I thought I'd start this thread for Leica M users to share some images that they feel epitomise their use of the Leica M and to share some notes as to why their choice of camera (or lens) was fundamental as a contributing factor in creating the image they are sharing.
I'm going to have a poke around my archive now....
I will also have a poke around... I just lost 80k+ images from a HDD failure (running recovery as I speak but not looking good) I still do have some images from the Leica on my laptop so I will have a gander tonight.. Great idea for a thread, not sure how many will be interested but hopefully it will be helpful to some.
I will start by saying that I have owned a few Leica lenses yet my favourite lens of all time is the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 that I now have. I will be posting images taken with that combination M240/50 Nokton I wanted a Summilux but to be honest with you the Nokton is every bit as good, and I joke you not on this because I have tested it side by side with the lux pre asph and the fle lux and it holds its own all the way.
I'll start with this one. I don't think I've ever captured tones as painterly as I have in this series. I don't know how the M240's dynamic range matches up to a 5DIII's but I felt that the dynamic range I was able to use was outstanding.
I'll be watching this thread with interest. Not that i have a Leica yet but i definitely think it's somewhere along the line - perhaps in a couple of years unless a cheapish used M9 pops up in the meantime when i happen to have some spare cash. In the meantime i'm picking up the odd M mount lens to use on my Fuji's. I have the Zeiss 35mm f/2 so far which is great fit on the Fuji XE.
Excellent Paul. Thanks for starting this thread. I'll go through my archives as well. I lost a few images a few months ago too, but still have some that I can post here, and new ones of course. At work now with no access to my images, but will post when time permits.
I think the M240's dynamic range is around 11 or 12dB. Don't know what the 5DIII is.
Very impressive first image post. I don't know how much the M had to do with that, maybe the combination with the 28 Zeiss, but it is magic.
Yea, I've contemplated the M8 a few times but I figure if I'm going to spend £1200 I might as well build up my lenses. I've downloaded some m8 Raw files to play with and they are nice but I'm more happy with the Fuji files in comparison. I've also downloaded some MM files to play with. Now those are another thing altogether! I think that's what I'm aiming for...might take a couple of years or more though.
This is a very interesting thread because the "Leica look" has often been questioned as to what it is and whether or not other camera and lens makes can accomplish the same. It's been brought up by a poster in the other Leica thread currently running on DPC as to whether or not software can mimic the "Leica look," but it first has to be defined.
The following is a quote and the best definition of the Leica look that I've heard:
"The "Leica Look" is that one of dread which occurs when your Wife discovers you have added a new lens to the collection because She is holding the receipt in her hand."
As to Parlour Games, I was looking at that pic today and wondering just how much, and what kind, of post processing was done. I too think it's painterly but because of her pose and gaze, as well as, the flattering window light.
This is a very interesting thread because the "Leica look" has often been questioned as to what it is and whether or not other camera and lens makes can accomplish the same. It's been brought up by a poster in the other Leica thread currently running on DPC as to whether or not software can mimic the "Leica look," but it first has to be defined.
The following is a quote and the best definition of the Leica look that I've heard:
"The "Leica Look" is that one of dread which occurs when your Wife discovers you have added a new lens to the collection because She is holding the receipt in her hand."
As to Parlour Games, I was looking at that pic today and wondering just how much, and what kind, of post processing was done. I too think it's painterly but because of her pose and gaze, as well as, the flattering window light.
This was my first DPC entry with the Leica M240. I was also the first time I took the camera out. This was the 58th image I took with the camera. The first 40 were just playing around not shooting anything in particular. I was shooting around the house just getting familiar with the camera and controls when I saw this going on in the window.
The range finder focusing really came into play here. I shot it at F2.8. Moving the focus between the lizard and the cat (Lucy) was very subtle. I am not sure I could have achieved the precise focus on the lizard with my Olympus camera. The AF on the Olympus camera may have focused on the window screen rather than the lizard. Looking through the range finder, there was a distinct focus difference between the lizard, the screen and Lucy.
First of all great shot! Manual focus on a Leica is more accurate than manual focus on other cameras? I have not used a Leica in years so I can't make this comparison. I appreciate this thread and just want to understand the differences that are shared.
I was curious so went and did a little research on this topic. I'm sure Leica does a good job with rangefinder focus but I can't compare it with Olympus focus peaking or manual focus assistant. I guess the main thing is you're happier with the Leica functionality. It appears to be very intuitive.
This image was one of the first ones I really liked coming from the M Monochrome. Edited in LR only. I have found that editing images from the MM is pretty straight forward. Contrast, clarity, whites, blacks, and a slight s curve for some deeper contrast.
