Michael Reichmann on G1, M8 and M lenses

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica lenses don't need high MP counts to show their signature. 6MP is enough with the R-D1 for instance, or 13MP with the 5D. I don't know with 4/3 though.

Edited April 23, 2009 by lct

[jrc]

I also don't understand the hype about micro 4/3rds. It is like inventing Betamax after VHS has become the standard. The race has already been won by the likes of Nikon and Canon who have much more marketing muscle and brand recognition for small bodied cameras - and pretty good products in the likes of the D40/60 which is going to appeal to people who want small, lightweight cameras.

LouisB

 

You may not have handled a G1? I have one, and also a D3 & D300 combo, and a Leica M8 & M7. The reason have all of this stuff is that I've been looking for the best possible image quality in the smallest possible package, which, by its nature, is going to be a compromise somewhere. After discarding a number of cameras (like the G10, K10D and D60), I find that the G1 is, so far, the best compromise; I have high hopes for the upcoming Olympus version, which I hope has a better sensor and perhaps a few small primes.

 

I noted on another forum that a D3 with a 14-24 f2.8 lens weighs almost exactly the same as a Crown Graphic 4x5 with a 135 lens -- and that if you're a PJ, and have to carry a kit, the Crown Graphic kit may actually be smaller than a D3 kit, because the lenses are so much smaller.

 

So the reason for the G1 is exactly the same as for the M cameras -- high quality (somewhat compromised, just as the Ms original 35mm quality was a compromise from 4x5) to obtain portability, usability, with quality that's good enough. In the 40s, 50s and 60s, many art photographers DID NOT use Leicas, because their quality was compromised compared, say, to an 8x10, so the new standard was, "Is is good enough for publication" in magazines like Life or Look or by AP Wirephoto. The answer in favor of the M was, "Yes -- easily."

 

I was traveling the day before yesterday and happened to see a house burning down. I stuck the G1 out the car window and took a snap of the fire. I've taken news photos in the past, and I can tell you, the IQ of the G1 snap, taken right at dusk, was easily good enough for publication. (The shot itself wasn't that good because I didn't bother to get out of the car; but the IQ was fine.)

 

The old 4/3 system didn't make a lot of sense because the cameras were virtually as big as FF or APS-C cameras; but now the m4/3 people are onto something, I think: publication-quality photos from a fast, flexible, lightweight camera. Just like the original M.

 

JC

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

...Just like the original M....

Except VF, RF & DoF, unless one compares it to the Post Leica.

The latter had a larger 'sensor' though.

 

[ljclark]

 

The old 4/3 system didn't make a lot of sense because the cameras were virtually as big as FF or APS-C cameras...

 

JC

 

You got that right. I actually measured the volume of a D300 against an E-3, both with and without their battery grips. (This was a rather bizarre process that involved thousands of 6mm plastic pellets -- but that's another story). I even taped a piece of cardboard over each lens mount so differences in body caps would not spoil my results.

 

What was revealed? The E-3 was the same volume as the "bigger" D300, with or without grips -- and maybe a tiny bit more.

 

I had suspected that all along. The next thing you know, the E-3 and one M6 were on eBay, and an M8 was in the car heading home.

[rob_x2004]

Gee thats a bit unfair. One has more grip texture pattern than the other. Use dyed water or cooking oil next time. You could do a density test at the same time:rolleyes:

[nugat]

G1 is not a DSLR (no mirror) and the AA filter is very weak, comparable to M8.

The wider M lenses with the lens exit close to the sensor plane simply do not work well in the corners of the picture. Loss of resolution is a fact. And then for longer (50mm up ) lens the gain is apparently not so great. I am also surprised by the excellent performance of 14-45mm kit lens and it looks from Michael's comparison that of 45-200 too. The latter is really surprising as this lens is supposed to be significantly weaker than 14-45.

The real telltale will be 7-14, 14-140, 20/1.7 and 45/2,8 macro. They are supposed to cost in the 500-1200 euro range, siginificantly more than the two kit lenses.

Edited April 24, 2009 by nugat

[nugat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Delve deeper... it falls apart fairly quickly! My G1 is relegated to 'whenever I can't be bothered to carry a real camera' or 'whenever I might want to cover a huge range of focal lengths but can't be bothered to carry a real camera' and it acquits itself really well for its size, weight and price. But if I had a porter I'd have one of my other cameras for preference on every occasion.

 

What are the signs of this falling apart?

I tested G1+kit set to 46mm (FF equiv) at 3:2 (10MP) and M8+lux35. Both set to native ISO.

My only problem with G1 is a slightly "clinical" look. Very clean and sharp.

The lux arguably presents a more pleasant picture. Both pictures are free of distortions/abberations. At 100% resolution is comparable with a slight advantage to the M8/summilux combo. Problems start when upping the ISO. Anything higher than native on G1 becomes objectionable comparing to M8. That's the sensor size for you.

And which one is the real camera: the one that takes pictures or the one that sits on the shelf?

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't think it ever was his primary camera but what I think Michael is really realizing is that he's just not an MF rangefinder photographer any more.

 

....

