Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone has used the Sonnar 50mm f1.5 on a M film body and can tell me if the focus shift is noticeable?
I used to have this lens and loved it's small size and bokeh, but the focus shift on my digital M was too much so I decided to sell it.
Thanks in advance!
I dropped my Leica M4 and according to the NYC Camera Doctor repair team, the prism that creates the ghost image in the rangefinder is dislocated and needs to be replaced. They suggested that I send it directly into Leica for repairs, becuase the rangefinder is a complicated mechanism they wern't equipt to fix. They also let me know that Leica, located in New Jersey, dosen't do specific repairs and will want to do a full tune-up. Money is a concern, and I'm not prepared to pay $1000-ish if I can at all avoid it. I just want my range-finder to be functional.
Has anyone had rangefinder work done, espeically on an M4? Would you advise having this work done by Leica or an outside repair person, such as DAG? Any experience or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
ich habe seit ca. 4 Wochen das Problem, dass meine M2 manchmal den Film beim Spannen nicht richtig transportiert.
Die Bilder überlappen sich dann. Man merkt es beim Spannen, der Spannhebel springt dann.
Der Fehler tritt meistens auf wenn der Zähler bereits bei 20 -25 Bildern steht. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass der Film zwischendurch die Spannung verliert oder über die Zähne rutscht.
Ist jemanden so etwas schon mal passiert oder kennt sogar jemand die Lösung?
Im Moment elf ich mir in dem ich ein Bild mit Objektivdeckel mache wenn ich merke dass der Film nicht transportiert wurde.
Gerade bei teuren oder alten Schätzen verliere ich so meist 4-6 Bilder was ehrlich gesagt sehr schade ist.
Gerade bei Filmen wie einen Fuji Superia Reala 100 oder Kodak Ektachrome 160t
Die kleine ist mein Ein und alles.
Bitte helft mir.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
I’m a computer science engineer who has been working, as a hobby, the last three years in a new, more precise, way of recreating film look with digital cameras.
I’m posting here for feedback, in case anybody of you would like to test the application (with the M9) and show the results and your opinions.
I usually shoot film photography but also I like the comfort of digital. The problem is that I’ve never been happy with existing film emulations. Mainly because of that, because they are emulations instead of simulations.
For doing so, instead of doing a generic conversion for every camera, I’ve done a specialised conversion for the Leica M9 based on simulating the chemical process and spectrum response, instead of applying curves and other stuff.
In the end, I thought, if analog and digital are just two instruments which capture light, I thought, maybe is there any mathematical conversion to make the digital to look like film?
I mean, if I take the same photo with analog and digital, under exact same conditions (light / aperture / exposition /…) could I make them look exactly the same?
It’s based on chemical simulation and the Leica M9’s response to spectrum. Then LUTs and finally some extra calibration. I think that it could be improved because I’ve used home made or open source tools for calibrating and so on, which are far from perfect.
EXAMPLES (Analog vs Converted Digital)
Following are some examples of Superia 200 and TriX 400.
Click in each photo to see high resolution.
DNGs shoots taken with Leica M9 (left), and FILM shoots taken with Minolta CLE (right) at same conditions (aperture / exposition / ISO).
All shoots taken with Zeiss Biogon T* ZM 35mm f/2.
The examples show several photos, which are the following:
| original DNG | |
| converted DNG | scanned FILM |
| developed DNG | developed FILM |
For the generated simulated negative TIFF file and the scanned TIFF file I’ve applied exactly the same develop parameters.
TriX 400 - 1
TriX 400 - 2
TriX 400 - 3
Superia 200 - 1
Superia 200 - 2
Superia 200 - 3
Superia 200 - 4
Superia 200 - 5
Superia 200 - 6
Tonal range - Biggest difference between digital and film
Dynamic range - Digital is faaar more detailed in the blacks, film never gets burnt, meanwhile digital gets burn quite fast.
Film has more microcontrast, it's more sharpen
Digital is a little bit more contrast after developing, I imagine it’s because it reach white level faster, then, when doing autolevels with the developing program, as a result, it’s a more contrast image.
I'm having a console application ready, if interest is shown it will be ready quite soon!
CAVEHEATS / LIMITATIONS
The program only accept DNG, because I need all the light captured by the camera, instead of a JPG already converted and really dependent on camera self made adjustments.
The program only accepts photos taken at the ISO of the certain film that is gonna be used. For example, for TriX400 it will accept only Leica M9 DNGs at 400 ISO. I’ve also done tests with ISO 200 and 800, and the results were quite satisfactory but, for complexity reasons, I prefer to let it be native film ISO for the moment.
Highlights are not always correct, and sometimes they look weird, mainly in color film. This is due to bayer sensor pattern and its different intensity response (for Red, Green and Blue channels).
FUTURE (& PAST) WORK
Super thanks to the creator of LibRaw, a wonderful C++ library for working with RAW files.
Any questions I’m open to answer 🙂
Best regards everybody.
Tomás AKA “Camalogica”
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.