M Monochrome with the 24mm 3.8 Elmar. Beautiful clarity and crispness. No sharpening needed with the MM. The limit of 800 pixels though really takes away immense amounts of detail in these images.
This image was taken about year and half ago with the M9 and the 50mm .95 Noctilux around f/4 I think, through a chain link fence. This image is cropped over 100%. Maybe not a good image to show the true strength of the 50 Noc, but I'll find some more in time.
Focus peaking is a great tool, but it is new. The M240 has focus peaking as well. In the old days of SLR film cameras the focusing screens had a split image int he center for critical focusing. The range finder has a double image focusing system. In my shot below, I could clearly see when the lizard was in critical focus, or the screen or Lucy. The focus peaking would show both the screen and the lizard in focus. So I would say that the range finder is still more accurate.
I had this conversation with the manager at the Leica store in San Francisco. He made some interesting points.
1. Image sharpness comes more form accurate focusing than it does from optical quality. Thinking about, it's true that a critically focused kit lens will look sharper than a poorly focused Leica lens. Point being, focus is more important than optics for getting a sharp image.
2. Hyper focusing, or catching the focus within the depth-of-field, can also be problematic. I would argue that there is still a focus point within the DOF of a particular f-stop. Others might disagree.
3. What made Leica film camera such precision instruments was their ability to keep the film flat against the film plane. That was always the engineering challenge. I remember the Contax RTS II would vacuum seal the film against the pressure plate to achieve ultimate flatness. Film flatness against the film plane was a key factor in image sharpness. So, this Leica guy tells me the M240 when paired with 6-bit coded lenses that send lens data to the M240, the camera will actually adjust the sensor positioning for different lenses for optimum sharpness. If you send your camera and lenses to Leica they will even calibrate the camera to your specific lenses.
With all that in mind, I would say, yes - the Leica system is capable of producing more critically focused images than other cameras. It is the Swiss watch of the camera world.
I'll post some more images tomorrow.
Originally posted by insteps:
First of all great shot! Manual focus on a Leica is more accurate than manual focus on other cameras? I have not used a Leica in years so I can't make this comparison. I appreciate this thread and just want to understand the differences that are shared.
I was curious so went and did a little research on this topic. I'm sure Leica does a good job with rangefinder focus but I can't compare it with Olympus focus peaking or manual focus assistant. I guess the main thing is you're happier with the Leica functionality. It appears to be very intuitive.
This image was one of the first ones I really liked coming from the M Monochrome. Edited in LR only. I have found that editing images from the MM is pretty straight forward. Contrast, clarity, whites, blacks, and a slight s curve for some deeper contrast.
M Monochrome with the 24mm 3.8 Elmar. Beautiful clarity and crispness. No sharpening needed with the MM. The limit of 800 pixels though really takes away immense amounts of detail in these images.
This was my second DPC entry with eh M240. I had just bought an older 28mm 2.8 (Canadian) that I was trying out. Saw this double rainbow on a day trip to central Texas after driving through a rain storm.
The B&W treatment was far more compelling than the color image, even for a rainbow, or for me, because of the rainbow.
Using the rangefinder to compose with a 28mm lens is a challenge. The entire view finder is the image area. The lens hood blocks part of the image area. And with glasses, you can't quite see the entire image area all at once.
I can use the LCD and I have an EVF (the Olympus one! It works on the Leicas and costs half as much. I had it leftover form when I went from the Oly Pen to the E-M1), but you end up going back and forth from the rangefinder to the EVF and risk losing the moment. I need to develop a methodology for when to use the range finder and when to use the LCD of EVF. For this shot, the rangefinder doesn't of any advantage as I was focused at infinity and stopped down to f5.6. Critical focus was not an issue.
Lucky as anything to get this - the Jupiter's focus is off a bit.
However, the stealthiness meant that shooting other people's children becomes a bit less conspicuous and the full frame sensor accentuates the isolation of my subject.
That's a very cool shot. Peak moment, great expression, nice B&W tones.
How do you like the M240 compared to the M9? I've read some people prefer the M9 with the CCD sensor over the CMOS in the M240.
Originally posted by Paul:
This time with the M9 and a 85mm Jupiter lens:
Lucky as anything to get this - the Jupiter's focus is off a bit.
However, the stealthiness meant that shooting other people's children becomes a bit less conspicuous and the full frame sensor accentuates the isolation of my subject.
"The red and blue cells in a Bayer camera are used to primarily derive colour information while in the MM all pixels are used solely for luminance information, and therefore the sensor has greater resolution than an equivalent color sensor. In that regard the MM's resolution is at least equivalent to 24 Megapixels in a Bayer camera, other factors excluded."
Originally posted by rooum:
The M Monochrome is the same, slightly played with, CCD sensor as the M9 isn't it? Or it a completely new CCD sensor?
