Mandler lens resolution

[tedd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

After some great advice on here I have finally completed my Leica kit. I sold my M6 (gasp!) as the M-E 240 is so good I don't miss film at all and moved along all my Zeiss ZM to get a 28 Elmarit-M v4 and 90 Elmarit-M (and a 90 Elmarit briefly)to sit alongside my Summicron-M 50 v5. These lenses all render beautifully and I am so happy with the images they make.

I have set up individual profiles for each lens in the 'Set' menu so I don't have to dive though the lens menu every time I swap over, but I am considering spending the money on 6-bit coding. This is $400 a lens in Australia. For that much money I could do a little travel (once restrictions are over!) or even buy a character lens to feed my GAS and have a little fun.

If this will be a forever kit, I think it's worth it - so my question is, as sensors advance and I get new M's throughout my life, will the Mandler glass still be "good" enough or will it be a blurry mess? I don't even know what happens when a sensor out-resolves the glass but I can't imagine it's good? Or am I over-thinking it sitting inside staring at my camera and unable to take it out?

Thanks!

[frame-it]

https://www.devonbuy.com/how-to-6-bit-code-leica-m-lens/

 

 

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!

 

[tedd]

I spent hours trying this with a sharpie. I got the 90 to read but after taking it on and off a half-dozen times it stopped reading again. The 50 and 28 I didn't manage once. I also managed to get alcohol on my sensor when cleaning the excess off the mount and had to buy a wet cleaning kit to get it off again. Needless to say I've concluded that I'm too silly to make this work and I'd rather put up with my profiles or pay someone else to do it!

[adan]

2 hours ago, tedd said:

.....so my question is, as sensors advance and I get new M's throughout my life, will the Mandler glass still be "good" enough or will it be a blurry mess? I don't even know what happens when a sensor out-resolves the glass but I can't imagine it's good?

Discussion we've had many times.

There really is no such thing as a sensor "outresolving a lens" (or vice versa). No matter how advanced a sensor is, 1) it can only degrade a lens's performance to one extent or another, and no matter how good a lens is, it can only degrade any sensors performance. The question is, how large is the degradation?

The math is pretty simple: system Modulation Transfer Function (MTF - a combination of resolution and contrast, or fidelity of reproduction) = lens MTF x sensor MTF.

An absolutely perfect ideal sensor or lens (which will never exist in the real world) will have an MTF of 100% or 1.00. Since no real sensor or lens will be that good, real MTFs will always be less than 1.00

Take an almost-ideal sensor and lens (still nothing you will ever see in real life), both with MTFs of 0.999. The system MTF (what you'll get in a picture) will be 0.999 x 0.999 = 0.998001%. Slightly WORSE than either lens or sensor performance alone.

Or in other words, "You can't win for losing!"

Or from the glass-half-full perspective - a better lens will always degrade a sensor's output less than a bad lens, and a better sensor will degrade a given lens's output less than a bad sensor.

Or in short - your 28 and 90 Elmarit-M pix will improve (degrade less) with any and all sensor advances possible.

Don't sweat it.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by adan

[mike3996]

2 hours ago, tedd said:

If this will be a forever kit, I think it's worth it - so my question is, as sensors advance and I get new M's throughout my life, will the Mandler glass still be "good" enough or will it be a blurry mess? I don't even know what happens when a sensor out-resolves the glass but I can't imagine it's good? Or am I over-thinking it sitting inside staring at my camera and unable to take it out?

When people say things like "sensor outresolves the glass" they mean that by pixel-peeping at 100%, 200% they see older sensor making crisp pixels and the new sensor (with more pixels) looking slightly less crisp.

It won't affect your prints or social media posts one bit because people won't be staring at the pics at 100%, 200%.

A newer and better sensor has all these  important numbers that improve as technology develops: dynamic range, colors, noise performance, and yes, number of pixels. Here it is noteworthy that the pixel count doesn't have anything else to do with the picture quality, other than to allow more DPI in your prints.

In short, if you're happy with the prints at the print sizes you make with a Mandler lens and a 24 megapixel sensor, you can only be happier if you upgrade some time in the future.

