Strange flare M262 and Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5

[mholper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

I know I am pushing my camera sensor and lens to the limit by almost shooting straight into the sun. I do this because I want to achieve a cinematic effect. On my last shoot however I noticed a very strange flare issue: in the attached two photos there is a clear band on the top of the photo that is not affected by the lens flare. 

 

Has anyone seen this behaviour before? What could be the reason. I would prefer to have the flair everywhere consistently. Is this a sensor defect? Or maybe due to the 50 mm hood I use on the lens (although I doubt this can explain the rectangular nature of the artefact).

 

I look forward to hearing from you,

 

regards,

 

michel

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!

[lct]

Were you using a filter?

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

Try stopping the lens down and see if you still get the problem. I suspect it may be a shadow from the edge of the film gate.

[Mark II]

This image was shot with the M 262 and a 50mm Summilux fitted with a filter - it shows the same pattern as yours:

 

 

There are two clear "edges" to the flare, both parallel to the sensor. The only way that this could happen would be via some kind of internal reflection inside the camera body, possibly aggravated by reflections from the back of the filter (in this case, a Leica Universal Polariser).

[Ko.Fe.]

I have seen this "bar" on the top of frame once with Summarit-M 35 2.5 and its rectangular hood on M-E.

[lct]

Not sure if this will reassure Sonnar users but this great lens is one of my least flare prone 50's and i've never seen this bar out of my M240 and A7s mod bodies so far. I don't use filters though. FWIW.

[mholper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the comments!

 

The photo with the baby carrier was shot at F5.6. The other photo was shot at 2.4. It seems (and does make sense) that the line becomes more blurry the bigger the aperture is. I was not using a filter, only the round Zeiss 50 mm sunhood. If people experience experience similar effect with a Summarit with rectangular bar I can only assume it must indeed be due to some internal reflection going inside the camera body. 

 

It's a shame but at least it does not seem to be a camera defect. I can live with cropping off the bar...

 

Although I am still intrigued by the fact that the height of the bar is almost the same for every photo. If it really were a reflection problem I would assume that the height of the bar varies with the angle of the incoming light...

 

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!

[Future2001]

I've had this before. You could search my question about this. The answer I got was the sensor is recessed and the Sundays aren't hitting the sensor uniformly or something like that. I try to not shoot with light sources directly overhead or to make sure I try and tilt the camera a little if the rays are head on. Sorry if this isn't helpful. I'm in my phone so it'll be easier if you look at my old posts.

[Future2001]

Ps. the flare has happened with my Leica M240 and the MD with the zeiss 50mm f2 planar

[jaapv]

The shutter runs behind a rectangular frame about 2 mm in front of the sensor. The top and bottom edges act as a baffle cutting out stray light. You will see a clear edge on the top or the bottom depending on the direction the flare is coming from.

[adan]

Lenses put out a round image circle (since all the glass elements are round). Since the shutter opening and sensor are rectangular, that means there is a lot of extra "image" spilling onto the floor and ceiling of the "box" inside the camera between the lens and the sensor (what in film days was called the "film chamber"). And the sides as well, but much less so.

 

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/01_ImageCircle_FX.jpg

 

This excess image bouncing off the floor or ceiling of the camera can cause flare, just like reflections within the lens. But there is a step-up or ledge at the back of the chamber that acts like an awning or lens hood, blocking the flare from hitting the first couple of mm of the sensor's lower (or upper) edge - thus you get "normal image" in that area, before the flare starts to wash out the picture.

 

Remember that lenses project the world upside-down - bright sun overhead will hit the bottom of the inside of the camera, and the protected shaded area that gets no flare will be along the top of the picture.

 

This is why you not only need a lens hood in backlight - but preferable a rectangluar one that "crops" the image circle to just outside the actual part that will be the picture.

 

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!

[pico]

"I want to achieve a cinematic effect."

 

Cine photographers go to great lengths to control flare

using adjustable baffles and they use light only Rembrandt

would appreciate.

 

Most still photographers are not aware of cine proffesional

efforts, front lens baffles, etc. Get into it or remain lost. Really,

 

Best of luck,

Edited October 6, 2017 by pico

[mholper]

Thanks everyone for your posts!

 

@Jaapv and Adan: really insightful feedback. Appreciate it!

