Problems getting sharp images by 60MP

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd rather Leica make regular M lenses with 0.6m instead of 0.7m MFD even if it means painting the 0.6m distance in grey. Voigtlander used to do it w/o grey painting for many years so why not Leica? 

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

22 minutes ago, lct said:

I'd rather Leica make regular M lenses with 0.6m instead of 0.7m MFD even if it means painting the 0.6m distance in grey. Voigtlander used to do it w/o grey painting for many years so why not Leica? 

For some lenses, it may not be mechanically possible to focus more closely and keep the current compact design, even if the IQ still holds up when macro-adapted to another mirrorless platform such as the SL cameras. For example, the Noct 0.95 was probably restricted to a longer MFD due to IQ reasons at closer distances. For other lenses, it may be either or both reasons.

[lct]

40 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

For some lenses, it may not be mechanically possible to focus more closely and keep the current compact design, even if the IQ still holds up when macro-adapted to another mirrorless platform such as the SL cameras. For example, the Noct 0.95 was probably restricted to a longer MFD due to IQ reasons at closer distances. For other lenses, it may be either or both reasons.

OK for special lenses like Noctilux but modern lenses can be both compact and sharp at close distance. I see no reason why Leica could not compete with Voigtlander on this point. BTW you own CV lenses yourself if i remember well. See what the tiny 35/2 asph and 28/2 asph can do at their 0.58m and 0.5m MFD.

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, lct said:

OK for special lenses like Noctilux but modern lenses can be both compact and sharp at close distance. I see no reason why Leica could not compete with Voigtlander on this point. BTW you own CV lenses yourself if i remember well. See what the tiny 35/2 asph and 28/2 asph can do at their 0.58m and 0.5m MFD.

I also see no reason why they can't design future lenses that way, I agree. But it would be a "where possible" kind of thing. The new CV 50mm f/1 is a 0.9m MFD lens, but as you mentioned other are not. I think performance below 0.7m on the CV lenses varies by design. My CV 35 1.2 III was not impressive at MFD wide open, but others have been.

[lct]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

I also see no reason why they can't design future lenses that way, I agree. But it would be a "where possible" kind of thing. The new CV 50mm f/1 is a 0.9m MFD lens, but as you mentioned other are not. I think performance below 0.7m on the CV lenses varies by design. My CV 35 1.2 III was not impressive at MFD wide open, but others have been.

I have never seen f/0.95, f/1 or f/1.2 lenses designed for closeups so far. Same for f/1.4 lenses AFAIK but modern f/2 and slower lenses can focus closer than 0.7m nowadays. The little Ultron 28/2 asph has a 0.5m MFD for instance and can focus at less than 0.6m in RF mode on the M11. We used to call this "guess distance" in the past, now focusing that close is possible not only with EVFs but also with modern rangefinders.

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

I also see no reason why they can't design future lenses that way, I agree. But it would be a "where possible" kind of thing. The new CV 50mm f/1 is a 0.9m MFD lens, but as you mentioned other are not. I think performance below 0.7m on the CV lenses varies by design. My CV 35 1.2 III was not impressive at MFD wide open, but others have been.

CV 50mm f/1  has that on the meter scale, but I have noticed that the focusing is OFF when you focus that close., by 1.2m and above there are no problems

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I also see no reason why they can't design future lenses that way ......

Rangefinder base/accuracy.

[lct]

45 minutes ago, pgk said:

Rangefinder base/accuracy.

Would you know any optical formula supporting this? Just curious as the only one i know of doesn't take MFD into account. In my admittedly modest experience, when the RF is accurate at 0.7m it is still accurate at 0.6m. See my CV 35/2 asph crop above. Same on the CV 28/2 asph BTW. 

[harmen]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Would you know any optical formula supporting this?

For anything physics it always helps to think about what happens at the extremes.  Think about framing at 0 cm distance, or 10 to make it realistic.  You’ll run out of space to move the frame lines.  And your photo will look nothing like what you see from up high on the left through the viewfinder.

[lct]

10 minutes ago, harmen said:

For anything physics it always helps to think about what happens at the extremes.  Think about framing at 0 cm distance, or 10 to make it realistic.  You’ll run out of space to move the frame lines.  And your photo will look nothing like what you see from up high on the left through the viewfinder.

Sorry but frame lines move normally at 0.6m. Which is normal given that when the focus patch moves, framelines move as well.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Would you know any optical formula supporting this? Just curious as the only one i know of doesn't take MFD into account. In my admittedly modest experience, when the RF is accurate at 0.7m it is still accurate at 0.6m. See my CV 35/2 asph crop above. Same on the CV 28/2 asph BTW. 

Puts used to have some info on this but I can't find it any more and I can't put my hands on an appropriate book. but if you think about it, having two viewpoints on a close subject is finally going to provide images which are not viable to coincide.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

Sorry but frame lines move normally at 0.6m. Which is normal given that when the focus patch moves, framelines move as well.

And the focal legth is increasing as you focus closer, marginally but its happening. The framelines will show less of the actual image at closer distances. 

[lct]

All images coincide at 0.6m the same way as they do at 0.7m given that the focus patch keeps moving from 0.7m to 0.6m on the M11. Same on the M240 except that focus patch and frame lines stop moving at about 0.63m on it. As for frame lines they keep moving as long as the focus patch moves as well, i.e. from 0.7m to 0.6m on the M11. In a rangefinder all moving parts move together as clear as i understand.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by lct

[pgk]

28 minutes ago, lct said:

All images coincide at 0.6m the same way as they do at 0.7m given that the focus patch keeps moving from 0.7m to 0.6m on the M11. Same on the M240 except that focus patch and frame lines stop moving at about 0.63m on it. As for frame lines they keep moving as long as the focus patch moves as well, i.e. from 0.7m to 0.6m on the M11. In a rangefinder all moving parts move together as clear as i understand.

So if nothing has changed why did Leica never do this before?

[lct]

28 minutes ago, pgk said:

So if nothing has changed why did Leica never do this before?

One thing has changed apparently: the RF's ability to focus down to 0.6m and closer.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, lct said:

One thing has changed apparently: the RF's ability to focus down to 0.6m and closer.

So how have they achieved this?

[jdlaing]

35 minutes ago, lct said:

One thing has changed apparently: the RF's ability to focus down to 0.6m and closer.

The lens may focus at that distance but the rangefinder cannot.

[lct]

5 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

The lens may focus at that distance but the rangefinder cannot.

It does as it did  before the M11 but closer. The RF doesn't stop working at 0.7m since both RF patch and frame lines keep moving down to 0.6m and closer. Not only the RF works but it works accurately given that pics are sharp at 0.6m and below.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

42 minutes ago, pgk said:

So how have they achieved this?

Good question. 

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, lct said:

One thing has changed apparently: the RF's ability to focus down to 0.6m and closer.

My CVs that can focus closer than 0.7m – they would not disengage the rangefinder focus mechanism until around 0.6m on my M10s as well, so the patch kept moving and working down below 0.7m.

Edited May 17, 2022 by hdmesa