M10 sensor error or hood blocking the light?

[IamTheDistance]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the answers! I learnt a lot from this topic. I didn't know the M bodies had this kind of "problem". Not a big deal for my shooting style but I thought it would be the beginning of a major issue. I tried to reproduce the same no-flare-on-top effect but I couldn't.

Edited January 1, 2019 by IamTheDistance

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb IamTheDistance:

Thank you for the answers! I learnt a lot from this topic. I didn't know the M bodies had this kind of "problem". Not a big deal for my shooting style but I thought it would be the beginning of a major issue. I tried to reproduce the same no-flare-on-top effect but I couldn't.

Come back in a few months. There will be a refresher thread on this topic, probably started by someone whose English skills won’t allow him to do a simple search.

[wlaidlaw]

I wonder if the "economy" Summarit range of lenses is somewhat more flare prone than the more expensive ranges of lenses. My 75/f2.5 Summarit seems rather prone to flare and veiling glare, in spite of what looks like a quite effective hood. The other 2 lenses I have, that are very prone to flare are my 1958 50/f1.5 Summarit and 1952 85/1.5 Summarex but these are both old designs with the Summarit a development of a late 1920's British Kallista/Cooke movie camera lens and the Summarex a Berek design from the late 1930's. Both of these designs therefore pre-date computer light path analysis, where Leica were one of the pioneers in the late 1950's and 60's. Even with an effective hood on, you have to pay careful attention to the direction of incoming light, to avoid flare, with the latter two lenses. 

Wilson

Edited January 1, 2019 by wlaidlaw
Typo

[Chaemono]

Apo 75 and Apo 90 Summicron-M are also prone to flare. Never had this “perfectly horizontal line” issue with the M10.

[rscheffler]

I'm pretty sure I've had this flare situation happen with my DSLRs, as well as the M9 and M240. It's not necessarily a Leica specific problem. Just a matter of how the mirror box (in DSLRs) is designed and how those surfaces potentially allow image-degrading light reflections onto the sensor.

[SMAL]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb wlaidlaw:

I wonder if the "economy" Summarit range of lenses is somewhat more flare prone than the more expensive ranges of lenses. My 75/f2.5 Summarit seems rather prone to flare and veiling glare, in spite of what looks like a quite effective hood. The other 2 lenses I have, that are very prone to flare are my 1958 50/f1.5 Summarit and 1952 85/1.5 Summarex but these are both old designs with the Summarit a development of a late 1920's British Kallista/Cooke movie camera lens and the Summarex a Berek design from the late 1930's. Both of these designs therefore pre-date computer light path analysis, where Leica were one of the pioneers in the late 1950's and 60's. Even with an effective hood on, you have to pay careful attention to the direction of incoming light, to avoid flare, with the latter two lenses. 

Wilson

More expensive lenses will most likely also have better coatings, which will help tremendously with flaring, ghosting, loss of contrast etc.

@adan thanks a lot. Really appreciate the explanation.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The thing with "flare" is that there are different types with different causes.

- there is the "veiling flare" we see in the examples on the previous page - diffuse white "clouds" of light. And in the case we are discussing, due to reflections from non-glass surfaces - the inside of the camera box, or in many cases the inside of the lens barrel behind the glass. The coating on the glass will have no effect whatever on those. The 90 TE v.2 and 135 Telyt or Tele-Elmar are prone to this because they have 3-5 cm of "empty tube" behind the rear element, from which light can reflect just as it does from the camera chamber sides.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/135mm_f/3.4_ASPH_Apo-Telyt-M

90 TE - note that even matte-black, ribbed surfaces can still reflect an intense amount of light, at glancing angles!

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!

- there is classic "lens flare" - lines of aperture-shapes or circles, or rings, across the frame, which are definitely from glass-to-glass reflections, and thus reduced (but not entirely eliminated) by lens coatings. And also depends on the optical design - the curvatures, spacing, number and "stacking order" of the glass elements - which may result in two different lenses with identical modern coatings producing different amounts of flare. (I've heard tell  the Noctilux f/1 is very flare resistant, whereas a 50 cron from the same era and with the exact same coating technology may produce more).

(Coatings have reduced natural lens flare so much that, if you image-google it, mostly you get images promoting Photoshop filters to add it back in. )

- there is the "flare" where light "leaks" around, for example, a black tree branch silhouetted against bright sky, softening the edge with a localized glow. That's generally due to aberrations (spherical and chromatic), which again, no coating can fix.

