MP Quality

[jtank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All

 

Many thanks to each one of you who has taken the trouble to respond. If the friendlines of the Leica users in this forum is anything to judge the MP quality by, then my order will be placed early next week!

 

There seems to be an overwhelming partiality towards the 75/2 rather than the 75/1.4, and I think all the comments here make a great deal of sense. If a tripod is required for the 75/1.4 focus (rather than shutter speed issues), that really defeats the purpose and the cron would make more sense.

 

I am taking the liberty of asking a few more questions, and I do hope some of you will respond.

 

I wear glasses sometimes. Given that i'm unlikely to be using anything longer than the 75, is the .72 viewfinder an issue (I really don't want to spend the additional bucks on a al a carte, would much rather spend on more glass)?

 

I have seen some great photos taken with the 21/4. In fact, probably the best images I've seen from a M camera are with this lens. Why is the external viewfinder considered a pain?

 

What % of your shots can/do you rely on the MP meter for? How often do you use the meter and then manually compensate for lighting conditions?

 

If I were to get the 35 lux and the 75 (cron - is this the one most of you have recomended?) and also wanted a 50, which 50 would you recommend?

 

Is it worth investing in the little devise that is supposedto help with rewinding the film? It's pretty expensive, and I was wondering if it made a great deal of difference.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

Regards

 

Jehangir (that's my name!!)

[Guest leica_mage]

Jehangir, I shan't reply to everything, but here are a few points:

 

(i) Spectacles: I wear them too. With them, seeing the 35mm framelines in their entirety takes a bit of an effort. Seeing the 28mm framelines in their entirety is impossible. But I have bought a corrective diopter, which resolves these issues. For me, going for the 0.58 viewfinder (for the 35mm framelines) is not an option, because I also use my 50mm and 90mm lenses quite a lot. The 90mm framelines are difficult even with my 0.72 viewfinder, so what I did is I bought the x1.25 viewfinder magnifier. To me, combined with the diopter, this is the perfect solution. That way I practically have a 0.72 viewfinder for shooting with 35/28mm (without my specs and with the diopter) and a 0.9 viewfinder for 50 and 90mm work. For focal lengths of 24mm and under, you need an external finder anyway.

 

(ii) I distinctively disagree that a tripod is required for focusing the 75mm 'lux at f/1.4. I agree that it's difficult, but to claim that one definitely needs a tripod is somewhat of an exaggeration.

 

(iii) The 21mm Super-Angulon you refer to may be a better lens than most 21mm lenses made by other companies, but by Leica standards it isn't. If you really like this focal length, go for the ASPH Elmarit.

 

(iv) 50mm lenses: Here Leica really excels! The 50mm ASPH Summilux is probably the best 50mm lens ever made. But if you don't want to dole out that much for your third lens, I would distinctly recommend the latest Summicron. A magical lens, no less.

 

Best,

[stunsworth]

Hi Jehangir

 

The external viewfinder is considered a pain because you have to focus and then move the eye to the viewfinder. I've never really found it to be an issue but some do.

 

I have an M6 which has a similar meter to the MP. I use the internal meter 99.9999% of the time and have done so for b&w, colour nagative and slide film.

 

As for a 50mm, you can't really go wrong they are all excellent. I have a Noctilux and Summicron. If I were buying today I would be very, very tempted to buy the latest ASPH Summilux. This is a fantastic lens.

[vic vic]

jehanger...

 

the issue of 75 mm is rather artistic.... no doubt that the summicron is better and eassier to use, buut the 75 summilux is a magical lens. it is not all about mtf graphs (though even here the summilux has more than enough). it is the carizmatic character of the summilux. no problems with focusing this lens with 0.85 maginification or as k.p says - with 1.25 magnifier on normal. the other thing is wether i do like and do want such a selective focus. and one more thing that many peolpe does not mention - the extrimly selective focus requires not only acurate focusing (on mechanical level) but also artistic and compositional awareness to this kind of photography. holding the 75mm summilux is not eassy for long time though. but when taking pictures, the great balnce in weight that it creates is very welcommed. i dont think a tripod needed here. i have never used tripod with leica, u better buy hasselblad for it :-)))

 

if 35 is your prime lens, and u wear glasses, no questions here - 0.72

 

i dont have any problems with external finders. i have 0.85 camera, and i use alot 28 mm. so usually i dont fucus with rangefinder. i know the distance and with tab it is very fast working procedure. if really needed to focus extremly accuratly with f2 in some situations and im not confident enough about my guess - well i know to aproximate the frame of 28 even without looking into the finder, so i just focus with rangefinder. it works for me. both "blind" framing and focusing comes with practice.

