kamilsukun Posted October 18, 2006 Share #61 Posted October 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) This has the respective effects on their perspective, but not on their depth of field, which, with the LEICA M8, can also be read directly off the lens (see the lens instruction manual for more details)." [/i][/b] I think Leica is using the word "Perspective" instead of "Angle of View". The depth of field OTOH is what it is, being entirely dependent to the focal length and aperture and definitely does not change proportional to how much the final image is cropped. The perceived proportion of depth of field might be something else to discuss. Also the deviation of DOF from center to edges relative to the aperture might require attention. But, this may only be very difficult to notice. Regards, Kamil Sukun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Hi kamilsukun, Take a look here M8 instruction discoveries. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 18, 2006 Share #62 Posted October 18, 2006 The depth of field OTOH is what it is, being entirely dependent to the focal length and aperture and definitely does not change proportional to how much the final image is cropped. I can't quite agree. If you crop, and enlarge to a standard output size, it would be appropriate to demand a smaller circle of confusion for the cropped image than is acceptable in the full frame. Similarly enlarging to a greater output size reduces the acceptable COC. But this is an old story. The DOF indications on a prime lens assume a standard COC, determined for enlarging the full frame to a standard output size, usually 8x10" or A4. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamilsukun Posted October 18, 2006 Share #63 Posted October 18, 2006 I can't quite agree. If you crop, and enlarge to a standard output size, it would be appropriate to demand a smaller circle of confusion for the cropped image than is acceptable in the full frame. Similarly enlarging to a greater output size reduces the acceptable COC. But this is an old story. The DOF indications on a prime lens assume a standard COC, determined for enlarging the full frame to a standard output size, usually 8x10" or A4. scott Scott, Thank you for the advanced information. In this case, Leica seems to target the average photographer and/or assumes a smaller output standard is expected. Regards, Kamil Sukun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted October 18, 2006 Share #64 Posted October 18, 2006 Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 18, 2006 Share #65 Posted October 18, 2006 Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. Hear, hear! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 18, 2006 Share #66 Posted October 18, 2006 Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. There are plenty of other manufacturers of lenses for the Leica (CV, Zeiss, etc.). Some are actually pretty good, such as the Zeiss 21mm. Others are just less expensive. It's not because it doesn't "Leica" on the barrel that it is necessarily bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 18, 2006 Share #67 Posted October 18, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. Beacuse they can. Zeiss offers a range of great lenses which compete very favourably with Leica's own and it's no contest when you compare value. CV lenses (so I understand) are more variable so you need to pick and choose, but their 15mm lens is about 1/10 of the price of the Leica Tri-Elmar and Leica don't go as wide as CV do with their 12mm. Then there's the 28mm f1.9 and, and and. If I could find one, I'd be interested in the duo-hexanon. It's a mistake to write them off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike prevette Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share #68 Posted October 18, 2006 While in most cases the Leica lenses have a more consistant all around performance, the CV lenses have rarely let me down. I have the 15; 28 1.9.; and 40 coated. All of them have delivered exactly what I expected of them. I hold no alegience to leica lenses, for me its the reliability and design of the camera bodies I perfer. They allow me to take the pictures i want without getting in my way. The subtlties between lenses are totaly lost if your not allowed to photograph what you want due to a poorly performing camera. In the end all these discussions are a wash. Technicalities like this do not seperate the Ansels from the kid down the street. _mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted October 18, 2006 Share #69 Posted October 18, 2006 For none Leica lenses, you have no choice since there doesn't appear to be provision for 3rd party lenses in the 6-bit coding... True, but if I have a CV 28/3.5 Color Skopar I could code it as a 28/2.8 Elmarit (for example, and if I knew what the code was and could locate a third-party encoder) and at least it would drive the flash properly (not such a big issue for me) and record in the EXIF in a way I could understand, since I don't actually have a 28/2.8 Elmarit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted October 18, 2006 Share #70 Posted October 18, 2006 My CV21/4 and 28mm Elmarit-M (the E49 mount) is identical in how far back they protrude. The Elmarit is listed as OK. Thanks, Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 18, 2006 Share #71 Posted October 18, 2006 True, but if I have a CV 28/3.5 Color Skopar I could code it as a 28/2.8 Elmarit (for example, and if I knew what the code was and could locate a third-party encoder) and at least it would drive the flash properly (not such a big issue for me) and record in the EXIF in a way I could understand, since I don't actually have a 28/2.8 Elmarit Yes. However, it would create a problem for most raw converters. With a raw converter, you are better off having no EXIF than the wrong EXIF. With no EXIF, you can supply the missing information (lens, etc.). However, with the wrong EXIF, in most cases, you can't override the settings (such as distortion parameters). It's true that it may help with the flash however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted October 18, 2006 Share #72 Posted October 18, 2006 Regarding this question about non-Leica lenses, when I returned to RF photography about a year ago I got a used M7 and four CV lenses: the 28/3.5, the 35/1.2, 50/2.5 and 90/3.5. The whole lot cost me about what one Leica lens would cost. Except for the 35/1.2 they are also all very small lenses, which is regard as a plus. I have no complaints about any of them. In the sixties I owned a 1931 Leica 1c with an uncoated Elmar 50/3.5. It was a good instrument to learn with, but quite frankly the IQ was pretty bad. Maybe that's a bit too extreme to be fair. In the 70s / 80s I had a Leica CL with 40 and 90mm lenses. Not made in Wetzlar IIRC. Excellent IQ. In time, if I feel the need, I may get some Leica or Zeiss glass. I have nothing against it. I just did not feel I could justify the outlay at the same time as I was upgrading some of my DSLR kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted October 18, 