manolo Posted September 22, 2006 Share #121 Posted September 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) looking forward to the tests. How about the 50/1 Leica? (to test on the M8) or the 75's(75/2 & 75/1.4) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 22, 2006 Posted September 22, 2006 Hi manolo, Take a look here Sean Reid's positive/ constructive review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted September 22, 2006 Share #122 Posted September 22, 2006 Thanks for the heads up. Any plans to see how the Zeiss M-lenses stack up to the Voigtlander counterpart? Considering the Cosina relation, I would be interested. Hi Albert, Indeed, take a look at the list again. CV is Cosina Voigtlander. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted September 22, 2006 Share #123 Posted September 22, 2006 BTW, in case this is of interest, I've just sent my lens testing plans to Zeiss so that we can start scheduling review lenses. Here's what I have planned for the coming months: Zeiss 18/4.0, Zeiss 21/2.8, Zeiss 21/4.5, Leica 21/2.8, Leica 16-18-21 Tri Elmar (all on M8) Zeiss 25, Leica 24/2.8 on M8 Zeiss 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.0, CV 28/1.9 on M8 Zeiss 35/2.0, Leica 35/1.4, Leica 35/2.0, CV 35/2.5, CV 35/1.7 on M8 Zeiss 50/2.0, Zeiss 50/1.5, Leica 50/1.4, CV 50/1.5 on M8 Cheers, Sean Sean, that's good news for all of us. Cheers, Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 22, 2006 Share #124 Posted September 22, 2006 looking forward to the tests. How about the 50/1 Leica? (to test on the M8) or the 75's The Noctilux is a different beast and so I'll be testing it all by itself. I will test it though, along with the 75/1.4. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 22, 2006 Share #125 Posted September 22, 2006 BTW, in case this is of interest, I've just sent my lens testing plans to Zeiss so that we can start scheduling review lenses. Here's what I have planned for the coming months: Zeiss 18/4.0, Zeiss 21/2.8, Zeiss 21/4.5, Leica 21/2.8, Leica 16-18-21 Tri Elmar (all on M8) Zeiss 25, Leica 24/2.8 on M8 Zeiss 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.0, CV 28/1.9 on M8 Zeiss 35/2.0, Leica 35/1.4, Leica 35/2.0, CV 35/2.5, CV 35/1.7 on M8 Zeiss 50/2.0, Zeiss 50/1.5, Leica 50/1.4, CV 50/1.5 on M8 Cheers, Sean Ah, I meant the following CV lenses: 21/4 Color Skopar w/ Viewfinder 25/4 Snapshot-Skopar w/ Viewfinder 28/3.5 Color Skopar 35/1.2 ASPH Nokton I couldn't find those on the list? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted September 22, 2006 Share #126 Posted September 22, 2006 will you test the 75/2? I'm curius to see what you think of it in terms of the highlights/shadows, i thought it reveling how you compared the 24's & 21's zeis & leica's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 22, 2006 Share #127 Posted September 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) will you test the 75/2? I'm curius to see what you think of it in terms of the highlights/shadows, i thought it reveling how you compared the 24's & 21's zeis & leica's Yes, I think the 75 set should be: Leica 75/1.4, Leica 75/2.0, CV 75/2.5 Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 22, 2006 Share #128 Posted September 22, 2006 Ah, I meant the following CV lenses: 21/4 Color Skopar w/ Viewfinder 25/4 Snapshot-Skopar w/ Viewfinder 28/3.5 Color Skopar 35/1.2 ASPH Nokton I couldn't find those on the list? Thanks. Hi Albert, Right now, I'm not planning to test the first three lenses on the M8 because all three of them showed noticeable vignetting even on the R-D1. In my mind, those first three lenses are not in the same league as the others I've listed. The 25/4 isn't even RF coupled which is very problematic. The myth is that the deep DOF of a 25 makes precise focus unneccessary but that isn't even true of a 21. You mention the finders but those finders won't match the Leica's fields of view. The 35/1.2 is a decent lens and maybe that should go into the mix. Thanks for the reminder. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlm Posted September 22, 2006 Share #129 Posted September 22, 2006 what else is out there for those that want 21mm eq on the M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 22, 2006 Share #130 Posted September 22, 2006 Not a lot, the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21, the Zeiss 15mm or the CV 15mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 23, 2006 Share #131 Posted September 23, 2006 What liked about the article was Sean's statement that with a DSLR the photographer sees certain distances (objects) out of focus and has to figure out how they look in focus, whereas the bloke with the rangefinder sees everything in focus and has to imagine how some of the objects look out of focus. So a comparison with the cannon is not warranted and visa versa, two cameras on their own journey Good points,that is why I before being seduced by digital preferred RF work. Though I wonder how soon after the M8 reaches the hands of photographhers; will we see reports of "my 35/2.0 has back focus issues"? <g> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 23, 2006 Share #132 Posted September 23, 2006 Dear Sean, Hi Imants, That's a really interesting question. One of the most important things it brings relates to it's file quality which I, unfortunately, can't discuss in any detail yet. While being about the same size as previous Ms, I think that it brings us the digital version of the "Texas Leica" and I'll be talking about that a lot more in the next article. For those who don't know the term, "Texas Leica" is the slang name for Fuji's medium format rangefinder cameras. I worked with several of them in the 1980s. <snip> Cheers, Sean Encouraging words for those of us that may be "forced" to pull the trigger before your next part of the M8 review. Not being combative (actually more excited by the M8), but some "reviewers" would say that in order for the M8 to be " the digital version of the "Texas Leica"", a digital camera would need between 16 and 22mp - and with the current "view" of sensor technology, it would have to be full frame. I take it then, that we have seen the next major jump in CCD technology? You gave a good summary of the weaknesses as I see them: digital controls design and lack of weather sealing (although we'll see how the M8 does in snow and rain). The other weakness, which follows, can be easily remedied. <snip> I have seen many comment about your views on weather sealing. To my knowledge none of the other M class bodies with electronics (ie, metering and electronic shutter) had weather sealing. Why that concern? Is that some bodies from Canon and Nikon have them? The Leica M lenses are not weather sealed like some of the Canon and Nikon lenses. Is it that a weather sealed body is better protected against dust intrusion? Or with the more electronic nature of the digital body, weather sealing will provide better protection for the sensitive electronics? In regards to the latter, do you think that may be a small reason that Leica has chosen not to provide even a modified Passport Warranty on the M8? The word my shop received is that the M8 will have a standard "limited" warranty like the Leica digital P&S cameras. I know that for myself the more limited warranty compared to the MP and M7 put a small damper on my enthusiasm for the M8. At least IMO, for $4800 for the M8, I would like more than just two years parts and labor coverage. Working in the photo retail market, I can understand potentially why a Passport Warranty might not work for Leica. Would like to hear your opinions. Not necessarily. I think people with smaller and or medium-size hands may find it to be just fine as is. It really does depend on the individual. Agreed, I have rather large hands and can handle my M6TLL quite well.The accessory that I am sorry that won't work on the M8 is the M Lens Carrier. In fast shooting situations I found this to be a blessing. And maybe IMO, just the "grip" I needed.I loved having the T-E mounted and the 90/2.8 attached to the carrier. I was disappointed to see that for whatever reason Leica moved the tripod mount to the "center". It is something that we will have to live with. (I say that because I know a few photographers that have purchased custom mounting plates for panoramic use. But heck, things have to change at some point to meet the technology.) Just my $.02 from shooting the D200 as my digital camera and only thinking about the functions which would carry over to rangefinder, single metering mode, and manual focus: WB is not needed as a quick adjustment as it can be adjusted in RAW processing. Quality is normally set to RAW for me and never changed. All of the NR, saturation, sharpening, etc... is basically turned off. Once again RAW processing. EV is important and I want immediate quick access. ISO is also very important and I want immediate quick access. If I had quick access to EV & ISO through one button press and turning a