Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Plastic lens on Leica M8?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:43 pm    Post subject: Plastic lens on Leica M8? Reply with quote
I think this is what they meant in the 1960s when they talked about a lens having "plastic" qualities. Of course, "bokeh" hadn't been invented then !

Leitz Tele-Elmarit 90mm f2.8, first "fat chrome" version, at full aperture - traditional "brass'n'glass" Wetzlar-superlative quality (wot? Me, bigotted? Never!)


PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I couldn't get well your thought. I think this is a nice sample with a nice lens.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:21 pm    Post subject: Plastic lens Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I couldn't get well your thought. I think this is a nice sample with a nice lens.


Attila - sorry if I confused you (and others perhaps) with my play on words. Back in the 1950s and 60s it was common to refer to a lens as having the quality of "plasticity", meaning the image had a flowing, rounded quality when it went from sharp to out of focus. I'm sure it originated in German photo journals, from the adjective "plastisch" which my dictionary translates as "three-dimensional" or "malleable".

I think that's the quality which lies at the heart of the "What lens is King-of-Bokeh" debate ...

Glad you liked the nature of this image though!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many thanks for explanation!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, nice pun and I agree, it most probably derives from German "plastisch".
Great photo, BTW.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm thinking about trying to find a used m8 as a carry-round/back-up camera. Other than the price tag and the UV issues, what are some of the negatives you're seeing with this camera?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fates wrote:
I'm thinking about trying to find a used m8 as a carry-round/back-up camera. Other than the price tag and the UV issues, what are some of the negatives you're seeing with this camera?


Personally, I have had no 'negative issues' with the M8, unlike some people who contribute to the Leica and RFF forums (fora). Their biggest moan has been it's not 24x36 ... to which I can only say - "So?"

It is expensive and even used prices probably won't get very much cheaper in the short term, despite the advent of the M8.2 and the M9, both of which cost quite a bit more. The M8 shutter makes more noise than my M2 but a lot less than my Canon F1 ... can't comment relative to M8.2 or M9 because I haven't handled either. The whingeing about UV/IR filter 'issues' really only seems relevant if you have to buy extra ones - I put my two free ones on my 21mm and 35mm lenses, and my 90mm doesn't seem to suffer through not having one!

If I really wanted to find something to moan about, there are two points that might qualify (but I'd need to be feeling peevish).
1: It's easy to catch and activate the 'Set' button if you carry it without a case. And its possible to do that if you use either Leica erc or Luigi half case. If you then catch another button you can disturbe your selection, which CAN be a problem. I fixed that by glueing a small 'protector' on the flap of the Luigi case. So, no issue really.
2: The viewfinder image is slightly smaller than my M2 or a .72x M6,7,or MP. Not much, but I feel slightly less confident with focusing using my 90mm lens. BUT, whatever I 'feel' the images do come out correctly focused, so it's actually another 'non-issue'. I can even get the range correct with a 135mm, although composition is slight problem.

One other possible moan is the battery - I find a full charge just about manages a 2GB card, no more. But that's 180+ shots, so it's not a disaster really. But my K10D just goes on, and on, and on ...

Oh, and I suppose the LCD display is pretty poor, but then I don't really use it apart from setting the menu. Never needed one on my M2, why do I need it on the M8?

I've no regrets about buying it. to me it's just a Leica M that uses memory cards instead of film and I use it just like I've always used my 35mm Leica - allowing for the relative changes in lens coverage. Expensive, yes: limited in scope compared to a DSLR, yes - in some ways. But it also does things I can't do with aDSLR.

If you've had a Leica M previously and like RF cameras then it's for you, it really is. If you've never used a RF camera though, maybe try to borrow or hire some sort of Leica before you spend the money, because it's a different sort of animal - a VERY different one.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:40 am    Post subject: Re: Plastic lens Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

Attila - sorry if I confused you (and others perhaps) with my play on words. Back in the 1950s and 60s it was common to refer to a lens as having the quality of "plasticity", meaning the image had a flowing, rounded quality when it went from sharp to out of focus. I'm sure it originated in German photo journals, from the adjective "plastisch" which my dictionary translates as "three-dimensional" or "malleable".


