AlanJW Posted January 25, 2015 Share #101 Posted January 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 also does well for landscapes on the M. The filter holder for that lens is a pain, but the results are excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here Leica M 240: It's serious drawbacks for landscape shooters – but can we fix it?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bocaburger Posted January 25, 2015 Share #102 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) I don't equate landscapes with ultra wide lenses necessarily, in fact it's tricky to use them to advantage, not because of inherent distortion but because of the way they accentuate the foreground and deaccentuate the background. If the background (such as mountains) is to be the dominant, and/or there is nothing interesting in the foreground, but I want a wide expansive view, I tend to favor stitching 2 panned shots made with a longer lens. In fact that's how I used to do landscapes with my Rolleiflex back in the day, with a tripod head that had a panning base (before there was stitching software). That said, I find my pre-ASPH 21 Elmarit, and CV 21/4 both excellent for landscapes. Any optical vignetting or far-corner softness is gone by mid apertures. Rectilinearity I find more crucial with architectural subjects. I've never had either of those lenses bend a tree trunk noticeably. Edited January 25, 2015 by bocaburger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 25, 2015 Share #103 Posted January 25, 2015 The inherent noise problems don't vary enormously between (CMOS) chips and the on-sensor hardware options for reducing noise are also rather limited. I am sure Leica's main issue is just lack of sheer processing power .... they just don't have a Bionx or Expeed processor with low power consumption and the capability of using complex algorithms at lightning speed. Some NR seems to be applied at RAW level in some of these cameras. Leica's use of dark frame subtraction as a method of NR works fine as it needs fairly limited processing power ..... The exposure time limits set by Leica appear to be a corporate decision as to the maximum amount of noise they feel a Leica DNG image should exhibit. This seems to be applied fairly uniformly throughout their range of cameras. Even the new S3 is 125secs max ... and less at higher ISO's. All the Leica range with their own-sourced electronics are sluggish ......... and this 'problem' is just another reflection of overall lack of processing power ..... I don't think the CPUs are much different in speed. Sony have probably more people in their camera software development team then the entire staff of Leica !!! I prefer less tricks to be honest and up to me in PP. Fuji doesn't even let you switch DR enhancement off. Sony doesn't let you switch compression off, and is known for firmware level noise reduction, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 25, 2015 Share #104 Posted January 25, 2015 I don't think the CPUs are much different in speed. I wouldn't bet on that ....... I think you will find they are streets ahead of what Leica use in terms of what they can do, power consumption and speed.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2015 Share #105 Posted January 25, 2015 I don't think the CPUs are much different in speed. Sony have probably more people in their camera software development team then the entire staff of Leica !!! I prefer less tricks to be honest and up to me in PP. Fuji doesn't even let you switch DR enhancement off. Sony doesn't let you switch compression off, and is known for firmware level noise reduction, etc. Well, yes, you are right that Leica has an aversion against cooking files. However, their collaboration with the giant Fujitsu should give them access to powerful processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 26, 2015 Share #106 Posted January 26, 2015 I don't think the CPUs are much different in speed. I think instead that not only the CPU core itself is definitely faster, but the most important difference is other manufacturers' high end cameras have custom hardware acceleration for tasks the M performs in software (using the obsolete CPU and/or the obsolete DSP). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 26, 2015 Share #107 Posted January 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think instead that not only the CPU core itself is definitely faster, but the most important difference is other manufacturers' high end cameras have custom hardware acceleration for tasks the M performs in software (using the obsolete CPU and/or the obsolete DSP). Not for a moment will I attempt to contradict your statement(s), I am not qualified to. However I will observe that my 27 year old car is obsolete too I guess, but that has never stopped it functioning the way I want it to or the way it was meant to. Likewise, my 'obsolete' Leica does everything I expect of it and the way, I presume, it was intended. So obsolete CPU's and DSP's (whatever they are!) don't seem to interfere with my images. I totally accept, if it be true, that it may affect other photographers. If so, I think they have some wonderful alternatives available. We are all lucky. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 26, 2015 Share #108 Posted January 26, 2015 We have established with the M9 that software development of raw on a desktop PC is far more powerful then a camera ever will be. The amount the so called ISO performance of the M9 has improved every release of lightroom is amazing. I was confident with 2500 photos before I left the M9, or 640 over processed to 3200. I therefore prefer just a sensor read out which lightroom can process to any camera chip. Very few of the mainstream manufacturers allow the raw you get to be real raw. They are flouting their CPUs and software but cutting off the ability to improve and enhance. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 26, 2015 Share #109 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Very few of the mainstream manufacturers allow the raw you get to be real raw. They are flouting their CPUs and software but cutting off the ability to improve and enhance. Some in-camera raw corrections are very hardware dependent, and may not be practical or even possible to implement in an external software application. It is also interesting to note that the M raws are not real raws either. As far as I know, the M corrects at least color vignetting and mapped out sensor columns (and not in the best way). There may be other corrections we do not know about. And some others are missing, like the one for the greenish cast when pushing shadows by several stops (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6717). Edited January 26, 2015 by CheshireCat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted January 26, 2015 Share #110 Posted January 26, 2015 I have found the M 240 to be fine for landscapes, used with a light Gitzo tripod. However, when I'm serious, out comes my Hasselblad - which delivers, in my view, much more stunning results. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 26, 2015 Share #111 Posted January 26, 2015 Whenever I feel my M is too slow, I just remind myself that I paid a lot of money for it, and then I feel much better. When I consider how featureless it is, I drift into ecstasy, and when it finally dies I will hold a gigantic Burning Camera Festival. When all else fails, just lower standards. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 26, 2015 Share #112 Posted January 26, 2015 When all else fails, just lower standards. I'll remember that for my work ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 26, 2015 Share #113 Posted January 26, 2015 I'll remember that for my work ..... Hope you are not a surgeon 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 26, 2015 Share #114 Posted January 26, 2015 Hope you are not a surgeon That's a very cutting remark. Question is, did you lower the standard to make it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 27, 2015 Share #115 Posted January 27, 2015 That's a very cutting remark.Question is, did you lower the standard to make it? I had to, as all else is failing 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 27, 2015 Share #116 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) When all else fails, just lower standards. I've been trying that for years, it's just other people keep beating me to it Edited January 27, 2015 by colonel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philcycles Posted February 4, 2015 Share #117 Posted February 4, 2015 I have found the M 240 to be fine for landscapes, used with a light Gitzo tripod. However, when I'm serious, out comes my Hasselblad - which delivers, in my view, much more stunning results. I don't have any problem shooting landscapes with my 240 or my M3s and haven't for 40 years. I have a Blad as well as Rolleis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted February 4, 2015 Share #118 Posted February 4, 2015 I don't have any problem shooting landscapes with my 240 or my M3s and haven't for 40 years.I have a Blad as well as Rolleis. Clearly you have success all round. Well done! Curiously, have you decided on real differences in the compared images? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbmay Posted August 11, 2015 Share #119 Posted August 11, 2015 I too was very disappointed to realize the limitations for "bulb" exposure when I went to photograph the Milky Way the other night. I was sure the night was going to be a total loss, as I couldn't get exposure times greater than 16s at the ISO (500) and aperture (4.0) I wanted to use. That being said, I was pleasantly surprised when, in Lightroom, with an exposure increase to 2.60, the photos came out relatively well, with little to no noise, considering the above noted limitations (attachment below.) It won't win any Nat Geo prizes or become the new standard for astrophotography, but if you're enjoying a night out with the Milky Way you can still get the job done. 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! 2 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/240073-leica-m-240-its-serious-drawbacks-for-landscape-shooters-%E2%80%93-but-can-we-fix-it/?do=findComment&comment=2870051'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 11, 2015 Share #120 Posted August 11, 2015 Try the defringe sliders for the blue haloes 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