dial, I would be set. Best, Ray Sean The above comments, as well as some of yours, seemed to be based on our experiences in using DSLR's (in particular those from Canon or Nikon). Maybe it came from my using the M6TTL, but I never looked at my Leica as being a quick "user". To change the ISO I had to decide on whether to sacrifice previous frames and "push or pull the film; or change film. Arguably, changing the ISO may be more time consuming perhaps on the M8. To be honest I never had a real chance to work with an M7. Though to that end I think that it would have been great for Leica to have kept the layout of the MP; and had the "rewind knob" there for either IOS or EV corrections. Thanks for your time Sean. Looking forward to joining your "fold" on your website very soon..... Regards Chip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 23, 2006 Share #133 Posted September 23, 2006 Guy, I agree, I'm not a great fan of cases either, though I have been surprised how much my R-D1 has suffered over the summer - the paint is wearing off around some of the edges and it's not even a good to look at brassing - grey "zincing" more like. I myself is looking towards the neoprene case that seems to be able to fit the T-E with the M8 (or the T-E Wide). For I have a sling bag from REI that has weatherproof zippers that an M8 with one of the T-E's attached and the other T-E in a pouch (and perhaps the 35/2.0 and/or the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit) would fit in on those travel days that the weather chose not to co-operate (sort of like a couple days in Reykjavik, Iceland this past February). Actually, I think that a review of the M8 does well to complement the lightness of the gear involved too. Being a DSLR shooter, I typically bring about 5-7 pounds of gear. In fact, for personal travel, I prefer a M6 or digicam or one DSLR/1-2 lenses setup. Part of it is for security reasons but also I do bring a laptop sometimes so I don't want to be caught with too much gear on the road. Weight is a consideration, but overall size is too, IMO. I love my T-E on the M6TTL. I have made decent use of my 15 and 21 CV lenses when shooting with the M6TTL. Being able to have both T-E lenses, along with a 35/2.0, a 50/2.0,and a 90/2.8 - along with my M6TTL to "fill in the missing spots" would be a bonus for me. Last October I went to Chicago with an Olympus C-8080 with the 21mm convertor. Enjoyed the trip, and came back with some great images. Since I prefer having RAW to fall back on, the slow write speeds were a pain. The prospect of covering 16mm to 120mm between film and digital seems to be perfect for 50-70% of my shooting. The remaining percentage can be handled by my Nikon kit. The M8 provides an alternative means to professionals who aren't tied down to the heavy weight of Nikon, etc. SLR's. (I do like the exercise but my split shins are suffering over time)... In fact, a professional shooter can outfit himself with both Tri-Elmars and one fast lens and he is set to shoot pretty much any situation. Glad to see that you saw the something I did. In fact, as much as I enjoy the D70, I have missed shots due to smacking down the wrong button too quickly. It is ironic that I get some beautiful views using hyperfocal shooting than letting the autofocus points at. No computer chip has the ability to read the photographer's mind. Only the hands of quickness can determine how the shot is framed and translated into the apropos media. Another thumbs up on the differences we are seeing from those that "embrace" the way we shoot film verse digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 23, 2006 Share #134 Posted September 23, 2006 Hi Albert, Right now, I'm not planning to test the first three lenses on the M8 because all three of them showed noticeable vignetting even on the R-D1. In my mind, those first three lenses are not in the same league as the others I've listed. The 25/4 isn't even RF coupled which is very problematic. The myth is that the deep DOF of a 25 makes precise focus unneccessary but that isn't even true of a 21 Sean I've never used my 25/4 because of the lack of rangefinder coupling. Well since I dropped my camera, the rangefinder is no longer working. Before I send it to DAG (belatedly, I keep thinking of new reasons to keep it), this gives me a opportunity to test the 25/4 as it was designed to be used....zone focusing only. I'll be going up the Northern California coast this weekend and will give me plenty of opportunity to try