Jump to content

Images from Panasonic L-Mount cameras


Recommended Posts

On 3/22/2019 at 10:15 AM, Jon Warwick said:

Is there a rule of thumb for how the different focal lengths of M lenses tend to work on 3rd party cameras (like Sony mirrorless or Nikon Zs) that could give an idea of how they might work on the Panasonic S1(R)?

Specifically I am wondering if my M 75mm Summarit could work just as well (ie, without edge smearing or colour cast) as it does on M bodies? 

Just as a random aside, I have two 75mm M lenses...I originally got a great deal on a used 75mm Summilux in the early 2000s and later bought the 75mm Summicron to compare...I wound up keeping both as I like the focal length and felt that the Summilux had such a great look, especially on film, while at the time I appreciated the size and sharpness of the summicron more on digital. 

When I started doing videography and acquired a Sony body, I tried both my 75mm lenses on the A7Rii. I was surprised to see that the 75mm Summilux was actually better on that body than the 75mm Summicron. This led me to conclude that even the longer lenses are affected by the sensor cover glass. Both performed well enough to use, but the Summicron was clearly being more degraded than the Summilux. I am not sure if the Summilux is more retrofocal than the Summicron (it certainly looks like it with its big front element), but either way, it demonstrated to me that rangefinder lenses are very specific, and in general they do not play well on digital that is not specifically made for them. These comments do not necessarily apply to portraiture or even other kinds of photography, but are more in relation to showing the lens at its best. It might be usable on the body, but it is probably not performing as well as it could if the body were designed for it. 

 

--------

Apologies to the thread police for continuing to discuss Leica lenses on the Panasonic bodies. I would post images if I were within a 1000km of a S series body, but sadly the closest is probably over the Atlantic somewhere in Scotland or Norway. 

Edited by Stuart Richardson
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have been caught up in the “M” lens compatibility debate.  But over the past few days I’ve begun to question my logic.  I asked myself, would I expect a 20 year old 8 track tape to play in a current day, digital device ... the answer was a resounding, no. OK, the analogy is a tad over the top, but I suspect that Leica made the SL capable of playing nice with M lenses for economic reasons, by making the switch to, or addition of the SL more palatable to “M” camera owners.  Other manufacturers have no need for such a business plan.

The next question that I posed to myself was, aside from increased resolution, what factors are must have. I realized that I like dedicated buttons, and IBIS is a must. “L” lens compatibility is already a given with the S1R, but to what extent “M” lenses are compatible is still apparently debatable, depending upon what you are willing to accept in terms perfection or the lack thereof.

And then came the economic question:  How much am I willing to spend to reap the fullest from my 20 or more year old “M” lenses?  The recent Q2 release has come with a 20% price increase (from the original Q’s $4,000 to the Q2’s 5,000).  If that strategy continues, the SL2 might be priced—at the very least—in the $9,000 range.  While there is no clear evidence for its intended features other than a new, higher resolution sensor, and assuming that it will not be a rebadged version of the S1R, rumor has it that it will not feature IBIS.  So, does it make sense—for myself—to spend that sizable dollar amount just to assure “M” lens compatibility?  And then there’s the issue of SL resale value once the SL2 is released.

My personal conclusion, while I rarely use my “M” lenses, it makes more sense to keep my SL and use it as dedicated “M” lens holder, as well as a backup camera, and add to it what appears to be a very capable S1R for less than half the presumed price of a new SL2.  Add to that the more reasonably priced non-Leica “L” lenses and, IMO, the strategy begins to make economic sense.

Edited by ron777
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SL2 is only a S1R in a different body, i do not think Leica will find a lot of buyers if the SL2 is in the rumored 9000€ price range.
Than perhaps a lot of people will better buy the half priced S1R and buy on top another Leica lens instead.
So Leica has to do some effort to justify that rumored price inrease.
I hope there will be no more price increase like from the Q to Q2…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to see if the 10 stop ND filter is simply asking the impossible.  On the traditional EV scale ISO 100 at 1 sec at f/1 is EV 0.  Exposure reading at ISO 100 is a convenient measure of light level.  Most cameras can give an accurate reading down to about EV 0 on this scale.  Some go down to EV -2, but that's about it.  My old Sekonic meter can still read down to 8 sec at f/2, ISO 100, and that is EV -1. Take a typical low light indoor exposure, say ISO 400 f/2 @1/30, and scale it down to ISO 100 f/2@1/8 and you get an EV level of about +5.  Take it down 10 stops with an ND filter, and you have the camera seeing -5 EV, which is probably lower than it can go.  So it recommends an exposure for the lowest conceivable light level, -2, that it was told to expect, and you get three stops of underexposure.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Let's try to see if the 10 stop ND filter is simply asking the impossible.  On the traditional EV scale ISO 100 at 1 sec at f/1 is EV 0.  Exposure reading at ISO 100 is a convenient measure of light level.  Most cameras can give an accurate reading down to about EV 0 on this scale.  Some go down to EV -2, but that's about it.  My old Sekonic meter can still read down to 8 sec at f/2, ISO 100, and that is also EV 0. Take a typical low light indoor exposure, say ISO 400 f/2 @1/30, and scale it down to ISO 100 and you get an EV level of about +5.  Take it down 10 stops with an ND filter, and you have the camera seeing -5 EV, which is probably lower than it can go.  So it recommends an exposure for the lowest conceivable light level, -2, that it was told to expect, and you get three stops of underexposure.