2006 Share #73 Posted October 18, 2006 Yes. However, it would create a problem for most raw converters. With a raw converter, you are better off having no EXIF than the wrong EXIF. With no EXIF, you can supply the missing information (lens, etc.). However, with the wrong EXIF, in most cases, you can't override the settings (such as distortion parameters).... Interesting. I have not used the Leica RAW converter yet. With the Canon RAW converter I don't have the distortion correction (I do that in post to some extent - it's only rarely necessary) but I can reset just about everything else. Maybe there's a way to just turn these corrections off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 18, 2006 Share #74 Posted October 18, 2006 Interesting. I have not used the Leica RAW converter yet. With the Canon RAW converter I don't have the distortion correction (I do that in post to some extent - it's only rarely necessary) but I can reset just about everything else. Maybe there's a way to just turn these corrections off? Yes, if you have the EXIF info, you can turn the corrections off in most the raw converters. However, most raw converters will prevent you from applying any correction where the EXIF doesn't match. In other words, will most probably be able to apply the correction for the Skopar (if available) to a file coded with the Elmarit. I know it doesn't make any sense, but you are better off without any EXIF rather than the wrong EXIF. On the other hand, if you had the wrong EXIF, you can use an EXIF converter to systematically change the "wrong" EXIF to the "right" EXIF... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 18, 2006 Share #75 Posted October 18, 2006 Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. There are many other excellent M-mount lenses as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmires Posted October 19, 2006 Share #76 Posted October 19, 2006 Why should anybody buy a non Leica Lens for a Leica ? Its the lens who give these extraordinary picture quality. If you want a "bottlebottom" lens you can go for Tokina and the rest of their friends. Because there are some valid lenses made for Leica by others. The 12mm VC lens, for instance, is a lot of fun. I can't wait to try it on the M8. I also have the VC 28mm asph. Good value... 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! 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/7301-m8-instruction-discoveries/?do=findComment&comment=73011'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 19, 2006 Share #77 Posted October 19, 2006 ¡Nice shot, David! The wide-angle perspective really adds. I particularly like the parallelogram of the street markings. Maybe Leica will market a wide-angle adapter for their 16-18-21 to keep us from coveting someone else's 12mm? No, huh? Well, just an idea... Very nice picture! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmires Posted October 19, 2006 Share #78 Posted October 19, 2006 Thanks for the kind remark Howard. The 12mm is a fun lens for sure, I would not have been able to take that picture with any Leica lens. The softness at the edges and the perspective distortion dosen't work for every photograph, but sometimes it's O.K., IMO. It would be cool to see what Leica could do with 12mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted October 19, 2006 Share #79 Posted October 19, 2006 We're pretty certain now that the camera is not estimating working aperture using the front mounted sensor as a reference, but it's still an open question. According to the latest LFI issue, the M8 does indeed do just this; there appears to be no open question. A sizeable part of the article describes lens coding and how it is used and how the 'blue' sensor acts as a reference ambient light meter for the TTL meter, thus giving an approximate (1 to 11/2 stops accuracy) measure of the working aperture for the EXIF data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 19, 2006 Share #80 Posted October 19, 2006 The value of the cheaper Cosina lenses (with Voigtländer or Zeiss brand name) isn't better than the value of the Leica-lenses. Many people only see the extraordinary prices and instantly think of high-image-brands like Nike or Adidas where they pay for the brand name while the product itself is just mediocre (because it is made in the same chinese/vietnamese/indian...-facilities). Leica-lenses are so expensive because everything, their optical-construction (you can see it even without exact technical specifications that the designs are always more innovative, usually smaller and of better quality), the mechanics (ALWAYS solid brass and aluminium with state-of-the-art-finish, chrome, fit, ball bearing...) and quality control (they test every lens, adjust it to extremly tight tolerances so that every lens you buy has the same optical quality). You don't pay for the name, maybe the production is also expensive because of the small production numbers (Cosina doesn't make too much M-lenses either) but their also extremly focused onto the product (no huge marketing), the crew is relatively small and works efficiently. Just look to every other high-end-lens in the world, they're all this expensive, because production and construction on this quality-level is not cheap! Even the two "real" Carl-Zeiss-Lenses of the Ikon are very expensive, some Zeiss-lenses are even more expensive than Leica! You get what you pay for! Always remember that a 1000$ Zeiss-branded Cosina-lens is not a gift for you because they just reduced the price by 60% - they take care of their margin, trust me... They sold lenses like the 2,8/35-70 even under production-costs. What does that tell you about the economical qualities of Leica? Nothing good... ;-) But what does that mean for you as a customer? The best value you can possibly get! It's the same when you read in the newspapers that they've reduced production-costs by 20% - as part of the shareholder value you can be lucky, but as a customer, who isn't interested in the margin, just in value and quality, you should be extremly careful/sceptical... You want the best quality? Take Leica or real Zeiss: extraordinary prices but also extraordinary value, because of the quality you get for your money. You don't need that quality or simply can't afford it? Fine, just look on Ebay, 50 years of finest Leica-Lenses around for great prices but with the same mechanical quality as today. When you still haven't found what you've been looking for, you can go with Cosina, Konica... I think it's great when Cosina makes lenses that are affordable and are truly innovative for the system, give you something Leica doesn't (like the 12 or 15mm) - but just saying in a big marketing campaign that you can now buy "the best lenses in the world" for the half price with a great brand-name (Carl Zeiss) and therefore saying that Leica is overpriced (you can see it by their margin... ;-() is disgusting! Those strategies killed a lot great-quality-products! 10 years later people noticed what they've done and whining "this was REAL quality"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.