out the lens. I'll bet vignetting will not be a major problem that PS can't cure. Anyway, these three lenses are of a traditional design and are very compact and cheap. Not everyone has $1000-3300 to spend on a lens. My RD1 looks really cool with one of these lenses mounted. Really the ultimate in a travel lens. Sean, in my opinion your are discriminating against those M8 users who can not afford a lens that cost more than $400 Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 23, 2006 Share #135 Posted September 23, 2006 I've never used my 25/4 because of the lack of rangefinder coupling. Well since I dropped my camera, the rangefinder is no longer working. Before I send it to DAG (belatedly, I keep thinking of new reasons to keep it), this gives me a opportunity to test the 25/4 as it was designed to be used....zone focusing only. I'll be going up the Northern California coast this weekend and will give me plenty of opportunity to try out the lens. I'll bet vignetting will not be a major problem that PS can't cure. Anyway, these three lenses are of a traditional design and are very compact and cheap. Not everyone has $1000-3300 to spend on a lens. My RD1 looks really cool with one of these lenses mounted. Really the ultimate in a travel lens. Sean, in my opinion your are discriminating against those M8 users who can not afford a lens that cost more than $400 Rex I always found it strange that the CV 25 had indents for "zone focusing" and the 21 was RF coupled. But I have had great luck with my CV 25 using the indents. The big one of the CV lenses may be the 15. Also given the new sensor design of the M8 and the off-set lenses over the sensor wells may better address the vignetting issue compared to the R-D1. Hopefully Sean will see that many users have bought the CV lenses (especially the CV 15, 21, and 24 lenses) and many of us are happy with the results. I can see a need for the CV 35/1.2 and the 28/1.9; for the speed freaks among us. Hopefully Cosina will grant Sean a sample of the replacement to the 25/4.0CV lens that cameraquest.com has alluded to. Hopefully that CV lens will be a 24 or 25mm f/2,0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 23, 2006 Share #136 Posted September 23, 2006 I always found it strange that the CV 25 had indents for "zone focusing" and the 21 was RF coupled. I guess that's because the 25 (along with the 15) was the first lenses CV released and they wanted to get something out that was relatively inexpensive to test the waters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 23, 2006 Share #137 Posted September 23, 2006 I guess that's because the 25 (along with the 15) was the first lenses CV released and they wanted to get something out that was relatively inexpensive to test the waters. I think thats true. My reintroduction to rangefinders was the Bessa L and the VC 25/4. I wish they would replace it with a 25/2 similar to the design of the 28/1.9 That would be a really sweet lens for the M8. Unfortunately that wouldn't set to well with Zeiss. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted September 23, 2006 Share #138 Posted September 23, 2006 I think Sean mentioned this aspect in his review, but the fact that rangefinder's finders do not black out as the image is captured is a very important aspect of the picture-taking experience, too, and (for me) one of the biggest points of departure between them and DSLRs. The weight of the kit has to be another—I took 400+ images on Saturday afternoon with a DSLR and zoom, and flash... luckily I go to the gym pretty often. Still, I could feel all the muscles in my back the next day! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 23, 2006 Share #139 Posted September 23, 2006 Dear Sean, 1) Not being combative (actually more excited by the M8), but some "reviewers" would say that in order for the M8 to be " the digital version of the "Texas Leica"", a digital camera would need between 16 and 22mp - and with the current "view" of sensor technology, it would have to be full frame. I take it then, that we have seen the next major jump in CCD technology? 2) I have seen many comment about your views on weather sealing. To my knowledge none of the other M class bodies with electronics (ie, metering and electronic shutter) had weather sealing. Why that concern? Is that some bodies from Canon and Nikon have them? The Leica M lenses are not weather sealed like some of the Canon and Nikon lenses. Is it that a weather sealed body is better protected against dust intrusion? Or with the more electronic nature of the digital body, weather sealing will provide better protection for the sensitive electronics? 