"Leica M10 - Expect Simplicity" (overgaard.dk)

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/28/2022 at 10:31 AM, Cobram said:

I just read the article Thorsten Overgaard's Photography Pages - The Story Behind That Picture 186 - "Which lens are you?"

Thank you @Overgaard for sharing knowledge/your philosophy with us. Especially regarding the relation/connection to famous paintings. Very interesting and instructive.

As per colors and other things: I can highly recommend Johaness Iten's books. The book Art of color was proposed to me by a (sadly) banned forum member who's focus was more on composition, light, color,... and less on Leica lenses mechanical tolerances 🙂 Although he was a little bit too extreme in defending his views 🙂 Anyway I miss him. I always miss anyone I can learn from.

@Adam Bonn Thank you for your summary of the article that make me curious to read it.

Thanks again to both of you! 

Thank you. Looked at the Johannes Itten "Art of Color" book, and it's hard to get, but is actually available as PDF download online if one search (to get an idea is you want to pay $50-$250 for one of the few available books). It an endlessly beautiful subject you can never get tired of, as described somewhat in my video "Leica M11 - A deeper look into Colors and Sensor" on YouTube. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Overgaard

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Chazphoto]

As you can tell from my reference to it, the "Which Lens are You?" article is one of my favourites from Thorsten's website (thanks, Adam, for finding the link - also, I hadn't seen the video, so thanks to Mike for linking that also).  

The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that good or artistic composition is about several things, with variable rule-sets.  Saying it is all about light is as reductionist as saying it it is all about which focal length you use.  Great light can make a photo on its own, but I've seen fabulous photos made with flat, even, grey, lighting and equally wonderful ones with high contrast, overly directional lighting.  PS: those of us out taking photos on any day don't always have a choice, either!

Back to Mike's response to my post, to focal length and old photo magazines.  I read Amateur Photographer, SLR Photography, BJP Journal and others, back in the days when you had a choice of a few weekly and monthly mags on every newspaper shop's shelves.  Along with Michael Freeman's "The 35mm Handbook", they did have the correct information about the effect of focal length on your composition.  I didn't really "get it", however, until trying to work with the M9.  There is something about the rangefinder process that makes you see the frame and compose within it, rather than cut out an image from the scene in front of you.  The fact that Thorsten can make his 50mm look like a 28mm (and I will still mistake the shot for one of those rare ones where he's switched lens) demonstrates that perspective is about where you stand, not which lens you use.  

I recently picked up a 35mm for the M10, which is a focal length I haven't used in a 8 years.  For two days in Paris, I kept trying to take 28mm and 50mm photos with it.  Eventually, I will learn what it can show and how to use it to advantage.

Cheers

Chazphoto

[MikeMyers]

39 minutes ago, Chazphoto said:

I recently picked up a 35mm for the M10, which is a focal length I haven't used in a 8 years.  For two days in Paris, I kept trying to take 28mm and 50mm photos with it. 

I guess everyone is different - for me, I can switch lenses as easily as I can switch aperture settings, or shutter speed - whatever "fits".  

Yesterday, I walked down to Miami Beach's South Pointe Park, to take photos of the cruise ships sailing out of Miami.  I could have brought my M10, with multiple lenses, or my Nikon D780 with my 24-120 zoom.  I decided to give the Nikon a try (first time using this camera and lens), and the focal length of the lens was constantly being changed as the ship got closer, just like my exposure was being changed due to the light.  The only way to do this properly with the Leica would have been to fill my camera bag with a collection of lenses, with me changing back and forth constantly.  I wasn't trying to select a focal length for perspective; rather, I wanted to fill the frame with the ship, with some extra room all around for cropping.  Also, I wanted the ship to be sharp, and the city to be less sharp.  I couldn't see this in my viewfinder with either camera, but by leaving the lens stopped down from f/4 to only f/5, I figured I would still get the effect I was after.

If one is creating a still-life photo, and configuring the camera as well as moving around, the "which lens are you" applies nicely.  For taking photos of things around me, that are not static, there is a huge gain in being able to select a focal length as needed, when needed.  

This reminds me of using my M2, usually with one or two lenses (often 50 and 90).  I found it frustrating trying to capture the image I wanted, when the scene was constantly changing.  

Two days ago, I figured I would only want to use the DSLR for when I was using long focal length lenses.  Yesterday shocked me back into reality.  I accept now that I need both, to be able to capture un-planned images that randomly happen around me.  

I know there are specific benefits from being able to focus using a rangefinder.  There are also benefits from being able to use a camera with a good auto-focus.  

The question here is "which lens are you"?  If I were to answer this honestly, my preference would be a zoom, so I could be any lens I wanted, whenever I wanted.

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!

[Jeff S]

15 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I guess everyone is different - for me, I can switch lenses as easily as I can switch aperture settings, or shutter speed - whatever "fits".  