In Italian the word "plasticità" has the same meaning as in German and it is often used in description of paintings to describe a figure or object that is painted in such a way that it feels 3-dimensional.

Of course both the German and Italian words come from the Ancient Greek "plàssein" (past: "plàstos") which means "to model with clay".
So now the metaphoric use should be clear.

By the way, the word "plasma", also comes from the same root.

I use the word "plasticità" often when I describe the quality of a three-dimensional photo, but I try to restrain from using it in English, because, as far as I am aware, the word "plasticity" in English has a completely different meaning (related to physics science).

-


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:59 am    Post subject: Re: Plastic lens Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


In Italian the word "plasticità" has the same meaning as in German and it is often used in description of paintings to describe a figure or object that is painted in such a way that it feels 3-dimensional.

Of course both the German and Italian words come from the Ancient Greek "plàssein" (past: "plàstos") which means "to model with clay".
So now the metaphoric use should be clear.

By the way, the word "plasma", also comes from the same root.

I use the word "plasticità" often when I describe the quality of a three-dimensional photo, but I try to restrain from using it in English, because, as far as I am aware, the word "plasticity" in English has a completely different meaning (related to physics science).

-


In Britain in the 60s and 70s, in the context of photographic images, 'plastic' and 'plasticity' unfortunately became mis-interpreted (or misunderstood) as meaning soft in definition - i.e. unsharp and/or inferior in some way. It was perhaps a good thing that the term eventually fell out of common use in British photographic publications, hardly any of which were renowned for either their technical scholarship or aesthetic judgement. Plus ça change …


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
But it also does things I can't do with aDSLR.

If you've had a Leica M previously and like RF cameras then it's for you, it really is. If you've never used a RF camera though, maybe try to borrow or hire some sort of Leica before you spend the money, because it's a different sort of animal - a VERY different one.


Thanks for the rundown. What are you thinking about when you say you can do things you can't do with a DSLR?

I think I should try and borrow/rent one, and get to know if I like it. I used to shoot with a Zeiss RF when I was a kid, but haven't touched one in decades.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I recommend the use of a rangefinder to everyone who has never used them.
They make you grow as a photographer.
With a RF you can not see through the lens what is happening. So you have to know what is happening. You need to learn your lenses and you need to be able to tell in advance what will happen in the picture if you choose, say, f/5.6 - you have to know in advance what will be in focus and what will be out of focus.
At the end of the learning process with a rangefinder, you will be a more aware photographer.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fates wrote:

Thanks for the rundown. What are you thinking about when you say you can do things you can't do with a DSLR?

Sorry to be slow responding - but here I am now.
It's a lot smaller than my Pentax so it's far easier to carry, and a lot less obtrusive. The same is particularly true for wide angle lenses. And in poor light the focusing is much, much, more positive, especially with shorter focal length lenses. In fact, I'll be brave enough to say that's true even in good light. If only it had some sort of image stabilisation like the Pentax it would be pretty near perfection - from my point of view!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Speaking generally (then of course it depends on each lens), the wide angle lenses in the rangefinder system perform much better than in the reflex systems with regards to geometric distortion. Reflex wide angle lenses have to use retro-focal system, which causes geometric distortion even in the best lenses (see e.g. Distagon 21mm).
So for architectural shots, that must be as accurate as possible, one should use a rangefinder system, although it's not easy to frame the image well without ttl composition - but there are spirit levers to help.

But since nothing in life comes for free, the drawback of wide angle lenses in rangefinder systems is illumination: the proximity to the film/sensor plane unavoidably causes vignetting at the corners especially wide open.
Of course, this problem can be fixed with digital post-processing.

-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1