4, 2013 Share #35 Posted June 4, 2013 Thank you for the article - a stroll with a helpful expert friend passing on what he knows in a simple, unaffected way. I look forward to the next installment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #36 Posted June 4, 2013 …and so JFK. "I never have any objection to your translating, circulating, even claiming for yourself, my articles" - Theodore Sorensen (JFK speechwriter) He would have been proud of me. But that's another story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #37 Posted June 4, 2013 While i appreciate Thorsten sharing his views on M240, I am indeed disappointed in seeing that he spent an entire section talking about the gain from 2 to 3 fps, while there was so little discussion of what many M9 users eagerly want to know: is there a difference in color rendering. I care about his view on this matter precisely because I respect his views on such matters. More is coming. One step at a time. But I will say that comparing is an initial thing. Once you decide to work with a tool, you have to stop comparing and start making that tool work (and if you find out you can't, go back to what worked or find another tool). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 4, 2013 Share #38 Posted June 4, 2013 What do you mean by 'jarring' ? Not fitting with my expectations of a natural image with and looks unpleasant. I often look around at the real world critically and as I sit at my desk and look at the office I can see remarkable detail, yet nothing looks 'etched' or synthetic (Not unsurprisingly !).If I stare and assess what I am seeing in real life it has all the real world elements that ensure I believe the positioning and perspective of the scene. I am unsure what clues there are that allow my brain to interpret successfully, but I never see exaggerated edges and distance is easy to judge. I find some digital images look very false and don't capture the essence of the real world, I am not personally after accuracy per se but I do want the clues there to provide reality of the moment. I also suspect that the graduation from an edge, particularly on curved surfaces are critical for the illusion to work. For me the M9 does this very well and other digital cameras seem less good at this. The images I took with the 240 (a handful) did this far less successfully than the M9 and the nub of whatever the differences were the M9 looked more natural with better dimensionality and to my eyes more appealing. I accept I might be technically 'wrong' but this has some parallels in audio where the clues that you get from a good hifi that has the ability to appear more 'live' is somehow more subtle than what you can actually hear in terms of detail and resolution. The 'detail' comparison and particularly edge detail is the same, where some exaggeration on first acquaintance can mislead (over sharp). Like the image in my office the sound of a real sax is not etched or shrill but voluptuous, tonally rich and airy. Your images for me didnt 'jarr' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share #39 Posted June 4, 2013 Ok IWC that make sense. You mean jitter as when one buy an expensive flatscreen television and all image suddenly look blurry, over-sharpened and wrong colors at the same time. Ha ha. As for my editing, I import in LR 3.6 and use the basic tools. I don't add sharpening because one does not need to. Also, if one add sharpening to the "final picture" that will be too sharp in the future where screens get sharper and sharper (compared to the screens used on the 1990ies and you know what I mean). Most magazines, ad agencies, etc want to apply their own sharpening to all images they use to get an even look that fits their printing or publishing method. Hence they don't want over-sharpened images. The LR 3.6 in my opinion has appropriate tools whereas the LR4 is too much (going from 0-100 in LR 3.6 to -100 to +100 in LR 4. Other than that, nothing unusual or special about the editing. Easy to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 4, 2013 Share #40 Posted June 4, 2013 As for my editing, I import in LR 3.6 and use the basic tools. I don't add sharpening because one does not need to. Also, if one add sharpening to the "final picture" that will be too sharp in the future where screens get sharper and sharper (compared to the screens used on the 1990ies and you know what I mean). (snip) The LR 3.6 in my opinion has appropriate tools whereas the LR4 is too much (going from 0-100 in LR 3.6 to -100 to +100 in LR 4. I know you prefer LR3.6, and that makes total sense given your familiarity and comfort level with it. While you say "LR 4 has too much," others may prefer to describe that as added flexibility. Nobody dictates how much of any given control one has to use. And there is no question that the algorithms produced for LR 4 offer finer and more independent control than LR 3 as explained in this LuLa article, which includes explanation by Eric Chan. You like the simplicity of LR 3.6 (and have described elsewhere that you've streamlined its use and that you don't take advantage of its full capability). Nothing wrong with that; whatever works. LR 4.4 has more controls, and more ability to fine tune (both globally and locally), but that doesn't mean it can't also be used simply, just as you use LR 3.6. I'm not arguing for one or the other; merely pointing out to others who may not have tried either version that there are differences that one can choose to embrace or avoid. As far as sharpening, why should one care if monitors might get sharper in the future? One has no idea what his/her work looks like on someone else's monitor; one creates work that looks good for them and hopes for the best when viewed elsewhere. Beyond that, if all someone does is display for the web, there's no compelling need for the M240, at least not because of IQ, IMHO. [i personally care about prints, and sharpen accordingly, both for screen and translation to print.] Different strokes. Bottom line, you use your tools...camera and software...very well based on your needs and preferences, and that's all that matters. Your reviews are appreciated; that is, once they become available to non-subscibers. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.