01af Posted November 11, 2014 Share #21 Posted November 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 75 mm Summilux is indeed a lovely lens. Yes, definitely. "... is that they see shadow details more crisp than the human eye. The 75 mm Summilux doesn't have this ability to see in the dark ..." I own the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph and Summilux-M 50 mm Asph [...] the new Asph lenses are sharper and maintain the details slightly better when pulling shadows on post-processing ... I think this is exactly what Thorsten meant. Higher contrast leads to finer separation of delicate shadow tones, among other things. The lower contrast of older lenses tends to crush the shadow details. "... and that is what a future Summilux-M 75 mm 1:1.4 Asph would mainly improve." Here I wonder if Thorsten is speculating out of the blue, or does he actually know something we don't? I wouldn't be surprised if a new Apo-Summilux-M 75 mm Asph (with floating elements, no less) was under development right now ... but I'm not aware of any actual hints or rumours to this effect anywhere. And it would most likely mean the discontinuation of the Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm Asph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Hi 01af, Take a look here New article on overgaard.dk - "Leica 75mm Summilux-M f/1.4". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mirekti Posted November 11, 2014 Share #22 Posted November 11, 2014 One more discussion like this and we might not see any more contributions by Mr. O. I truly hope this wont happen. I really like his site which has lots of useful information, and I've learnt a lot from it. This time he made few mistakes so what. He should edit it a bit, thank Olaf for correcting him and go on. Nothing big happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 11, 2014 Share #23 Posted November 11, 2014 One more discussion like this and we might not see any more contributions by Mr. O. He's "just" an artist. Best GEOFG I rather doubt that. I think Thorsten is secure enough in his undisputed expertise to welcome realistic critique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 11, 2014 Share #24 Posted November 11, 2014 Olaf 'hand grenades' and lobbed regularly at the unwary on this forum. Thorsten will no doubt be aware of this and take them in his stride. Olaf is our guardian against the 'throw-away unsubstantiated statement' ...... no doubt someone will catch him out sometime .... but I fear it won't be anytime soon .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 11, 2014 Share #25 Posted November 11, 2014 Thorsten didn't respond to my similar concern…post #6. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 11, 2014 Share #26 Posted November 11, 2014 Thorsten didn't respond to my similar concern…post #6. Jeff depends which definition of 'perspective' is being used here ..... and how rigorous you are in applying the definition ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 11, 2014 Share #27 Posted November 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) depends which definition of 'perspective' is being used here ..... and how rigorous you are in applying the definition ........ There's only one definition in camera terms, as 01af points out, and that relates to point of view (camera/subject distance). But you're welcome to offer another perspective, which is an entirely different matter. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 11, 2014 Share #28 Posted November 11, 2014 Olaf 'hand grenades' and lobbed regularly at the unwary on this forum. Thorsten will no doubt be aware of this and take them in his stride. Olaf is our guardian against the 'throw-away unsubstantiated statement' ...... no doubt someone will catch him out sometime .... but I fear it won't be anytime soon .... Well, that has already happened. 01af seems to be getting better though admitting when he is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 12, 2014 Share #29 Posted November 12, 2014 As posted earlier I used the Canon 85mm f:1.8 in the Seventies because it was affordable. Its color rendering was unremarkable, but so were films with the exception of Kodachrome with its inherent high contrast. I come close to tears concerning its demise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted November 12, 2014 Share #30 Posted November 12, 2014 I thought it was an interesting piece. Factual errors are easy to correct (and should be corrected). Writing a lot myself, for work and for pleasure, I know that while the devil is in the details, killing it is rarely a bigger problem than editing and pressing Save. Statements of opinion are simply that, which everyone has right to express. Fundamentally, as an old manual in the Swedish Navy used to say: "It is better to act, and act in error, than to fail to act". If nobody did anything, well, then nothing would get done. I have just taken custody of a 75 Summicron which I am in the process of evaluating. The first impression is very good indeed. I considered the Summilux but I elected to go for the Summicron since it will behave similarly to my 50 Summilux Asph and 35 Summilux FLE, two lenses which I really love. Also, it is quite a lot shorter and lighter than the 75 Summilux, two features I prefer to have in an M lens. The Summilux is simply too large, imho, for an M body. Nevertheless, it was not a very easy decision because, using solely film, the extra stop will in some situations mean getting a good photograph or none at all. But there are ways around this, using careful metering in darker situations, for instance. Speaking of the Summicron, however, I had expected the Summicron to figure in the article more than just as a comparison in the specifications table (it is after all listed in the preamble of the piece). But perhaps that will be coming in a future edit. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 12, 2014 Share #31 Posted November 12, 2014 Fundamentally, as an old manual in the Swedish Navy used to say: "It is better to act, and act in error, than to fail to act". Larry Niven must have read that manual - to paraphrase a line from Ringworld: "The mark of a good officer is that he can make decisions quickly. If they happen to be right, so much the better." In different ways, it applies to both Thorsten and 01af - me 'at's off to both of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted November 12, 2014 Share #32 Posted November 12, 2014 Thank you, Adan, for saying what I've only been thinking: me 'at's off to both of them too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted November 12, 2014 Share #33 Posted November 12, 2014 - 1 If this is understood too. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 12, 2014 Share #34 Posted November 12, 2014 Uh oh. Thorsten, your articles on M cameras and lenses are always a joy to read and adorned with many nice, often excellent, pictures—even though there always seems to be a statement or two I cannot fully agree with ... which however often is just a matter of varying opinions. But this time, there's not just a single statement or two that's debatable. The whole article is full of errors; it can, and will, do damage to your reputation as a lecturer of photography. There's only one definition in camera terms, as 01af points out, and that relates to point of view (camera/subject distance). But you're welcome to offer another perspective, which is an entirely different matter. Jeff I understood that Overgaard means with perspective the amount of falling / inclining lines. Could be just a matter of Scandinavian not native speaking English Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 12, 2014 Share #35 Posted November 12, 2014 I must say that this article had a paradoxical effect on me: It is the first time I saw a portrait (of the british actress) of the Noctilux and the lux75 where the Noctilux was a bit more convincing to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 12, 2014 Share #36 Posted November 12, 2014 I understood that Overgaard means with perspective the amount of falling / inclining lines. Could be just a matter of Scandinavian not native speaking English I don't get that impression at all from his quote… "Likewise, when I moved from using a 80mm on a Leica R9 film camera to a R9 with a digital back, I didn't change lens. I just stepped a little back so as to have the same frame. The perspective was unchanged." Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 12, 2014 Share #37 Posted November 12, 2014 When you think that a photograph of a building with an18mm on an M8 gives the same idea as a 24 on an M9 you'll be disappointed. The oblique lines will be much stronger with the 18 on the M8 as well as on the M9 than with the 24 on any sensor format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 12, 2014 Share #38 Posted November 12, 2014 When you think that a photograph of a building with an18mm on an M8 gives the same idea as a 24 on an M9 you'll be disappointed. The oblique lines will be much stronger with the 18 on the M8 as well as on the M9 than with the 24 on any sensor format. Nope. If you shoot from any spot and crop the pic, the cropped pic retains the identical perspective; only the field of view is reduced. The M8 sensor is just a cropped M9 sensor. Perspective only changes when you change point of view relative to the subject (including aiming your camera upward at a building…or standing farther back... to compensate for FOV). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 12, 2014 Share #39 Posted November 12, 2014 an old manual in the Swedish Navy used to say: "It is better to act, and act in error, than to fail to act". That is engraved into my mind since basic training when the DI screamed, "Do something even if is wrong!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 12, 2014 Share #40 Posted November 12, 2014 Larry Niven must have read that manual - to paraphrase a line from Ringworld: "The mark of a good officer is that he can make decisions quickly. If they happen to be right, so much the better." In different ways, it applies to both Thorsten and 01af - me 'at's off to both of them. As a lawyer, arbitrator and mediator, fast and wrong is a trap I try to avoid. The aphorism "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" springs to mind. Sometimes, a brain dump achieves nothing more than the limits of your knowledge, and the core message is lost. And no, shoot first and ask later is never a good idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.