Yesterday, I walked down to Miami Beach's South Pointe Park, to take photos of the cruise ships sailing out of Miami.  I could have brought my M10, with multiple lenses, or my Nikon D780 with my 24-120 zoom.  I decided to give the Nikon a try (first time using this camera and lens), and the focal length of the lens was constantly being changed as the ship got closer, just like my exposure was being changed due to the light.  The only way to do this properly with the Leica would have been to fill my camera bag with a collection of lenses, with me changing back and forth constantly.  I wasn't trying to select a focal length for perspective; rather, I wanted to fill the frame with the ship, with some extra room all around for cropping.  Also, I wanted the ship to be sharp, and the city to be less sharp.  I couldn't see this in my viewfinder with either camera, but by leaving the lens stopped down from f/4 to only f/5, I figured I would still get the effect I was after.

If one is creating a still-life photo, and configuring the camera as well as moving around, the "which lens are you" applies nicely.  For taking photos of things around me, that are not static, there is a huge gain in being able to select a focal length as needed, when needed.  

This reminds me of using my M2, usually with one or two lenses (often 50 and 90).  I found it frustrating trying to capture the image I wanted, when the scene was constantly changing.  

Two days ago, I figured I would only want to use the DSLR for when I was using long focal length lenses.  Yesterday shocked me back into reality.  I accept now that I need both, to be able to capture un-planned images that randomly happen around me.  

I know there are specific benefits from being able to focus using a rangefinder.  There are also benefits from being able to use a camera with a good auto-focus.  

The question here is "which lens are you"?  If I were to answer this honestly, my preference would be a zoom, so I could be any lens I wanted, whenever I wanted.

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!

But the size of the background buildings relative to the size of the ship, which many might find important, will only be affected by where one stands (perspective), not by changing focal length from the same position.  That’s the effect Chazphoto was describing. Otherwise, one can merely crop to change field of view.

Jeff

Edited October 9, 2022 by Jeff S

[MikeMyers]

25 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

will only be affected by where one stands (perspective)

I agree, when one has a choice of where to stand.  Since I highly cropped the above image, I guess it ought to be considered a 250mm focal length lens.

All the more reason to have a zoom lens, if one doesn't have (or can afford) a bag full of prime lenses.

For most photos, most of the time, I see your point, and agree.

[Jeff S]

Well, if one has a high performing prime on a high resolution camera, one can either move or crop…or both…or decide that there isn’t a compelling pic. Same decisions with a zoom. No reason to have “a bag full of primes.”  But that’s why there are different tools for different needs and circumstances.  I use my M and my SL2 very differently; but no bag full of lenses for either.  
 

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Chazphoto said:

 

The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that good or artistic composition is about several things, with variable rule-sets.  Saying it is all about light is as reductionist as saying it it is all about which focal length you use.  Great light can make a photo on its own, but I've seen fabulous photos made with flat, even, grey, lighting and equally wonderful ones with high contrast, overly directional lighting.  PS: those of us out taking photos on any day don't always have a choice, either!

 

Cheers

Chazphoto

Yes, but if you recall, in my 'reductionist' view of the importance of light, I did mention that neutral light was a perfectly acceptable choice of its own. It will have a different emotional response than the drama of chiaroscuro style lighting and can be just as effective. But it's imperative that one still remains aware of that association - if the light isn't bringing drama on its own then one needs to work harder at the faming and moment (which of course one should always work hard at, no matter). 

[Adam Bonn]

I think…. bear with me…

’what lens are you’

= imagine that it was physically impossible to crop a photo (!!! I said bear with me)

The photos you like (yours, other peoples, doesn’t matter)

The ones you really like… pretend crop didn’t exist…

How were they taken? 28/35mm (or less) and up close or personal, or 50/90 and taken further away?

There’s no right answer, but YOUR answer will help point out ‘what lens your are’ because there’s a focal length that works well with the scenes you see in world that resonate with you, you just have to find it

(which with an M is moderately easy as realistically there’s not that many viable choices that work well with the rangefinder)

 

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Well, if one has a high performing prime on a high resolution camera, one can either move or crop…or both…or decide that there isn’t a compelling pic. ....... No reason to have “a bag full of primes.”  But that’s why there are different tools for different needs and circumstances.  I use my M and my SL2 very differently; but no bag full of lenses for either.  
 

Sometimes this is true.

For my photo of the ship coming out of the port, my 120  wasn't long enough to get what I wanted (fixed by cropping).

The ship got close enough to me that my 24 had the full frame filled by "ship".

As the ship got even closer, maybe a 17mm might have captured the entire ship.

Compelling or not, I wanted several photos, from which I would pick my favorite later.  I had four opportunities, with four different ships that came sailing out of port.  One of them had a large flock of birds flying out parallel to the ship.  Without a "bag full of lenses" I would have been handicapped with my M10.  I didn't know until just now what an "SL2" was, but after looking it up:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1639034-REG/leica_10888_sl2_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

.......I suppose if I had the money to afford one, and two lenses, I would be all set.  I wouldn't need to have brought my M10 at all. With my maxim focal length of 120mm, and no cropping, the image below is the best I could do (and seeing it now, maybe it's better than my cropped version).  I do have Nikon zoom lenses up to 300mm, which I didn't bring with me.  Gosh, another option might be to switch to an SL2, maybe if I win the lottery or something.  But to be honest, I think I'm done buying more lenses, most of the time for most things I photograph I enjoy my M10, and when the M10 can't do what I need, I fall back on the Nikon.  Please don't ask why I use the M10 at all, as the answer would be emotional, not practical.

