Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thrid

New Summarits - Puts review part II

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the compliment!

 

 

Touchy, aren't we? And paying no attention to context. Shame on you! I seconded your pov and didn't say a thing about your being allowed to express an opinion. You responded to another person, and I expanded your response. And you get hotsy-totsy, claiming I didn't read you. Calm down, P.G

 

 

(Why no period after the "G," by the way?)

 

--HC

 

My apologies, I got you mixed up with someone else.

Who's P.G.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Thanks Dave i did a nice test with all the Summarits the 75mm was seperate from the rest and posted it here and on my site. Yet to read Erwin and usually don't bother but I find the Summarits very nice and actually replaced my 90 cron with the 90mm Summarit and i am very happy with that decision . I find personally the shorter throw on focusing an advantage for me but the difference between the lenses besides speed is they are pretty darn close and I would after all that testing buy another with no problem. I test by shooting images and I like to test lenses in the worst conditions to see how they handle problem area's that I run into as a pro shooter. For me seeing what a lens does in certain conditions is more important than MTF charts and such . Let's face it the end of the day your looking at the image to judge not a chart. Many folks test differently and that is great but as i have said before take all the info out there and make a informed decision but really only YOU can really decide. Buy them try them and see if it fits your style. The Summarits to me are a surprise , I honestly did not expect them to be as good as they are. Leica did a nice job on them. The price point does make you think twice about getting them also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy,

 

What is it about the 90 Summarit you like compared to 90 APO? I'm finding my 90APO ends up left out of the bag more often than not due to its size and weight. Was that a consideration or did you base it entirely on performance?

 

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Frankly I was missing focus too much with the 90 cron and the shorter throw is easier to nail with the Summarit. Performance wise optically it was and is pretty damn close for sure. The 90 Summarit at 2.5 is extremely sharp, that alone was worth the purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only copy I got a chance to handle the focusing was extremely stiff, to the point that I would be wary of using (that copy at least). Guy or anyone know if this is the case across the board (I'm referring to the 90)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between "brick walls", charts and vegetables...

Dave

 

I object strenuously, I also provide fruit in those articles. I would hate to be pigeon-holed as just a vegetable reviewer. <G>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well I have just got my 75 Summarit. I took an image for another thread of the hand coding on my 35 Nokton and noticed that the Summarit seemed to be back focusing. Run tests with the Nikon chart and it is miles out. I have done a cross check with my pretty new 50 Summilux and it is spot on so it is not the M8. I had thought Leica had begun to get their act together but it seems not. I am both angry and disappointed. I am beginning to feel it would have been better getting a CV Colour Heliar and saving the money. At least it might have focussed properly.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick addition to my post above and a complement to Richard Caplan in London. With not a second's hesitation and before I had even asked, they have said they will swap it for another one. Service like that seems increasingly rare in today's world.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly I was missing focus too much with the 90 cron and the shorter throw is easier to nail with the Summarit. Performance wise optically it was and is pretty damn close for sure. The 90 Summarit at 2.5 is extremely sharp, that alone was worth the purchase.

 

This response intrigues me. It seems to suggest that the issue of “missing the focus point” with lenses like to 90mm ASPH when used on an M8 is more widespread than previously reported. This is exactly the frustration I have commented on and to which, by implication, E. Puts draws attention in the article which is the subject of this thread.

 

I would be interested to know how the problem with the 90mm ASPH was perceived. Is it, as I have experience, where prints have a bitingly sharp and very obvious plane of focus which, if it does not occur in exactly the appropriate place, is quite disturbing and makes the rest look un-sharp?

 

The solution of moving to a lens with a smaller aperture and, let us be honest, lower sharpness is worrying. I do hope that we are not all going to have to get used to using the M8 only with “second tier” lenses because of a lack of capability in the rangefinder system – but it does seem to be going a bit that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I think you are correct. One of the messages that has come through loud and clear from the M8 is that the M rangefinder as a focussing aid is at the limit of its capabilities. Add the triple whammy of long focal length, fast aperture and close focus and you run of out depth of field to hide your mistakes and the camera's limitations. 75mm Summilux at f1.4 and 1.5m? Difficult and what might have been fine for a soft-ish 5cm Elmar on an M3 50 years ago doesn't cut it now.

 

The rangefinder has no margin for error, so mis-adjustment of the camera or lens or user limitations due to their eye-sight, hangover, state of mind or sleep deprivation will all contrive to spoil the images. It's been a wake-up call for me to put a manual focus Nikon 50mm f1.2 on a D3 (not the aspheric 58mm f1.2 Noct-Nikkor, can't find one at a sensible price) and use a single focus patch and focus confirmation to get the focus exactly right. Just like focussing an M with a Noctilux but more accurate.

