Sharpness at lower resolution

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No problem if the OP wants a rangefinder of course but otherwise there are not many ways of using M lenses. It is either SL cameras or adapted Sony, Nikon or the like.

[geotrupede]

In regard to the sonys, a good friend of mine who makes a living with photography uses the A1, the top model of sony. There is no poetry and photography is a mechanical/digital act. BUT every single aspect of that camera is miles ahead of competition. He can take 60MP bursts at 30 fps, with autofocus and no finder blackout and what  a finder, even better than the SL2...

I would agree, as he also does, that M lenses would not make sense fitted on the sony as you would miss all the high tech features, such as AF, which is incredible. His setup includes the G series but he does not like them as they are too heavy, so in the end 35 and 24 and 28m with an aperture of 2 or 1.8 are preferred. To note, these are all plastic, and very light and made by sigma and others.

As mentioned, there is no poetry, as I am not living on my pictures there is no need for me to go for sheer performance so I keep in the leica ecosystem. If one does need performance, probably that sony model is the top choice right now.

G.

[Kiwimac]

Also, although I’ve not actually looked, I doubt the Sony forums are full of stories of bricked A7 and A9 bodies, orange lights of death and so on. 
 

That was really the point the dealer was making: he’ll sell you an M11 if that’s what you want but he thinks that you’ll be sending it back for repair rather more often despite having spent twice as much on it. 

[pgk]

9 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

The dealer said if I wanted a reliable option I should buy a Sony A7r V and put M glass on it. 

A Sony will work best using lenses designed for it not M. Many Sony lenses are extremely good (I use both Sony and Leica M) and lack little in techniacl performance even compared to M lenses. But Sony EVF and Leica M RF are worlds apart as photographic tools. I o use M lenses on occasion on my Sony bodies but not often and only for quite specific purposes.

Going back to the title of the thread may I point out that 'sharpness' is subjective whilst resolution is 'objective'?😄

[Stuart Richardson]

10 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

The dealer said if I wanted a reliable option I should buy a Sony A7r V and put M glass on it. 

That is poor advice. Really. M lenses perform poorly on mirrorless cameras that do not have sensors designed to work with them. In reality, that is only the M bodies and the SL bodies. Even the SL bodies do not do as well with the more sensitive lenses as the M bodies do. Even if you did want to use M lenses on a non-Leica body for "reliability", then better choice would be Panasonic, which while doing poor with wide angle or susceptible lenses, do better than the Sony cameras have. I don't want to knock Sony. I really don't care either way. But if you want a reliable option in that sense, then use Sony with Sony lenses or Sigma lenses, not M lenses. Hell, even use Leica R lenses, but using them with M lenses you get the worst of all worlds: you substantially downgrade the performance of extremely expensive lenses and you remove most of the most impressive parts of Sony's cameras (the AF capabilities and automation).

Edited December 27, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[M Street Photographer]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb pgk:

..Going back to the title of the thread may I point out that 'sharpness' is subjective whilst resolution is 'objective'?😄

I thought so too until recently. DXO then taught me better. The automated measurement methods for assessing sharpness are defined and therefore comparable.
That doesn't mean that someone can be happy with a certain sharpness of a lens where others are dissatisfied.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I thought so too until recently. DXO then taught me better. The automated measurement methods for assessing sharpness are defined and therefore comparable.
That doesn't mean that someone can be happy with a certain sharpness of a lens where others are dissatisfied.

No they are not and DXO is wrong if they are suggesting that 'sharpness' can be defined as such. 'Sharpness' is in the eye of the beholder I'm afraid. Yes, obviously you can ascribe various figures to 'sharpness', and graphical representations of variation in density at an edge, because if you couldn't then things like unsharp masking (based on exactly that in film days) would have no determinants, but you can't actually define what is 'sharp' because it quite simply is a human varaible. So a level of sharpness which is acceptable to one person many not be to another. Simple example; two people may prefer different unsharp mask settings in software, so  which is 'sharp' given that neither will be wrong?

[M Street Photographer]

Basically, we both have the same opinion. What some consider not sharp enough is very sharp for me.
On the other hand, DXO is already a reference. The fact that they now use automated measurement technology makes sense given the almost infinite number of lenses or combinations of lenses and cameras.
With the edge measurement and the experiences from past reviews, I think that certain parameters can already be set and thus a sharpness performance can be evaluated and determined if there are deviations from other measurement results of other lenses. An approximate objectivity is thus given rather than when different people, with different eyes, judge a sharpness.
At the end of the day, sharpness is always a bit subjective, and it's not for nothing that there's a phrase: sharpness is something for the rider class.