 

about 21 mm - i dont know, but im sure it is great. i will concider this one seriously for the digi m.

 

about 50mm - well - the 50 summilux is the best thing. the noctilux is the sexiest that i drream to have one day. the elm is tiny and great, and the cron is a legend :-))) so just make your choice according to your needs and wishes:-))) personally my fave is the great 50 summilux.

[wbesz]

"I have seen some great photos taken with the 21/4. In fact, probably the best images I've seen from a M camera are with this lens. Why is the external viewfinder considered a pain?"

 

--If you like 21mm than you should get one. I use the external VF with this wide angle, and although extra work, it is worth it for that shot.

 

--Regarding the tripod with the 75 at f1.4 comment, as most shots are not taken at the shortest disance anyway (0.8m, where DOF focus is +/- 5mm), you could disregard this comment. At 2 metres you have +/- 33mm. (Still needs great care!)

 

"What % of your shots can/do you rely on the MP meter for? How often do you use the meter and then manually compensate for lighting conditions? "

 

--I always use the MP inbuilt meter, and yes, compensate too by setting exposure on what I feel is the best component of the composition.

 

"If I were to get the 35 lux and the 75 (cron - is this the one most of you have recomended?) and also wanted a 50, which 50 would you recommend?"

 

--No doubt here, the Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 asph! Wonderful lens.

 

You ask sensible questions and I am sure you will always have someone responding.

[frc]

Hello Jehanger,

 

 

My phrase on needing a tripod to use the lux 75 was perhaps somewhat hyperbolic, certainly tou can shoot it handheld but it is difficult. New, I agree with Vic vic isn't always better in every aspect. The lux 75 has a certain fingerprint of its own, that's the reason I keep it despite hardly ever using its wide aperture and finding it to heavy for daily use.

The 21 asph, it's gorgious, I mentioned it. The external viewfinder needed reduces speed of work, this is my main problem with it.

Given yhe fact you seem to like fast lenses I'd advise you to get the lux 50 asph. The cron 50 latest version I use is superb, no question about that, but the one extra stop can be helpfull in terms of licht and in artistic sence ( DOF ).

Another advice I would like to give you is not to start of buying heeps of lenses right away but only one or two. Get used to the new camera, adjust your shooting to it, and happily use your initial choice of 35 / 75.

 

 

best,

 

Francis.

[Guest leica_mage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[...] Another advice I would like to give you is not to start of buying heeps of lenses right away but only one or two. Get used to the new camera, adjust your shooting to it, and happily use your initial choice of 35 / 75.

All I can add here is that this is truly first-class advice. Personally I'd start with 35/50. The 35mm is the street lens par excellence in my opinion; the 50mm is not an easy lens to work with, but for various important reasons which I won't get into here, it is an essential lens. Even if you abandon it in the future, it is a humbling, disciplining experience. It forces you to concentrate on composition in a way no other lens does, I think. I'd go for these two, then see if you want other lenses.

 

If you don't want to go for this pair, to me 35/75 is next "best".

[jtank]

KP, Steve, Victor, Bill, Francis

 

Thanks very much for your quick responses.

 

KP, you're absolutely correct, I rechecked and the photos I was talking about were indeed with the 21/2.8 and not the super angulon.

 

Steve it's really reasuring to hear that you use the MP's meter pratically al the time - succesfully! I was a little concerned about this, coming from the SLR world where the meter on my D200 is pretty reliable in all modes. I hade been struggling over the MP/M7 quandary for this reason alone, but in the end have decided on the MP ecause i really want to be able to develop the skill of taking the photograph rather than letting Mr Nikon or Mr Leica do it for me. Hope I'm making the right choice!

 

Victor, after having heard so much bout the 50 lux, i'm wondering if the 75 is a good idea after all. I may have gotten carried away because my current favourite lens is the nikon 85/1.4, and i read somewhere that the bokeh with the 75 lux wide open compares with the nikon 85/1.4. maybe worth my taking a long hard look at what I'll really put to use on the MP - 75 or 50?

 

Bill, you're making me put my thinking cap on! I have been talking 35 because like 17-35 on my DSLR. What i forgot to take into account was that 1.5x factor. If I'm comfortable with 17 (on the DSLR, this is about 26) I rekon this would be close to a 28 on the MP. In which case, maybe I could go with the 28 instead of the 21, and then wouldn't need an external viewfinder. Since you have both, maybe you could give me some idea/advice on how much you actually use the 21.

 

Francis, good point re not going in for too many lenses at the outset. I was thinking of only 2 lenses and the reason I thought of 35 and 75 were

 

35 seems to be the most generally used. 75 is a good portrait lens. The 50 is obviously the best rated of them all, but I thought the 35 and 50 would be too close for a 2 lens kit.

