Paulus Posted October 29, 2014 Share #21 Posted October 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Enrique, I had a similar problem with my M and my Noctilux but after they had been calibrated at Solms I can again achieve pin-sharp focus. If you have not used your Noctilux on a digital Leica before your M-P then this may be the problem because digital sensors are a flat plane and show up tiny mis-focus that would be lost in the depth of a film's emulsion. Pete. You might calibrate your lenses! If your lens is well calibrated, hold still and high shutter speed >750. Practice and the pictures must be sharp. 1,4 at 750. blow up: Rotterdam M... in Black and White - pauljoostenfotograaf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Hi Paulus, Take a look here Problems with my M-P 240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pieterpronk Posted October 29, 2014 Share #22 Posted October 29, 2014 Having both the MM and the M, I definitely find the M harder to get perfectly sharp. It's not calibration. And yes I can achieve perfection when I set up perfectly, but I just find the MM easier to achieve perfection with. Shutter speed is imo a big factor. And I also find that parts of an image can be perfect while other parts drift in and out of perfection. Then again I find most images perfectly useable even when not perfect at 100% pixel size on my big monitor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted October 30, 2014 Having both the MM and the M, I definitely find the M harder to get perfectly sharp. It's not calibration. And yes I can achieve perfection when I set up perfectly, but I just find the MM easier to achieve perfection with. Shutter speed is imo a big factor. And I also find that parts of an image can be perfect while other parts drift in and out of perfection. Then again I find most images perfectly useable even when not perfect at 100% pixel size on my big monitor. Exactly, they are all sharp.....but some are sharper than others Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted October 30, 2014 Share #24 Posted October 30, 2014 First, the obvious: if you feel miserable with your M-P, just get that M9 back and save the extra cash I agree with the comment from lct where pixel peeping images at 100% is not that interesting and super shallow DoF is not that natural. It isn't, it's mostly a way of showing people that you have a really expensive lens in your bag . For me, personally, those are the kinds of things people do when they take photography as a 'techincal hobby' rather than taking photography as an art and as an expression of one's observation. And that invariably results in not so interesing photos as opposed to the second way of seeing photography which, if you don't screw up your technique completely, usually results in interesing images. As for the B&W preference, I would have a hard time investing in a B&W only camera, supposing I could only have one. Of course if you could have both, the question wouldn't present itself. But the versatility of using a color camera for both color and mono images is in my view the better deal. And what makes you think you won't be pationate about color again in 6 months from now? These things that we fall in love with, they tend to change over time, at least with me. And also, listen to your wife, it's usually wise 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulsydaus Posted October 30, 2014 Share #25 Posted October 30, 2014 I would not advise you get the 50 APO... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 30, 2014 Share #26 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Some thoughts on the M-P:It is too sharp - 90% of my photos used to be sharp. Now less than 50% are critically sharp. I .. Enrique, I read this thread on the way , but I do not quite understand what you mean "Too sharp" or too many "edges" sharp or "scalpel cut lines" , but it's characteristic of digital "smoothing" software , right ? I may be missing something.... anyway I think too sharp images are not real In the case if it's not this , sorry for my intervention here in this thread Best Henry Edited October 30, 2014 by Doc Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share #27 Posted October 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi guys, my post was written a bit toungue-in cheek. I love the M-P, I was just trying to illustrate that it has created a new set of challenges which have surprised me and a different way of looking at photography. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 30, 2014 Share #28 Posted October 30, 2014 ... super shallow DoF is not that natural. It isn't, ... Hold up a finger 4 inches (10 cm) in front of your nose and focus on it with your eyes. Now, without moving your focus, see the objects beyond your finger and you'll notice how natural shallow DoF is. … it's mostly a way of showing people that you have a really expensive lens in your bag . For me, personally, those are the kinds of things people do when they take photography as a 'techincal hobby' rather than taking photography as an art and as an expression of one's observation. And that invariably results in not so interesing photos ... There are those who would say that that is an argument posed by those who don't understand fast lenses and how to draw the viewer's attention to where you want using shallow DoF as a tool. I couldn't possibly comment. And not only expensive lenses have shallow DoF, for example, Carl Zeiss Jena 50/1.5 Sonnar, Canon 50/1.2, Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton etc. Some people like shallow DoF and others don't. Neither preference is a crime or merits derision in my opinion. Pete. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mca Posted October 30, 2014 Share #29 Posted October 30, 2014 Hold up a finger 4 inches (10 cm) in front of your nose and focus on it with your eyes. Now, without moving your focus, see the objects beyond your finger and you'll notice how natural shallow DoF is. There are those who would say that that is an argument posed by those who don't understand fast lenses and how to draw the viewer's attention to where you want using shallow DoF as a tool. I couldn't possibly comment. And not only expensive lenses have shallow DoF, for example, Carl Zeiss Jena 50/1.5 Sonnar, Canon 50/1.2, Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton etc. Some people like shallow DoF and others don't. Neither preference is a crime or merits derision in my opinion. Pete. I understand your point of view and don't disagree. But I just think super shallow DoF is over rated and over used. I like shallow when it serves a purpose like separating subject from background or one layer from another. But when you split your subject in parts because you abused it, I personally don't like it and always feel that it's the technique invading the creative portion of the image. It's like "I do it because I can" rather than "I do it because it means something". But of course it's all personal opinions and to each his own and I fully respect all the others. Yes there are not so expensive lenses with very fast apertures, you're totally right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 1, 2014 Share #30 Posted November 1, 2014 Enrique, the challenges of the M are greater than previous bodies as you describe. The system is a challenge with each new piece of equipment added, especially lenses. When focus is in back or front of the intended subject the camera, lens or both need calibration. It's been 3 1/2 years since returning to Leica for me and I have a constant stream of lenses going to New Jersey for calibration. Concerning shutter speed and sharpness if I can get to 1/250 then sharpness will equal a tripod when using a 50mm lens, different abilities, subject and criteria make for some widely varying claims here. Also 3 quick images of the same subject will give you one that is sharper, a 33% success rate and a definite improvement over 50% Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Almulla Posted November 1, 2014 Share #31 Posted November 1, 2014 I have since moved from pixel peeping and being obsessive compulsive about sharpness to accepting "sharp enough" depending on the subject. Now I can't bare to think how much things could be worse (or may be better) with the future generations; M360, M720, M1000 Enrique just wait for the frustrations that you'll get with future sensors Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted November 1, 2014 Share #32 Posted November 1, 2014 Exactly, they are all sharp.....but some are sharper than others Can you show some exemples? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #33 Posted November 1, 2014 Enrique, the challenges of the M are greater than previous bodies as you describe. The system is a challenge with each new piece of equipment added, especially lenses. When focus is in back or front of the intended subject the camera, lens or both need calibration. It's been 3 1/2 years since returning to Leica for me and I have a constant stream of lenses going to New Jersey for calibration. Concerning shutter speed and sharpness if I can get to 1/250 then sharpness will equal a tripod when using a 50mm lens, different abilities, subject and criteria make for some widely varying claims here. Also 3 quick images of the same subject will give you one that is sharper, a 33% success rate and a definite improvement over 50% Daryl, I agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #34 Posted November 1, 2014 I have since moved from pixel peeping and being obsessive compulsive about sharpness to accepting "sharp enough" depending on the subject. Now I can't bare to think how much things could be worse (or may be better) with the future generations; M360, M720, M1000 Enrique just wait for the frustrations that you'll get with future sensors Yes! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share #35 Posted November 1, 2014 Can you show some exemples? Paulus, I will try to post some when I get back home. Travelling at the moment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 2, 2014 Share #36 Posted November 2, 2014 Does anyone know what distance contact lenses should be optimized for to focus a rangefider? There was a thread which touched on this but I did not really get to a conclusion. In case this wasn't answered already…the focus patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m. Of course it helps to be able to see entire subject clearly, too…with and without the camera…so contacts (or glasses) adjusted specifically for 2m may still not be generally optimal. Always best to try and see what works best for you. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted November 8, 2014 Share #37 Posted November 8, 2014 Some people like shallow DoF and others don't. Neither preference is a crime or merits derision in my opinion. Well put! Each potential image is unique and demands a different approach, depending on the artistic temperament of the photographer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALD Posted November 8, 2014 Share #38 Posted November 8, 2014 I suggest you take your wife to a day spa, get a couples massage, a facial treatment and body scrub, a long sauna and spa session and a walk in the countryside and a few early nights to bed to get a couple nights sleep. Then your wife will be happy enough for a while to allow you some time to get your computer in order and you will better be able to think about buying the monochrome replacement when it appears soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdfloresjr Posted June 17, 2016 Share #39 Posted June 17, 2016 yup, you really need to shoot at a higher shutter speed. With street photography you may even need to go higher. The sensor is so sensitive you can only take advantage of high resolution at lower iso in well controlled environment, especially with the Noctilux .95. In my case the largest size I can print is 20"X30" (color/pasteboard). To go to larger size will likely involve complex technical work in the lab. In my opinion film is still king of keeping the resolution intact on larger than life prints. Please correct me if I am wrong. Sleepless in Chicago Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.