 

I'm pretty sure that I was among the people Michael thought of when he referred to the RF photographers who would only let that type of camera be pried from their "cold, dead" hands.

 

I looked back over the things that Reichmann said about the M8 during the interesting first six months after its introduction, and one comment he made was that he would give up his M8 only if it was pried from his "cold, dead hands." So you are not alone in that category. Here's the link. At that time he also said if he were forced to live with only one camera, one lens, it would be the M8 and a MATE (28-35-50), but that this was only a hypothetical situation.

 

A few months ago he held a private online sale and cleared his shelves of his RFs -- an XPAN from 2003 that had probably shot <10 rolls, and his M8. But maybe he held onto an M3 or M6. It's pretty hard to part with those.

 

cheers,

 

scott

[stunsworth]

Betamax was concurrent to VHS...

 

And was technically the superior product.

[rdubois]

I don't know about a "great many" but again this is a matter of personal preference. I don't find the M8's finder to be "outdated" in any sense. In fact I find it unmatched by anything other than another Leica M or the wonderful finder in the Zeiss Ikon.

 

But I imagine most people are well aware of my own position which is that "new" is not necessarily better and "old" is not necessarily worse. Otherwise, a lot of us are pretty obsolete as well and Hannah Montana is a much better artist than Billie Holiday. The computer industry got some people on a hamster wheel where they have trouble seeing "old" and "good" in the same sentence. You should hear my 13-year old daughter trying to explain the Beatles, Dylan and Neil Young to her friend who loves only what is popular this week. Although, in all fairness, some kids aren't caught in that latter rut.

 

Your position is clear and the M8 works well for you though as an aside I have never found the music of the Beatles particularly inspiring and Dylan is a decent lyricist but his music is rather repetitive in my opinion. There is no question in my mind that nostalgia plays a role in the choice of cameras as it does in the choice of music. No criticism implied!

 

Be that as it may: I am not a professional photographer (although I do sell some but it is not my primary source of income) but use my camera professionally almost every day in my work (environmental research) if this makes sense. Often I need to print to 24X36 inches so file quality is important and the M8 provides that more than adequately. But I have problems focusing fast lenses and will admit to missing at least 10 percent of the time. I've also a Canon with some fairly good lenses which works well but it's just too big for the work I do. For years I worked with Olympus OM2 which provided a good balance between size and quality but apart from the M8 I haven't found an adequate digital solution and had hoped that the G1 would be a possible replacement. Sadly initial reports are not so encouraging.

 

So I continue to yearn for a camera the size and quality of the M8 but with a (for me) easier focusing arrangement.

 

Dubois

[nugat]

Don't rely on reports. Borrow a G1 and test it yourself if it fits you.

[tashley]

What are the signs of this falling apart?

I tested G1+kit set to 46mm (FF equiv) at 3:2 (10MP) and M8+lux35. Both set to native ISO.

My only problem with G1 is a slightly "clinical" look. Very clean and sharp.

The lux arguably presents a more pleasant picture. Both pictures are free of distortions/abberations. At 100% resolution is comparable with a slight advantage to the M8/summilux combo. Problems start when upping the ISO. Anything higher than native on G1 becomes objectionable comparing to M8. That's the sensor size for you.

And which one is the real camera: the one that takes pictures or the one that sits on the shelf?

 

It falls apart when you up the ISO, as you mention. But in the real world I generally need to do that from time to time. It also falls apart (less dramatically but noticeably) when you make large prints. They just don't look as natural, as 'right' to me as M8 files similarly used, especially if you have had to crop at all or up-res. And they fall apart if you need to dig into them in post anywhere deeper than the topsoil.

 

So for all those reasons I only use it when I have to or when my 'laziness V. likelihood of missing good shot' ratio falls below a certain level!

 

But I do think it's pretty amazing nonetheless and Amateur Photographer in the UK ran a piece a couple of weeks ago where at base ISO the G1 beat a couple of entry level DSLRs for resolution. Pretty neat.

[nugat]

1)It falls apart when you up the ISO, as you mention.

 

2)It also falls apart (less dramatically but noticeably) when you make large prints. They just don't look as natural, as 'right' to me as M8 files similarly used, especially if you have had to crop at all or up-res.

 

3)And they fall apart if you need to dig into them in post anywhere deeper than the topsoil.

 

 

1. agree

2. agree, there is "something natural" about Leica. I call G1 look "clinical" .

3. there should not be any difference on comparable size RAW files (theoretically)

[rosuna]

The old 4/3 system didn't make a lot of sense because the cameras were virtually as big as FF or APS-C cameras; but now the m4/3 people are onto something,

 

Agree.

 

The 4/3 reflex cameras are quite small (for instance, the E-420), but the viewfinder is very poor (small and dark). DSLR 4/3 cameras with good viewfinders are much bigger. The viewfinder prism is reletively very large (the E-3).

 

Micro 4/3 really benefits from the small sensor of the format. The sensor is 3,8 times smaller than 24x36mm (4 times smaller for a 2:3 aspect ratio). So it makes sense for Leica to offer a line of lenses for micro 4/3, and even a camera in Leica style (something like the Digilux 3, but much smaller). It doesn't affect the M line due to the difference in format sizes.