 

@Pico: not really sure if that is the most motivating way to inspire young photographers to explore the technical side of photography but I do take your feedback as a welcome starting point to learn more about front lens and adjustable baffles. Any more reading starting points to help me make photographs that Rembrandt will appreciate?

[adan]

Michel - keep in mind that "artistic cinematic lens flares" in many movies post-1990 will be carefully-drawn, "clean" computer graphics, alone or overlaid on live-action shots. Not something you can easily or casually replicate naturally with real-world flare.

 

Even Photoshop has had a "lens flare" digital filter one can overlay on any picture, with detailed controls for angle, length, number of spots, apparent focal length, etc. - for 15 years. So does Adobe After Effects for video productions.

 

If you try to fight one-on-one with Hollywood's computers using just the real world - it isn't a fair fight.

 

That being said, there are things you can do to maximize the effectiveness/impact of using natural in-camera flare. Although it depends on exactly what you are looking for.

 

For the maximum of "lines of flare spots" with a minimum of "veiling flare" that just washes out the whole image:

 

1. Put the sun (or other strong light) IN your picture, not outside the frame. If the lens is projecting the sun (or other light source) on the sensor, it can't also be projecting it on the camera floor and causing general image-hiding veiling flare. Or a stripe on the edge. Note - since sensors are almost mirror-surfaced and will reflect light themselves, this is trickier with digital than with dull, matte, film - but still possible.

 

2. Use wider-angle lenses. Partly because they will make the sun tiny in the background, allowing the main subject to dominate, and partly because they generally have many elements of glass - and the more elements you have, the more reflection spots you'll get. Although with thought you can get the 50mm to work - just not as dramatically.

 

3. or use zooms - they have LOTS of pieces of glass in them, usually, for lots of flare spots. Wide-angle zooms will really do the job!

 

4. Still use a lens hood as much as possible, to control any other flare beyond what you actually want (and avoid the "stripe.") Avoid "dirty" or hazy lenses - you want maximum contrast to pop out indidvidual flare areas, not fog the whole picture.

 

5. Think about what you can use as a "gobo" or small-area lens shade or light blocker or light tunnel, to control the flare even more. Something occuring naturally within the picture (like a vineyard trellis post or some such).

 

As a documentary photographer, i don't go for the "cinematic flare" look all that much - but sometimes, when the subject is more pictorial.... The attached image of an ice-sculptor at work at dawn was an opportunity, once I noticed the sun shining through a small gap in the sculpture.

 

Leica M9, 21mm Elmarit, careful positioning to put the sun in the picture, yet controlled and limited by the sculpture itself to minimize random veiling flare and make the starburst and purple spots stand out. No add-on filtering, just careful contrast adjustment to get the right balance of flare and image.

 

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!

[mholper]

Hi Andy,

 

That clears up a lot. Thanks for taking the time to share this with me! I am a purist in the sense that I prefer to prevent resorting to photoshop to emulate things but I understand your point that it is an unfair fight.

 

It seems that I have been chasing veiling flare and not lens flares specifically. For me: even though one could argue that veiling flare degrades image quality, it adds emotion to the shots I make. This discussion really helps me to understand my lenses and camera a bit better but also seems to show the unpredictability of this veiling effect due to camera construction and internal reflections.

 

On this shot the veliing flare worked exactly the way I was hoping.

It was shot with my 50mm 1.5 Sonnar

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!

 

On this shots my 28mm Biogon created unacceptably colourful flare lines along with the veiling such that I had to resort to making the photos black and white to avoid distraction of the subject.

 

My Sonnar never creates colourful flare lines like this and I am even considering selling the Biogon because of this behaviour.

 

I few years ago I did make the step 'back' from Nikon D700 full frame to Leica M7. Sometimes I wonder if the look I often try to achieve is best created with a range finder. I have used the flare technique in your ice sculptor photograph before. Usually I find the flare to look too artificial, but in your photograph it beautifully complements the crystals. Well done! The fact that one does not look through the lens of the rangefinder does add complexity to these type of shots as I found that I should position my camera in exactly such a way that I do not see the sun, but the lens does. I wonder if in a similar manner veiling flare is better to control with DSLRs... but then I don't get the same photo taking experience as I have when I use my Leica. I am a product design by profession and enjoy using products that inspire me to do better and learn. My Leica does certainly does a better job at that and ultimately that's what counts for me.