 

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!

[MikeMyers]

5 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

There’s no right answer, but YOUR answer will help point out ‘what lens your are’ because there’s a focal length that works well with the scenes you see in world that resonate with you, you just have to find it

I'm glad this works for you.  The scenes I see in the world are completely different, as I simply see "what is there", and then figure out the best way to photograph it, based on what camera and lens I have with me at the moment.  Actually, that is backwards.  When I go out with a camera, I see the world in terms of what can I do with the camera I have with me.  If anything.  Sometimes I don't even try.  Or, to give you a better answer, I usually go on a "walkabout" with one camera and one lens.  When I "see" the world around me, I see the world in a way that is based on what I have with me.   I think you're more organized than I am.  I'm likely to go out with my M10 and my 35, 50, or 135 (only one of them) and what I see around me is based on what lens I have with me.  If I can't, maybe I'll come back later with a more appropriate lens.  Mostly though, I go out with one camera and one lens, and what I "see" (and pay attention to) is always based on what camera and lens I have with me.  

[Adam Bonn]

13 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I'm likely to go out with my M10 and my 35, 50, or 135

Which is your favourite? 

[MikeMyers]

13 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Which is your favourite? 

Depends on what you mean by "favorite".  It is most likely my 35 or 50, and while the 35 can do what the 50 does, the reverse is usually not true.  So my favorite to take with me, with no idea of what I'll be doing, is the 35, based on those choices.  On my Nikon it would likely be my ancient (but just bought it) 28-70.  Does everything I need, even macro, is small, and light, and it will almost certainly be my "walking-about" lens when/if I take my Nikon.

[Adam Bonn]

5 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Depends on what you mean by "favorite".  It is most likely my 35 or 50, and while the 35 can do what the 50 does, the reverse is usually not true.  So my favorite to take with me, with no idea of what I'll be doing, is the 35, based on those choices.  On my Nikon it would likely be my ancient (but just bought it) 28-70.  Does everything I need, even macro, is small, and light, and it will almost certainly be my "walking-about" lens when/if I take my Nikon.

Starting to sound like you’re a 35 to me Mike!

[Chazphoto]

When I started wanting to photograph things, I wanted to be ready for anything and be able to photograph anything.  Over time, that has changed for various reasons and if I have the "wrong" lens with me, I find the images that it can take and try to do better with that.  My swiss army knife, since committing fully to the M system, is the Sony RX10 which deals excellently with things the M can't do without the duplication of another full frame AF DLSR/mirroless system.  The M is where my attempts at photograph art go, currently, and the constraints pay dividends.

Charlesphoto99, I agree with you.  Sometimes great light will lift an otherwise mediocre image; without great light, you have to find other compositional elements to create the image.

Regards

 

Chazphoto

 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

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!

Better result for my tastes (which don’t matter).  Your M could have probably captured this; plenty of resolution for cropping.  
 

Incidentally, M lenses can be adapted to the SL2 (or the original SL or SL2-S); many use it this way.  Less expensive Panasonic and Sigma lenses are also available for Leica L mount, without any adapter needed.

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Better result for my tastes (which don’t matter).  Your M could have probably captured this; plenty of resolution for cropping.  

Thank you!  Of course your tastes matter - to me, it matters at least as much, if not more, what people viewing my photos think, than what I think of them myself.  I want to see all the details of the ship, but it's a better overall photo with the city surrounding it, and the ship smaller in the frame.

This ship is on a weekly schedule, meaning I can try the same photo with my M10 and my 135 one week from yesterday.  I know my M10 gives excellent results, and I think my ancient Tele-Elmar 135 will give better results than my 24-120 Nikon Zoom, so in retrospect, and having already seen what's involved, I think you are correct.  I'll try.

At this stage in my life, I can afford to buy (used) lenses when needed.  A new M11 or SL2 - I'm not sure it's worth it to me, even if I could afford it.  I'd also like to have a Monochrom.  

I don't think I can "buy my way" into better photos - I have to earn that.  

Regardless of which is better, I get more enjoyment out of using my M than out of using my Nikons.  

[Jeff S]

Sure, it’s the photographer, not the gear, that matters most.  But I use my SL2 for things my M bodies don’t ideally suit (weather sealing, zooms, focal lengths outside 28-50mm, etc). But I’ve been using M’s since the 80’s, only with RF. Second nature. Each to his/her own. 

FWIW, the SL2-S is less expensive than the SL2, and the used market exists for both, as well as for the original SL 601.

Jeff