3) In regards to the latter, do you think that may be a small reason that Leica has chosen not to provide even a modified Passport Warranty on the M8? The word my shop received is that the M8 will have a standard "limited" warranty like the Leica digital P&S cameras. I know that for myself the more limited warranty compared to the MP and M7 put a small damper on my enthusiasm for the M8. At least IMO, for $4800 for the M8, I would like more than just two years parts and labor coverage. Working in the photo retail market, I can understand potentially why a Passport Warranty might not work for Leica. Would like to hear your opinions. Chip Hi Chip, Wow, lots to respond to. 1) I don't go by MP math per se, I go by my eyeballs. Right now, there are four cameras (135mm form factor) that create quality that reminds me of medium format film: Canon 1Ds, Canon 1DsMkII, Canon 5D, Leica DMR. So there are four reference points to consider. Michael Reichman concurs with me, I believe, on the first three and has not tested the fourth. There's more to file quality than math, of course. 2) My emphasis on weather sealing for professional cameras is simply based on the fact that they contain computers and other electronics. Several pros have fried digital cameras because of shorts, etc. that came from water. There's a reason the two leading sellers of professional digital cameras include weather seals. I suppose if one would be willing to use a laptop in the pouring rain, he or she would be fine with using an unsealed digital camera in the same conditions. Again, I hope to test the M8 in the rain (with Leica's permission) to find out what happens. 3) I don't know why they aren't offering that warranty on the M8. You raise an interesting question. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 23, 2006 Share #140 Posted September 23, 2006 I've never used my 25/4 because of the lack of rangefinder coupling. Well since I dropped my camera, the rangefinder is no longer working. Before I send it to DAG (belatedly, I keep thinking of new reasons to keep it), this gives me a opportunity to test the 25/4 as it was designed to be used....zone focusing only. I'll be going up the Northern California coast this weekend and will give me plenty of opportunity to try out the lens. I'll bet vignetting will not be a major problem that PS can't cure. Anyway, these three lenses are of a traditional design and are very compact and cheap. Not everyone has $1000-3300 to spend on a lens. My RD1 looks really cool with one of these lenses mounted. Really the ultimate in a travel lens. Sean, in my opinion your are discriminating against those M8 users who can not afford a lens that cost more than $400 Rex Hi Rex, Discrimination has nothing to do with it. As usual, I'm just trying to be honest. I own four CV lenses and they all perform very well, esp. for the cost. But a lens that doesn't perform well doesn't perform well even if it's free. Again though, I need to actually do the tests with the M8. Software vignetting correction (speaking generally) is not a panacea. If the vignetting is strong, the corners will be significantly underexposed. With any camera, bringing up the levels in those corners will also bring up any noise present. Correcting for mild vignetting is fine but there are IQ compromises (sometimes significant) involved in compensating for strong vignetting in software. There's a misconception that seems to be widespread that PS and other software can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In the end, though, it's still best to get things right in-camera. It's also far less time consuming for people who are under deadlines to get things to clients. The less attention a file needs in post, the better. The two new Zeiss lenses won't be available until second quarter 2007 and, upon further thought, my test list for the M8 over the next few months now looks like this: CV 12 CV 15, Zeiss 15, CV 21/4.0, Zeiss 21/2.8, Leica 21/2.8, Leica 16-18-21 Tri Elmar Zeiss 25/2.8, Leica 24/2.8 Zeiss 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.8, Leica 28/2.0, CV 28/1.9, CV 28/3.5 Zeiss 35/2.0, Leica 35/1.4, Leica 35/2.0, CV 35/2.5, CV 35/1.7, CV 35/1.2 Zeiss 50/2.0, Zeiss 50/1.5, Leica 50/1.4, CV 50/1.5 Noctilux on it's own. CV 75/2.5, Leica 75/2.0, Leica 75/1.4 Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.