 

I have replied to each of you specifically, but would appreciate any input from anyone on any of the above.

 

And before anyone asks, I am employed and it's not that i have nothing else to do, hence the long post! It's just that for me this is a lot of cash to be putting down and I don't want to get something and then say...oh heck, i wish i had got the other camera/lens instead. I'm sure you'll understand.

 

Regards

 

Jehangir

[Guest leica_mage]

Victor' date=' after having heard so much bout the 50 lux, i'm wondering if the 75 is a good idea after all. I may have gotten carried away because my current favourite lens is the nikon 85/1.4, and i read somewhere that the bokeh with the 75 lux wide open compares with the nikon 85/1.4. maybe worth my taking a long hard look at what I'll really put to use on the MP - 75 or 50?[/quote']

This is obviously not intended to replace a reply by Victor himself, but you unwittingly struck a chord here.

 

Nikon - whose SLR optics I came to realise are in general really disappointing, at least for my taste - makes a few very good lenses. One of those few is the 85mm f/1.4, especially the AF version which - though I never used AF - ouperforms its AIS sibling at the wider apertures, à la Leica. That was the only lens that satisfied me after a certain point, when I was an SLR man.

 

Now the Leica equivalents to that lens, angle of view-wise (diagonal), are not the 75mms, but the 90s (the Nikkor's AOV being 28 degrees, the Leica 90mms' AOV being 27 degrees, whilst the 75s' AOV is 32 degrees - closer to the 50mm's AOV of 47 degrees than to the Nikkor 85mm's AOV).

 

As for:

 

[...] 35 seems to be the most generally used. 75 is a good portrait lens. The 50 is obviously the best rated of them all' date=' but I thought the 35 and 50 would be too close for a 2 lens kit. [...']

they are not that close at all. In fact, it's two different (AOV 63 vs. 47) worlds, as I said originally.

 

Best,

[Dan States]

You'd better RENT a Leica before you buy because if you have been using a 17-35 Nikor on an slr you are in for some big time changes when you go rangefinder. The accuracy with which you compose using an SLR is just not there on a rangefinder. You will find all kinds of stuff in your images that you didn't see in the viewfinder because at infinity it only covers about 85% of the actual image.

 

If you are the kind of guy who fills the frame with your compositions you need to try the rangefinder before you buy.

 

Best wishes

Dan

 

PS, there are actually a lot of oustanding Nikon lenses, including the 17-35, the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8's that are certainly on par with the best out there. If you are expecting dramatically better images with a Leica as compared to the D200 and 17-35 I hope you are not dissapointed.

[Guest leica_mage]

[...] PS, there are actually a lot of oustanding Nikon lenses, including the 17-35, the 17-55 and the 70-200 2.8's that are certainly on par with the best out there. If you are expecting dramatically better images with a Leica as compared to the D200 and 17-35 I hope you are not dissapointed.

Respectfully, he won't be disappointed at all. On the very contrary - he'll jump out of his seat when he sees the difference!

[jtank]

The accuracy with which you compose using an SLR is just not there on a rangefinder. You will find all kinds of stuff in your images that you didn't see in the viewfinder because at infinity it only covers about 85% of the actual image.

 

Dan, I'm not sure what the above means, and would be grateful if you could clarify in some detail.

 

Regards

 

Jehangir

[wilyum]

Jtank, welcome to our forum. You needn't fret about the quality of the MP. Mine has been performing flawlessly for three years and Popular Photography Magazine described the MP as "the best Leica ever" in its product review of the camera. The camera is extra reliable precisely because it lacks all the electronic gadgetry of most modern cameras which are battery dependent and prone to sudden failure. The body is built like a brick brauhaus! Buy one and enjoy. Best regards, Bill

[harmsr]

Just my $.02 but I am in agreement with Dan.

 

I own a D200 (17-55/2.8 & 70-200/2.8), M5, MP (.72 VF, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50 1.4ASPH, and 75/2.0 ASPH).

 

I love the M system much more than the D200 for its size and therefore tendency to bring it along much more often. However, I would rate the D200 files in the same catagory as film scanned on my Nikon 5000 ED scanner. I basically use a hybrid workflow of film capture and digital scan/publishing. In this manner, the D200 files are actually nicer than the scanned film.

 

I would rate full size files from a DMR (and hopefully the M8) more along the lines of medium format film, while the D200 is in line with 35 mm film. I would not expect a huge change in quality going to the MP if using a digital workflow.

 

On the other hand as I stated before, I love the M much more than the D200 due to its form factor.