 

The rangefinder design needs to be reworked for a future camera so that the feedback in the viewfinder is based on actual focus, not "we-think-this-is-what-it-should-be-if-the-camera and-lens-are-correctly-adjusted" focus by proxy we have now. That suggests using the sensor in some sort of live view mode - do away with the shutter completely? - to determine focus and have the rangefinder patch image injected into the viewfinder and shifted left or right to mimic the current rangefinder action. Add electronic framelines which are accurate for the lens mounted and the focus distance and variable finder magnification to complete the picture.

 

Most of all, we need to get rid of the need to calibrate lenses beyond a simple infinity stop reference. We wouldn't get rid of focussing cams because they would still be used for parallax correction but no longer for focussing.

 

Purists might not be happy but let's be clear. The current focussing method of the M8 is not consistently good enough to get the image quality out of the camera the lenses are capable of providing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a longer physical base length is doable in a narrow timeframe.

 

Electronic sensor confirmation is far more difficult to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruben, the problem with that is your fingers will be more likely to cover the rangefinder patch if the base length is increased. Even if you do, it's still going to be off if either the camera or lens are out of adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruben, the problem with that is your fingers will be more likely to cover the rangefinder patch if the base length is increased. Even if you do, it's still going to be off if either the camera or lens are out of adjustment.

 

Mark,

 

You are getting dangerously close to the thinking that produced the Contax G1 and G2. I ran some tests a few years ago with my G2 for the Contax Forum to test the accuracy of the G2 rangefinder, using the Sonnar 90 lens. When it did decide to pick up focus, it was amazingly accurate, with an average error margin of around 0.3% at distances from 1 to 4 meters. I bet that is better than most of us could manage with the M8 rangefinder.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic focusing assistance will not only require rework in the camera body but also in the lenses which is a LOT of work.

 

Close focusing (manually) at large apertures is always tough even on SLRs not to mention rangefinders, especially when you consider many of these optics are quite unsharp at open apertures ... adding extremely shallow DoF.

 

On the other handm, in many cases, you just don't need to know and most likely don't care whether it's in precise focus when shooting f/1.4 or f/1.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, actually, I do care about getting the focus right at f1.0 and f1.4 because if you don't you can't expect depth of field to bail you out and if what you expect to be in focus is not, what's the point?

 

Simon, I take your point about the amount of work and there would be an issue trying to focus stopped down. Even so, I think the rangefinder in its current form just isn't good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Purists might not be happy but let's be clear. The current focussing method of the M8 is not consistently good enough to get the image quality out of the camera the lenses are capable of providing.

The difficulty to focus 90/2 and 75/1.4 lenses at full aperture is mainly due to the low magnification of the M8 rangefinder IMHO.

To get a better accuracy with optical means Leica should choose an higher VF magnification and/or a longer RF base length as suggested by Ruben above.

We've discussed this in 2006 if i remember well but i can't seem to retrieve our posts except this little graph of mine.

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://idisk.mac.com/pynicolas/Public//LeicaM8_RFaccur_0,0226CoC.gif&key=37bb0551ed778fef8f5723511b5f4fb8f06caac952321f5a2c7a51799250b93e">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are getting dangerously close to the thinking that produced the Contax G1 and G2. I ran some tests a few years ago with my G2 for the Contax Forum to test the accuracy of the G2 rangefinder, using the Sonnar 90 lens. When it did decide to pick up focus, it was amazingly accurate,

 

That's what I was about to mention as well.

 

For what it's worth ... I let a friend at Canon service worked on my 50/1.4 ROM and 80/1.4 ROM and get them recalibrated to the electronic focusing system on the 1D series, now I think they're even better when mounted on a R9.

 

I don't trust my eyes anymore, and I have been trained for target shooting for many years. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difficulty to focus 90/2 and 75/1.4 lenses at full aperture is mainly due to the low magnification of the M8 rangefinder IMHO.

To get a better accuracy with optical means Leica should choose an higher VF magnification and/or a longer RF base length as suggested by Ruben above.

We've discussed this in 2006 if i remember well but i can't seem to retrieve our posts except this little graph of mine.

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://idisk.mac.com/pynicolas/Public//LeicaM8_RFaccur_0,0226CoC.gif&key=37bb0551ed778fef8f5723511b5f4fb8f06caac952321f5a2c7a51799250b93e">

 

 

LCT, I agree with you, but this all assumes the lens and camera are correctly calibrated. We need to get to a point where calibration is not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't trust my eyes anymore, and I have been trained for target shooting for many years. LOL

 

Simon,

 

So like me you are not only blind but deaf as well ;-}}. When I had a hearing test a few months ago as part of a general medical, the lady looked at the hearing test and said "hmm rifle shooter eh?"

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruben, the problem with that is your fingers will be more likely to cover the rangefinder patch if the base length is increased...

I don't remember having been bothered by this when i used old Contax rangefinders but i may be wrong. Any opinion from Zeiss Ikon users? A neat optical solution could be to choose a longer RF base a la ZI and a higher VF magnification a la R-D1. This would imply a larger VF window though, hence the difficulty or impossibility to fit some Visoflex and lenses with goggles like 35/1.4, 35/2, 35/2.8 and 135/2.8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...