[nugat]

Rumors about such a camera already circulate:

 

(FT 3) BIG! Panasonic and Leica to produce together a new compact m4/3 camera?

[j. borger]

Leica lenses don't need high MP counts to show their signature. 6MP is enough with the R-D1 for instance, or 13MP with the 5D. I don't know with 4/3 though.

Right on! And that's the main reason why i like to use the R-d1 and M8.

Wonderful Leica lenses, old and new all with a different look.

That together with the "rangefinder" are realy important to me.

As far as resolution, sharpness. iso noise levels and other "virtues" of modern digital cameras are concerned almost everything on the market is overkill ... unless you print beyond "super A3".

At Super A3+ size i am hard pressed to see any difference between M8 and R-D1 prints ... But there is a big difference between prints (on any size) depending on the the signature of the lenses used ... !

[sean_reid]

I think we are at cross purposes. My point was that Sean and I found that M lenses under about 50mm are so severely compromised on the the G1 for technical reasons that they are pretty much useless due to their poor edge performance. Between us we tested most focal lengths. Michael didn't mention this, and I was merely observing that anyone considering purchasing the adaptors, given that they are pricey, would need to know that the performance he observed on a 50mm was very much best case.

 

HTH

 

t

 

Hi Tim,

 

I've only formally tested the 28 Summicron on the G1, to date. But, as you say, yourself and others have also tested various RF wides on the camera and seen corner softness.

 

Despite that, of course, there are photographers who are using RF wides on the G1 quite happily. It isn't something I would do myself but some others don't seem to mind the res. fall-off in the outer zones.

 

My favorite combinations for the G1 (if I owned one) would likely be its own lenses or longer RF lenses (where the G1 makes a nice sort of tele-extender).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Edited April 24, 2009 by sean_reid

[sean_reid]

G1 is not a DSLR (no mirror) and the AA filter is very weak, comparable to M8.

The wider M lenses with the lens exit close to the sensor plane simply do not work well in the corners of the picture. Loss of resolution is a fact. And then for longer (50mm up ) lens the gain is apparently not so great. I am also surprised by the excellent performance of 14-45mm kit lens and it looks from Michael's comparison that of 45-200 too. The latter is really surprising as this lens is supposed to be significantly weaker than 14-45.

The real telltale will be 7-14, 14-140, 20/1.7 and 45/2,8 macro. They are supposed to cost in the 500-1200 euro range, siginificantly more than the two kit lenses.

 

I think that 20/1.7 is a really promising lens on the G1. I'm going to test that combo when it comes out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I looked back over the things that Reichmann said about the M8 during the interesting first six months after its introduction, and one comment he made was that he would give up his M8 only if it was pried from his "cold, dead hands." So you are not alone in that category. Here's the link. At that time he also said if he were forced to live with only one camera, one lens, it would be the M8 and a MATE (28-35-50), but that this was only a hypothetical situation.

 

A few months ago he held a private online sale and cleared his shelves of his RFs -- an XPAN from 2003 that had probably shot <10 rolls, and his M8. But maybe he held onto an M3 or M6. It's pretty hard to part with those.

 

cheers,

 

scott

 

 

Hi Scott,

 

Yes, he wrote that but I'm fairly sure that the M8 didn't become his primary camera after all. I'll ask him. Again, I think RF cameras are just not where he personally is at right now. That, of course, doesn't change how well the cameras do or don't work for others.

 

Is the M8 your primary camera?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

Your position is clear and the M8 works well for you though as an aside I have never found the music of the Beatles particularly inspiring and Dylan is a decent lyricist but his music is rather repetitive in my opinion. There is no question in my mind that nostalgia plays a role in the choice of cameras as it does in the choice of music. No criticism implied!

 

Be that as it may: I am not a professional photographer (although I do sell some but it is not my primary source of income) but use my camera professionally almost every day in my work (environmental research) if this makes sense. Often I need to print to 24X36 inches so file quality is important and the M8 provides that more than adequately. But I have problems focusing fast lenses and will admit to missing at least 10 percent of the time. I've also a Canon with some fairly good lenses which works well but it's just too big for the work I do. For years I worked with Olympus OM2 which provided a good balance between size and quality but apart from the M8 I haven't found an adequate digital solution and had hoped that the G1 would be a possible replacement. Sadly initial reports are not so encouraging.

 

So I continue to yearn for a camera the size and quality of the M8 but with a (for me) easier focusing arrangement.

 

Dubois

 

I think many people might like that. To get that kind of quality, though, one not only needs great lenses but also a body with no AA filter.

 

As for nostalgia, my daughter was born in 1995 so her taste isn't quite shaped by Dylan-era nostalgia. She developed it on her own. She's a writer so Dylan's lyrics interest her much more than his voice or melodies. I think she sees the latter as means to an end for him.

 

My favorite music was often written and performed long before I was born. I'm not old enough to have nostalgic memories of Furtwangler conducting Beethoven's 9th or Billie Holiday performing "Strange Fruit" live in Harlem. It is interesting to imagine a youth-hood in Dresden (maybe not then, however) or NYC in the 20s/30s.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean