Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Different perspecives, in more ways than one... Firstly M9 with a Y2K Elmarit-M 90mm (and SEfexPro2) then a stroll forward for image no. 2 with MP, 1967 Summaron 35mm, yellow filter, Acros 100, Epson V700 @ 3200pdi.

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!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly know which one I prefer :)

 

Is the lack of sky in the digital image only a result of not using a filter?

 

Possibly. For many years during the development of digital photography, many people preferred film (many people still do) because film traditionally has a higher dynamic range than digital sensors. I'm no expert on this but I think digital sensors also pick up non-visible light that film doesn't, but this is something that is improving with time. So for now, I think some filters are slightly more important in digital photography than traditional film, but not for much longer I don't think.

 

I understand this predominantly from traditional and digital filmmaking where cameras like the Red cameras are pushing towards the traditional dynamic range of film now.

 

Someone who knows more about this can explain it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly know which one I prefer :)

 

Is the lack of sky in the digital image only a result of not using a filter?

 

Yes, I would asume so but stand-by to be corrected(!). I habitually have a medium yellow filter fitted for all b&w film work. There was a five minute or so interval between the shots, so not much change in the sky. The M9 raw image is a straight conversion in SEfexPro2 via LR4. Applying a yellow filter in LR4 does nothing to add detail to the sky.

 

:eek: However, we are digressing from the purpose of this marvellous thread, so if people want to respond, please do so here!

Edited by Keith (M)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies.

 

The contrast on the lens is extremely low and flares very easily, so I have to use the hood and adjust the levels to get the blacks black; however, it holds contrasty details well. Less contrasty details disappear which leaves skin smooth without Photoshop!

 

The lens is also the smallest 90mm I've ever seen by far! It is not much longer than a finger and not much wider than a British £1 coin or an American quarter.

 

I'll post some more photos from this lens soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an enlargement from the original. This is a 50mm Summicron collapsible type 1 from 1955. The camera is an M9. 1/250th at F4.8. 400 ISO. Here is the full frame and then the cropped.

Mark

 

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!

 

Edited by tappan
spelling
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a 50mm Summicron collapsible type 1 from 1955. The camera is an M9. 1/4000th at F4 at 250 ISO.

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!

 

This is a 50mm Summicron collapsible type 1 from 1955. The camera is an M9. 1/1000th at

F4 at 250 ISO.

 

 

This is a 50mm Summicron collapsible type 1 from 1955. The camera is an M9. 1/2000th at F4.8 at 250 ISO.

 

Mark

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a 50mm Summicron collapsible type 1 from 1955. The camera is an M9. 1/500th at F4.8 at 500 ISO.

 

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!

 

Mark

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

here are a few recent shots using my vintage but superb Tele-Elmar 135 on the M9:

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we buy newer lenses :confused:

 

Really excellent question and a superb thread, not just for showing what "old" lenses are capable of, but also because the lenses used here cover a range of focal lengths, a useful thread for those who want to know what lens they should buy first or second .....

Falstaff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we buy newer lenses :confused:

 

Because we don't know better and often enough, we buy stuff, informed wrongly, mainly through number pushing and marketing gobbledygook.

 

Only when things settle a bit and we spend some time with the stuff, we love, we see the small and important things in life.

 

Stuff, we love simply doesn't only work through spec sheets, science and numbers, we are human beings with feelings, personal taste and passion after all and often enough make unreasonable, illogic decisions.

 

Such as loving old lenses … :D

 

I guess the engineers, locked deep into the labs of the worlds best optical laboratories don't get that point ;-)

 

Leica M8.2 + 75 Summilux:

 

8558926655_70a89bc701_c.jpg

portrait - 75mm by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...