The sensible sharpness of a recording always depends on the subject. Producing portraits that correspond to pictures of dermatologists is undesirable and flatters neither women nor men.

[pgk]

56 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

Basically, we both have the same opinion. What some consider not sharp enough is very sharp for me.

Exactly. The problem with 'sharpness' is that it is a simple word but a complicated reality. Which is why its difficult to ascribe any really meaningful figures to it.

Edited December 27, 2022 by pgk

[Kiwimac]

Looking at books of photos taken by Eddie Adams years ago taught me that sharpness isn’t necessary to make great images. 
 

That’s not to say it’s not desirable however. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Kiwimac

[DenverSteve]

15 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Also, although I’ve not actually looked, I doubt the Sony forums are full of stories of bricked A7 and A9 bodies, orange lights of death and so on. 
 

That was really the point the dealer was making: he’ll sell you an M11 if that’s what you want but he thinks that you’ll be sending it back for repair rather more often despite having spent twice as much on it. 

Fortunately, this is a bunch of bs.  Any Leica dealer that thinks this (or Sony, or Nikon, or....) should immediately drop that line or they should be cancelled as an authorized dealer.  They shouldn't be selling anything they don't stand behind. 

[Kiwimac]

New Zealand doesn’t have the luxury. Not enough of anything. 
 

Essentially there are two dealers in the country. One on each island. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Kiwimac

[dpitt]

On 12/27/2022 at 12:23 AM, Kiwimac said:

The dealer said if I wanted a reliable option I should buy a Sony A7r V and put M glass on it. 

I think M glass is top quality. However, a part of the production cost is going towards making the RF coupling mechanism work perfectly, also they make some design decisions to keep them as short and small as possible. Both these efforts are 'thrown away' when you mount them on mirrorless bodies.
IMO You could probably better spend your money on Leica R glass in stead. Or any other non-coupled top quality glass.

[sometimesmaybe]

On 12/27/2022 at 10:23 AM, Kiwimac said:

I don’t need 102MP for anything really. The rendering and colour science in the GFX100 is wonderful and its a camera I will miss. 
 

I have missed my M cameras since I sold the 240. 
 

The M11 (or 10-R) would be more than adequate. My thinking at present is M11 and Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 50. 
 

No other lenses. Just shoot that for a year and see whether I genuinely feel I need another focal length. 
 

I have too many for the GFX - 30, 45-100, 100-200 and 250. 
 

I thought of keeping the body but honestly if I had a 60MP option like an M I’d never use the Fuji. 
 

The dealer said if I wanted a reliable option I should buy a Sony A7r V and put M glass on it. 

***tangent thought experiment warning***

why not keep a foot in both the GFX and Leica system? i like taking both my mistresses out on shoots 😅

swap the GFX100 for the GFX100s and pair it with the GF50mm (a lighter hi res set up)

satiate your Leica lust by grabbing the more mature M10R

[Kiwimac]

1 hour ago, sometimesmaybe said:

***tangent thought experiment warning***

why not keep a foot in both the GFX and Leica system? i like taking both my mistresses out on shoots 😅

swap the GFX100 for the GFX100s and pair it with the GF50mm (a lighter hi res set up)

satiate your Leica lust by grabbing the more mature M10R

Cost, principally.

The 100s is NZ$9,999 new and rare second hand here. The GFX100 was NZ$18,000 new but mine (which was BNIB) was one of the last sold here after the S version was introduced and I got it for NZ$9,999.

 

Second hand values in NZ are low - the market is small at that sort of level. For $29,000 worth of GFX gear I was offered $17,500 trade in.

[sometimesmaybe]

1 hour ago, Kiwimac said:

Cost, principally.

The 100s is NZ$9,999 new and rare second hand here. The GFX100 was NZ$18,000 new but mine (which was BNIB) was one of the last sold here after the S version was introduced and I got it for NZ$9,999.

 

Second hand values in NZ are low - the market is small at that sort of level. For $29,000 worth of GFX gear I was offered $17,500 trade in.

i see... i just hate it when reality gets in the way of a good fantasy.

maybe you'll have some luck on gumtree or the like advertising for a trade. for someone like me who uses the GFX only for portraits the lack of a vertical grip is a real pain!