sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #121 Posted July 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I partly agree with both sides. On the one hand I agree there are differences between lenses, that can be seen and measured, if that's what your into. On the other hand I don't think all of those differences put together and stacked on top of each other make as much difference as a slight change in light or composition, or takeing the shot a millisecond earlier or later, yet somehow the bulk of discussion is always about comparing lenses. But we know why that's the case. Making a strong picture is challenging and changing lenses is fairly easy. So human nature being what it is... Also - sometimes the choice of lens one makes (among 75s for example) doesn't make a big difference and sometimes it has some import. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2008 Posted July 9, 2008 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Well thank god for Voigtlander and such.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #122 Posted July 9, 2008 (unless they make 16X20in cropped image enlargements DAILY for a living) may not notice the difference between M-mount lenses, and for them non-leica glass is reasonable to buy. Actually, I'd go to very large print sizes with the M8 and a variety of Leica, Zeiss and CV lenses. So even in that scenario there are a lot of lenses that are up to snuff. I think it makes sense for us to distinguish here between *differences* in lenses vs. a priori ideas about which lenses are *better*. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ridder Cornelius Posted July 9, 2008 Share #123 Posted July 9, 2008 perfection is boring, make use of the imperfections of you instruments, try to highlight them in order to achieve "something different" Perfect images can be made by my 80 yr. old aunty Claire .... take a look at some Pinhole images galleries on the web to find "atmosphere" and character ..... this as opposed to 70% of the M8 images with Leica xxmm here, there you will find, well things that have done before, and before, and before.... and before ... boring! Making a good image is not dependent on the lens (how many time have I read this on this forum, under different subject headings though) .... and yet you will almost start to believe that good images can only be made with a full set of Leica gear (30K$+) Just look at the image gallery of some of the "defenders" here and you will come to the conclusion that there's something wrong/missing/left out, that actually it's all got nothing to do with quality but "owning the red-dot stuff" photography wise .... as i said BORING ... (I don't mean all, some galleries are really really good, most however are just EOS 400D like disappointing) But go ahead and shoot "a mountain" or "a bird" or a "waterfall" if this is fine with you, its fine with me, but don't prophesize the value of M lenses to me or anyone else .... for in 99% of the cases you as a photographer can't cut the cake that comes with it! have a nice day further.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklotz Posted July 9, 2008 Share #124 Posted July 9, 2008 I think it makes sense for us to distinguish here between *differences* in lenses vs. a priori ideas about which lenses are *better*. Cheers, Sean Agreed. Lenses are tools. As a photographer, one of my goals is to know each and every lens I own well enough to match the "look" of the lens to my artistic intent. To me, this is far more important than the brand name stamped on the side or a test chart rendering. But REALLY learning a lens takes a lot of time, patience and practice. The reviews, like Sean's, help me to shorten the learning curve a little bit, and hopefully choose those lenses that appeal to my style and ascetic intent. Therefore, IMHO, it is all important. The reviews, lens choice, aperture, timing, composition, lighting, etc, etc; That's what's so great about this endeavor - it's a puzzle with infinite possibilities and choices to make. Beyond basic exposure and the like, there is no right or wrong. Take away any single element, be it lens choice, or whatever, and I'm just taking snap shots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted July 9, 2008 Share #125 Posted July 9, 2008 Fundamentally, though, I don't think you realize how good these lenses can be. You've got a lot of company too. Four years ago, many people had the same doubts. Now some know better. Cheers, Sean I couldn't agree more. If I'd needed evidence of the quality of CV optics, a recent experience with the following picture, taken with a CV 28/3.5 lens and utilising about 2/3 of the recorded image, would have convinced me. It was used as the cover picture of a magazine I edit and our printer, well known for high quality work, liked it enough to want to make a large (90cm wide) print. The result is pin sharp, even close up. They were so pleased that the print has gone onto their wall as an example of the quality of work they can produce... Enough said? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57075-well-thank-god-for-voigtlander-and-such/?do=findComment&comment=600380'>More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #126 Posted July 9, 2008 I couldn't agree more. If I'd needed evidence of the quality of CV optics, a recent experience with the following picture, taken with a CV 28/3.5 lens and utilising about 2/3 of the recorded image, would have convinced me. It was used as the cover picture of a magazine I edit and our printer, well known for high quality work, liked it enough to want to make a large (90cm wide) print. The result is pin sharp, even close up. They were so pleased that the print has gone onto their wall as an example of the quality of work they can produce... Enough said? [ATTACH]94563[/ATTACH] Cool... And I think that it's worth exploring this question (specifically: Can less expensive lenses perform very well on the M8?), in part, because most of us have a finite amount of money (whatever that amount might be). If we're able to get what we need, while spending less, then the money saved can be used for other, important, things. And sometimes, of course, one just prefers the look a lens produces and the money saved is a bonus (consider the CV 35/1.2 or CV 35/2.5 as examples). Of course, that line of thinking runs quite contrary to the "photo equipment as status symbol" perspective but I imagine many can guess how I feel about that outlook. <G> BTW, keeping things fair and as objective as possible, Zeiss currently has the most effective coatings (overall) of the three RF lens makers. That's why their contrast is so high. Now, of course, one may not want that contrast but, from a technical/optical perspective, its an accomplishment. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #127 Posted July 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica has a problem that Canon does not. It's trying to defend an advantage in a market that may soon cease to exist. Hi Hank, I missed this line before. That's a great, terse and straight, argument though I hope that it doesn't come to pass. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 9, 2008 Share #128 Posted July 9, 2008 I really can't grasp this you want to have an outdated technology M8 by saving money on lenses . Imo it is the glass that makes Leica exceptional, the bodies are very expensive so-so gadgets, required because you want the glass. I really do not understand this body focus. There is a huge lists of things that anoy me in the M8 I will have in any low-entry reflex. I love my M8 but that doesn't mean I can't be critical, the main reason I have it is because of the M glass that I have. Then why not buy a GX200, G9 or the D-lux 3 or whatever, there are so many camera's out there that will provide VC quality alike lenses, with so much more features, less intrussive, more silent, more compact, etc. Saves you a lot more money. They will all make excellent pictures in 99% of all cases I fully realize that. That train picture will look great with any high-end compact as well Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
padraigm Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share #129 Posted July 9, 2008 I really can't grasp this you want to have an outdated technology M8 by saving money on lenses . Imo it is the glass that makes Leica exceptional, the bodies are very expensive so-so gadgets, required because you want the glass. I really do not understand this body focus. There is a huge lists of things that anoy me in the M8 I will have in any low-entry reflex. I love my M8 but that doesn't mean I can't be critical, the main reason I have it is because of the M glass that I have. Then why not buy a GX200, G9 or the D-lux 3 or whatever, there are so many camera's out there that will provide VC quality alike lenses, with so much more features, less intrussive, more silent, more compact, etc. Saves you a lot more money. They will all make excellent pictures in 99% of all cases I fully realize that. That train picture will look great with any high-end compact as well I am not sure I agree with you. When you move to digital it then becomes an issue of Camera and lens due to the sensor. As a sensor is not the same in every camera and film can be used in any camera. I am sorry that you think we are fools for trying to use anything other than leica glass, but its really more than just the glass, is the handling, size all the +'s you know. Glass is not the only reason one owns an M8. If you could only use leica glass there is a very good possibility in the near future you would not have anything to put your M glass on. I believe it's the likes of VC and Zeiss that are contributing significantly to floating the viability of the M8 more than Leica would/will ever admit. As you can see they are struggling as it is, and how many people here have cited the reason for buying one was because of the availability of 3rd party lenses. If it was not so, your exclusive club might come to an end sooner than you think. Whether or not you think the purity of the Leica RF system is being diluted, there really is nothing but positives from having 3rd party lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted July 9, 2008 Share #130 Posted July 9, 2008 Let's go Leica, please do something to really solve the IR problem, I had to spend 80-160€ for every lens that I coded, and 149€ for every filter that I needed just because of my M8, and they were only original Leica lenses!... really sick. how about a sensor without an infrared filter that would be able to read IR (and maybe even UV) as another channel once you have this info you could delete it when doing the raw processing or you could use it to give a certain look to the image or maybe even have a program that would correct for cromatic-aberations. so a 4th channel: IR (and no ir-filter) this would be a solution similar to what carate teaches: instead of trying to stop a blow, you use the force of your opponent to your advantage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 10, 2008 Share #131 Posted July 10, 2008 Then why not buy a GX200, G9 or the D-lux 3 or whatever, there are so many camera's out there that will provide VC quality alike lenses... ROFL. I have a Panasonic LX2 which is the same camera as the D-lux 3, and there is no comparison between that camera and the Voigtlander lenses that I own used on an M8. Honestly, I've rarely read something so wide of the mark. Are you really saying that an M8 with say a 28mm Ultron is not substantially better than a D-Lux 3? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 10, 2008 Share #132 Posted July 10, 2008 how about a sensor without an infrared filter that would be able to read IR (and maybe even UV) as another channel once you have this info you could delete it when doing the raw processing or you could use it to give a certain look to the image or maybe even have a program that would correct for cromatic-aberations. so a 4th channel: IR (and no ir-filter) this would be a solution similar to what carate teaches: instead of trying to stop a blow, you use the force of your opponent to your advantage. nice perspective, frankly dunno what's the best way to solve this issue. I guess, as for my latest thread, i'll go for a bottle of wine sitting at the table of a bar with some engineers friend o'mine (we're all 30 and not so aged!), after some time, maybe we'll come to the conclusion.... :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 10, 2008 Share #133 Posted July 10, 2008 Are you really saying that an M8 with say a 28mm Ultron is not substantially better than a D-Lux 3? for 99% of the cases...yes although I think a G9 would even be better. don't get me wrong, I'm 100% sure VC lenses will do just fine in 99% of all cases. And that is what we are talking about all the time. A M8 with Ultron will give you excellent pictures for sure. I just don't understand why someone would spend 4Keuro on outdated technology to put VC lenses on it. A G9 will do the trick for you just as good. It does have a good quality lens, has a more modern chip so less noise, fully manually controllable and RAW, it's more silent and its even less intrussive. well lets end this discussion that everybody can spend his money in the way he likes and were sure that great pictures will be the result Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 10, 2008 Share #134 Posted July 10, 2008 as a close, thsi is what we are doing it for in the end...regardless the technology M8/28elmarit stitch of two pics (both) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57075-well-thank-god-for-voigtlander-and-such/?do=findComment&comment=600798'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 10, 2008 Share #135 Posted July 10, 2008 for 99% of the cases...yes although I think a G9 would even be better... ROFL. No point in arguing when the original poster is just being provocative, thanks for making me smile. If this thread is still active at the weekend I've post a couple of Ultron shots from the M8. Have a nice day Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 10, 2008 Share #136 Posted July 10, 2008 don't worry, you don't have to convince me you can make excellent pictures with a M8+Ultron... As you can with a GX1(2)00, a G9, a D60+kitlens, a rollei 35+velvia, an OM1, a blad, a practica TL3, a Pentax 6x7 etc etc the cases where you really take the lens (and camera) to its edge are rare, very rare Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 10, 2008 Share #137 Posted July 10, 2008 ah, just another pic just because the world is beautifull guess what it is was made with BTW it is all Karwendel, Austria 1st pic is Hallerangerhouse 2nd pic is Gamsjoch 3nd (this one) Sonnjoch in early morning light Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57075-well-thank-god-for-voigtlander-and-such/?do=findComment&comment=600936'>More sharing options...
ljclark Posted July 10, 2008 Share #138 Posted July 10, 2008 I really can't grasp this you want to have an outdated technology M8 by saving money on lenses . Imo it is the glass that makes Leica exceptional, the bodies are very expensive so-so gadgets, required because you want the glass. I really do not understand this body focus. There is a huge lists of things that annoy me in the M8 I will have in any low-entry reflex. I love my M8 but that doesn't mean I can't be critical, the main reason I have it is because of the M glass that I have. The Leica Lens Only (LLO) argument is certainly something you can apply to your own personal rationalizations. But don't try to tar the rest of the M8 community with that severely limited point of view. To put a slightly different spin on what many other posters have said...Did it ever occur to you that all those heretic C/V and Zeiss lens owners are actually propping up your M8? If the LLO crowd were the only ones to purchase M8s, how many bodies would actually have been sold? When would Leica have been forced to pull the plug on M8 production? Granted, there are those well-heeled folks who have always been LLO, because a Leica was the best snapshot camera they could buy -- and it was a lot easier to just buy Red Dot. But we're not talking about them. Frankly, each and every day you should thank all the intelligent and perceptive M8 users here that use a broader range of criteria when selecting their lenses. They are keeping you afloat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 10, 2008 Share #139 Posted July 10, 2008 I really can't grasp this That does seem to be the case. <G> That's OK though, we don't all need to agree on these things. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 10, 2008 Share #140 Posted July 10, 2008 That does seem to be the case. <G> That's OK though, we don't all need to agree on these things. Cheers, Sean as written before well lets end this discussion that everybody can spend his money in the way he likes and were sure that great pictures will be the result ' we at least can agree to that ;-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.