Excellent, very informative. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some have complained about edge smearing with M lenses.  Here is a comparison between the 21mm Summilux and the 16-35mm SL  (at 16mm; sorry I wasn't particularly in lens testing mode when I took these).  These are straight out of camera jpegs, so I haven't straightened them.

Chapel of St Peter and St Paul, Old Royal Naval College, London, United Kingdom, Greenwich, England 

Chapel of St Peter and St Paul, Old Royal Naval College, London, United Kingdom, Greenwich, England 

At full-rez, the writing is legible on both, which is partly a testimony to S1Rs focus peaking, which is *much* better than the SLs (or Sony's).  Despite its cost, the Summilux is not a

For some reason, the Auto ISO feature of the S1R (which I presume takes the (manually-entered)) focal length into account) sticks to 1/125s which, with IBIS, seems a bit conservative, leading to ISO 500/640.  But, since the ISO performance is pretty good, it doesn't matter much.  The zoom, using Auto ISO is 1/60mm at ISO 1250.   You may be able to tell the noise difference, but I cannot on a 15" MacBook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is depth of field effect.  One of the reasons (now, really the only reason) for using the Summilux is subject separation / background blurring.  A hard thing to do at 21mm.  The purpose of this comparison is to show that even the 21mm doesn't smear much and that the zoom is, in practice superior, despite the aperture disadvantage, unless you want to blur your backgrounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, and reason to stick with the SL lenses, rather than the M's.  

With the exception of the weight and maximum aperture advantage, the zooms are much more convenient.  I despise having to change lenses in the wild and the zooms, for the most part, negate the need for same.  I can count, on one hand, the number of times that I have, in recent years, resorted to using an M lens on the SL, and it is one of the many reasons that I am not concerned about their usefulness on the S1R or, for that matter, any other camera.  But rather than sell them at a significant loss, I plan on keeping them to be used with my SL, should the need ever arise for a more stealthily kit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say, apart from the weight ...  It’s a bit like The Life of Brian and “what did the Romans do for us ... “. The attraction of the M lenses is their compactness. And the fact that they will still work in 50 years’ time, where as the electronic lenses will have stopped working and been replaced by phones using A.I. to produce superior images.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course, in re lenses, weight is a function of size, and I did not feel it necessary to state the obvious.  However, 50 years from now cameras may be as obsolete as the abacus ... perhaps they will be replaced by a device that will allow those living at the time—certainly not an old man like myself—to transmit visual images to a distant storage device for manipulation and holographic display.  And with that in mind, I am more concerned about the here and now, not the distant future.  

That said, motorized lenses, zooms and primes, can still be used manually, assuming that they are supplied with manually adjustable aperture rings.  Optically, most of the motorized zooms and primes, from manufacturers such as Leica, Fuji, Sony, Olympus and so on, that I've had the pleasure to use are quite impressive.  I am not a pixel peeper, and am more interested in the image that they are capable of drawing.  Over the years, many of my gallery exhibited images have sold and, to date, not a single purchaser has asked about the camera or lens that had produced the image.  So for myself, cameras and lenses are more about what I enjoy using, what gives me pleasure, assuming an equal playing field that measures up to a predetermined level of IQ.

Edited by ron777
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2019 at 8:13 PM, scott kirkpatrick said:

Let's try to see if the 10 stop ND filter is simply asking the impossible.  On the traditional EV scale ISO 100 at 1 sec at f/1 is EV 0.  Exposure reading at ISO 100 is a convenient measure of light level.  Most cameras can give an accurate reading down to about EV 0 on this scale.  Some go down to EV -2, but that's about it.  My old Sekonic meter can still read down to 8 sec at f/2, ISO 100, and that is EV -1. Take a typical low light indoor exposure, say ISO 400 f/2 @1/30, and scale it down to ISO 100 f/2@1/8 and you get an EV level of about +5.  Take it down 10 stops with an ND filter, and you have the camera seeing -5 EV, which is probably lower than it can go.  So it recommends an exposure for the lowest conceivable light level, -2, that it was told to expect, and you get three stops of underexposure.

Thanks ....... I spent quite a while with a pencil and paper trying to work all this out and got myself in a right muddle. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 17.3.2019 um 22:22 schrieb helged:

Thanks. Based on the jpgs - the up-sized image appears sightly more detailed compared to the Hi-Res image, whereas the latter is a little more pleasant to look at for my eyes (in the meaning a little less digital than the up-sized image).

An open question, for curiosity: Hi-Res takes 8 images, with the sensor (slightly) shifted, generating a biggie file with improved detail. What about taking 8 identical images, loading these into PS as smart objects, and then taking (e.g.) the mean of these; Layer -> Smart Objects -> Stack Mode -> Mean? This would certainly improve the signal-to-noise ratio that, in isolation, should lead to improved rendering of details. Would this method also give an end result comparable with the Hi-Res and up-sized images shown above?

If you move the sensor, you get increased resolution because of the Bayer pattern.

If you stack identical pictures, you reduce hte eletronic noise and thus increase  S/N by the square root. You do not add any information.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reasons why the SR1 makes a lot of sense and why I am keeping it .....

Handheld, 1/4 sec iso 400, 29mm on the 16-35 SL....

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 18
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1/2 sec, handheld, 23mm iso 160, 16-35mm 

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 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

75/2 SL, handheld, 1/3 sec f4, iso 100

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 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

and a 100% crop ....

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 17
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv changed the title to Images from Panasonic L-Mount cameras
  • jaapv pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...