- and there is, now that we shoot onto shiny glass-covered sensors, the occasional "flare" that comes from concave rear elements acting like a mirror-lens, and reflecting the sensor back onto itself. Producing central "hot-spots" in some conditions with e.g. the 75 'cron, occasionally the 35 Summilux ASPH, and possibly the 28 Summicron. (>|

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by adan

[adan]

An aside on the 35 Summarit.

Generally, I find it to be a very contrasty lens. Almost too much contrast - it blows highlights with the M10 about 1/2-stop sooner than my lower contrast 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH, assuming an identical overall exposure - and I'm keeping my eye out for a softer Mandler-era 35: Summilux, or Summicron v.4).

However, if we assume gross lens contrast (not the micro-contrast of details) means brighter whites and darker shadows, a contrasty lens can produce worse veiling flare, if it is those "brighter whites" that are spilling out into the camera and causing the veil over blacker blacks. Which was the situation with my artwork documentation - it was the bright sky that was bouncing around inside the camera and "fogging" the shaded artwork.

All flare depends on many factors.

[wlaidlaw]

2 hours ago, adan said:

An aside on the 35 Summarit.

Generally, I find it to be a very contrasty lens. Almost too much contrast - it blows highlights with the M10 about 1/2-stop sooner than my lower contrast 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH, assuming an identical overall exposure - and I'm keeping my eye out for a softer Mandler-era 35: Summilux, or Summicron v.4).

However, if we assume gross lens contrast (not the micro-contrast of details) means brighter whites and darker shadows, a contrasty lens can produce worse veiling flare, if it is those "brighter whites" that are spilling out into the camera and causing the veil over blacker blacks. Which was the situation with my artwork documentation - it was the bright sky that was bouncing around inside the camera and "fogging" the shaded artwork.

All flare depends on many factors.

Andy,

I am with you that sometimes older, less technically perfect lenses, can produce more pleasing results. I sold my 50 ASPH Summilux fairly quickly, because it was not only unpleasant to use with very stiff focusing and a razor sharp focus tab (unchanged after a visit to Solms) but with its super high micro contrast was very prone to purple fringing and made for maybe technically perfect, very sharp but not artistically pleasing results. I am far happier with the earlier 50 Summilux III (the LTM, e46, special edition version), although you have to be a bit conscious of aperture shift. I also prefer the ASPH 35 Summilux to the later FLE version. 

Wilson

[Herr Barnack]

On 12/30/2018 at 10:59 PM, IamTheDistance said:

Happy New Year to everyone. 

I'm having some problems when shooting with the Sun in front of me. I'm using a M10 with 35mm f/2.4 summarit and original hood. In the image appears a perfectly straight line which seems to be the hood blocking the light? Or maybe a sensor error? Someone with this problem? I tested today without hood in a different situation and the problem is still there. I searched on the Internet but I couldn't find the answer. Also my English skills are low...

Thank you!

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!

When shooting into the sun or a man made light source (or "shooting against the light," as it is sometimes called) if you will hold an opaque reflector disc, magazine, book, thin nylon vegetable cutting board, etc. above and in front of the camera so that the object casts a shadow over the entire front element of your lens - but is out of the field of view of the lens - you will avoid this type of flare.  

The way this works is you get your camera focused, framing and composition the way you want them and get the correct exposure set.  Then hold the camera in your right hand while holding your light blocking tool in your left hand and move the light blocker around until it's where you need it to be.  Then you make your exposure(s).

This technique is not always graceful, easy, quick, convenient or cool looking (if you worry about what others may think) but it does work. 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[jdlaing]

And don’t forget to pick up your left foot while doing it too. 😃

[mujk]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

When shooting into the sun or a man made light source (or "shooting against the light," as it is sometimes called) if you will hold an opaque reflector disc, magazine, book, thin nylon vegetable cutting board, etc. above and in front of the camera so that the object casts a shadow over the entire front element of your lens - but is out of the field of view of the lens - you will avoid this type of flare.  

The way this works is you get your camera focused, framing and composition the way you want them and get the correct exposure set.  Then hold the camera in your right hand while holding your light blocking tool in your left hand and move the light blocker around until it's where you need it to be.  Then you make your exposure(s).

This technique is not always graceful, easy, quick, convenient or cool looking (if you worry about what others may think) but it does work. 

 

Definitely works. Back in the days when most people used to wear (more rigid) hats, these were recommended to be used for this purpose. I have some old guide book on photography somewhere where this is described.

[a.noctilux]

recent topic