[Dao De Leitz]

The Mandler lenses usually exceed my own abilities.(;-)  

The possible results blow away technical aspects *. At least when you see the results.  (collection / thread)

 

 

        (In case you don't know the series yet.  / &  * of course not, but put them in perspective.)

Thorsten

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, tedd said:

a sensor out-resolves the glass

Does this exist? I’m very curious how that works and what we see at a photo where the sensor outresolves the lens 😳🧐. Thus far old Leica lenses are only getting better on sensors than on film. 6-bit coding above 35mm is quite useless anyway, so you would only need the 28 to be coded if you stand on it. I prefer to use my Mandler lenses unrecognized because I like the original vignetting and stuff. If not I’m done in a minute in postprocessing and I know what I’m doing.

Edited May 2, 2020 by otto.f

[pgk]

24 minutes ago, otto.f said:

Does this exist? I’m very curious how that works and what we see at a photo where the sensor outresolves the lens 😳🧐. Thus far old Leica lenses are only getting better on sensors than on film. 6-bit coding above 35mm is quite useless anyway, so you would only need the 28 to be coded if you stand on it. I prefer to use my Mandler lenses unrecognized because I like the original vignetting and stuff. If not I’m done in a minute in postprocessing and I know what I’m doing.

Easy to try. Just get a simple magnifying glass and mount in on a cardboard tube and then take photos through it. The problem isn't really about 'out resolving' but is about recording higher quantities of spurious data. So no matter how good the sensor the magnifying glass image will still look poor.

[jaapv]

33 minutes ago, otto.f said:

Does this exist? I’m very curious how that works and what we see at a photo where the sensor outresolves the lens 😳🧐. Thus far old Leica lenses are only getting better on sensors than on film. 6-bit coding above 35mm is quite useless anyway, so you would only need the 28 to be coded if you stand on it. I prefer to use my Mandler lenses unrecognized because I like the original vignetting and stuff. If not I’m done in a minute in postprocessing and I know what I’m doing.

Try as we may, we will eradicate Corona before we eradicate this myth...

[otto.f]

8 minutes ago, pgk said:

Easy to try. Just get a simple magnifying glass and mount in on a cardboard tube and then take photos through it. The problem isn't really about 'out resolving' but is about recording higher quantities of spurious data. So no matter how good the sensor the magnifying glass image will still look poor.

For me it’s all the same: unlogical thinking, as adan explained earlier here in detail. Sorry I didn’t read that before I posted, but my idea is: we can explain what we want, but it won’t help if people don’t start to think logical by themselves in the first place. The whole concept of a sensor outresolving a lens is disinformation.

[jaapv]

Nonsense that is fed by "perceptual megapixels"  We live in an age of disinformation.

[otto.f]

People are too busy with the attention the screens demand from them, leaves them no time to think.

[J.Nordvik]

If a lens is sharp enough you will get digital artifacts on a digital M. It does not matter if you do not print large, and are nearsighted. 

[J.Nordvik]

PS. I am nearsighted and like to print large.

[tedd]

Thanks for putting my mind at ease, I think with this being locked in lately I have spent way too much time reading way too many forums. I should know better since I often spend my time telling my own customers (I work in hifi) to stay off forums in general!

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, J.Nordvik said:

If a lens is sharp enough you will get digital artifacts on a digital M. It does not matter if you do not print large, and are nearsighted. 

Could you please elaborate?

[J.Nordvik]

I like to look close in on a print. Pixelpeeping I digital terms.

[J.Nordvik]

I am nearsighted and if I take off my glasses I can put my nose to the print and still see the details in the print.

[J.Nordvik]

Or did you mean Digital Artifacts? in that case I was referring to false colors.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Hi Tedd,

too much lockdown thinking 🙂.  If you've been obsessing this much get it done as there's not much travel going on in the near-to-intermediate future 😉
It's not a matter of whether these lenses are 'good enough' - yes they are - if you are happy with how they render. I've found that the newer cameras bring out more in the older lenses.  I've 6-bit coded all of my older lenses and don't regret it. Camera Clinic provide a good service.

Regards,
Mark

.