 

Relative to lens, take the advice which several have mentioned already of staring with one or a maximum of 2 lens. Coming from the 17-35 Nikon, I would start with the 50 lux ASPH for a single lens kit or the 35 Lux ASPH and 75 Cron ASPH for a two lens kit.

 

You will find all three of those lens very magical.

 

Personally, I would start slow (as the change from DSLR to RF is significant). If you shot on the wide end of the 17-35 then go for the 35 as your first lens. If you shot more on the 35 end of the 17-35, go for the 50 as your first lens.

 

You will also find that 35 and 50 are very different and not to close together.

 

Best of luck in your choice and welcome to the M.

 

Being used to the D200, you may also want to consider the M8 vs. the MP.

 

Best,

 

Ray

 

 

P.S.: Although I am not Dan, what he is stating is that accuracte framing with and RF is not as possible as with the SLR. In the D200, you see 95% of what will be captured. In a RF you will see framelines that approximate what will be captured. The approximation varies based on the distance you are focused at.

[harmsr]

I forgot to comment on the metering.

 

I find my D200 normally underexposes by about 2/3 of a stop in matrix metering, but does well with the spot option.

 

The MP meter is very accurate, as long as your eye knows where to point it for measuring. It is a semi-spot meter vs. the matrix metering on the D200. I actually prefer this type of metering, as I select what I want to do and what is going to happen in the shadow or highlight details. The MP metering area is a circle which is 2/3 in diameter of the smaller leg frame line for the focal length.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[stevem7]

I also came from a D200 and 5D - sold them both to get a leica M7 starter set (yes, I bought new and got the 5 year warranty)

 

I am thrilled with the M7 kit but it is MUCH different than a DSLR for many reasons.

 

The positives are its size, amazing quality lenses and ease of use/joy of use. The negatives are the framing is MUCH different than an SLR, you can not focus as close as an SLR, and to me, while the D200 raw files were crisp, clean and super colorful, the M7 files are different. Not really better but different. I have shot about 40 rolls so far in 2 months time. I scan my negatives with a Nikon coolscan V and my film images have more noise, are less sharp, and not as ultra colorful as my D200 files were.

 

WHich do I prefer? My M7 by far. I added a 35 summicron to the mix thinking it could be used for wider subjects but if I could start over I would of bought a 28, and instead of the 50 summicron I would of bought the summilux ASPH. I used to own the 50 SUmmilux ASPH with an RD1 and it was a magical lens for sure. I liked my results with it much better than the cron.

 

I love the M system for its size, queitness, lenses and my images have more "soul". My digital images, while pretty to look at, appear more smooth and plasticky. You can definately tell its digital. WIth film , its film. I also like having an actual, tangible negative.

 

Im trying some slide film next week and I have a feeling I will be thrilled with the results. Now all I need is to get me a 90 and 21 and maybe swap my 50 cron for the lux. Its costly but you only live once!

 

BTW, I still have an E1 system for when I NEED an SLR. Since buying the M I have not used it once.

 

Good luck, the MP is a fine tool. I would go with a MP and a 50 Summilux ASPH for a one lens kit. Dont scrimp and get the summicron lilke I did. The Summilux is amazing.

[jtank]

After all the questions and all the great advice and help from forum members, I've bought the MP (silver) and the 50 summilux ASPH for my initiation to the Leica M system. A colleague will be bringing it to Seoul (from HK) on Sunday, and the wait is torture!

[Guest lll]

Congratulations, Jehangir!

 

Let´s make a bet:

Your next lenses will be a 90mm and the new Wide-Tri-Elmar 16-18-21.

All that will suit perfectly your next body, the M8 digital.

 

You should begin to save Your money for.

 

My personal advice: Shoot a lot of slide films at the beginning. They tell you the truth about your growing skills. and don´t be disappointed by the first rolls as you havbe to change quite a lot in your workflow coming from a digi SLR.

 

Keep on!

Friedhelm

[ddp]

Congratulations! This will be a great start for you...there is just something magical about looking at chromes (or nice B&W negatives.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[christer]

Hello All

 

3. I've seen excellent photos taken with the 21/2.8. Is it possible to use this lens with the MP without an exteral viewfinder?

 

Regards

 

jtank

 

YES, it is.

 

I used to have a 21 mm and often used it without the external viewfinder. If I remember correctly the 21mm field of view is approx what you can see in a .72 viewfinder if you move your eyes as far left and right as possible, and squint a bit. I found that less cumbersome than using the external finder.

 

Alternatively you can cut out a template showing the horizonal coverage of 21 mm and attach it to the top of the camera to give you an indication of the coverage.

 

I now have a 15 mm lens which covers slightly more than 90° horizontally. 90° is very easy to estimate, yet I have a template for it on the camera