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

Leica... which are the one??
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I saw a lot of pics 40 x 30 cm taken by Canon L and Leica M lenses in exhibitions and they were very, very good ones (Salgao in example). For my eyes, and for the jury too. Specially in B&W


Yes, in B&W especially I think the grain has its own importance. But I have seen a coffee-table book of photos by great contemporary landscape photographers and the guy shooting with a Canon film camera had shots where I could see sharpening fringes. Presumably 99% of people buying the book wouldn't notice it, but I have to check for that stuff all the time.

Also, ten years ago I think you would maybe make more allowance for film imperfections because it was the norm (and film grain does enlarge more nicely than digital pixels). I suspect that if you put a 30x40 print from 35mm next to the same scene with medium format, you would see the difference immediately.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
I suspect that if you put a 30x40 print from 35mm next to the same scene with medium format, you would see the difference immediately.


Yes Paul, of course.

The lens in 35 mm (not teles) that can give 80-90 pl/mm in ISO 50, delivered very good 40 x 30 print viewed from 25 or 30 cm. Calculated that the human's eyes only can see sharply 6 pl/mm from 25-30 cm.

But, as you said, the medium format have better contrast and resolution (less magnification for the same print).

I want to change to medium format. Let see.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:
... I believe some of the later R lenses are identical in design to the M series.


Some of the 90mm and 135mm lenses are identical designs, and the 400mm and 560mm lenses for the M cameras' Visoflex reflex housing were also sold as R lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I did talk about pictures what I saw on monitors longer distance is harder part than closer one. For example I got pretty good result with cheap film in closer range at infinity distance I got good result only with sharpest slides like Velvia , Provia. At closer range my 5MPX Olympus E-1 perform very well at longer distance result is pretty crap.


Interesant question !


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Attila wrote:
I did talk about pictures what I saw on monitors longer distance is harder part than closer one. For example I got pretty good result with cheap film in closer range at infinity distance I got good result only with sharpest slides like Velvia , Provia. At closer range my 5MPX Olympus E-1 perform very well at longer distance result is pretty crap.


Interesant question !



I think from longer distance harder to get details than form shorter distance.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
estudleon wrote:
Attila wrote:
I did talk about pictures what I saw on monitors longer distance is harder part than closer one. For example I got pretty good result with cheap film in closer range at infinity distance I got good result only with sharpest slides like Velvia , Provia. At closer range my 5MPX Olympus E-1 perform very well at longer distance result is pretty crap.


Interesant question !



I think from longer distance harder to get details than form shorter distance.


Yes, Attila. The net is excelent to share ours pics, of course. We can show to billion people and watch from them the cam, lenses, pics, ask questions, to learn, etc.

But the paper print (not massive, please) is the best way to see the "real" quality of the image.

And, by other side, we can share massively our experience only by the net.

Because the ut-supra exposed, I prefer comment the experience and not show my pics. When I watch them at the monitor, they aren't what I see at the print. Less contrast, less resolution.

PP ? If I show the render of determinated lens (my copy), I don't like to PP. With PP all is another story.

Rino


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have almost any experience with printed images and we are more tolerant with printed images I guess than pixel piped monitor images. Alessandro also told me many times printed images are best ones. Orio said projected slide is best one. (I like this one from all best) A projected colorful slide AWESOME.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:

... I think current full frame DSLR cameras like Canon 5DII provide better quality at every distance , perhaps at infinity they are same I am not sure. Medium format still better than any DSLR or 35mm film at infinity distance.At closer subjects DSLR can be same good or better. This is my current experience based on personal one and pictures what I saw here from full frame DSLR owners.


Current full frame DSLRs have UV/IR filter just before the sensor, because of this filter, the field curvature will not be flat (you can trace rays passing the center and at other field position, you will notice focus position will be further down as the ray is further off the center axis). The more oblique the ray the effect will be more obvious. This is the reason why Leica tried to make the UV/IR filter of M8 as thin as possible to avoid the curved field curvature and result in leak of IR ray which generate the famous magenta cast.

Because of this, I hardly agree that DSLR can produce better picture than film, especiallly shown high magnification print. If exposure is optimal, 35mm film can easily produce superb pictures of size 30" x 40"; I had enlarged a lot of 30x40" photos taken with Leica M6 camera and Summicron-M 35/2. On contrary, my Canon 1Ds Mark II can never produce comparable 30x40" print.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
amoebahydra wrote:
Attila wrote:

... I think current full frame DSLR cameras like Canon 5DII provide better quality at every distance , perhaps at infinity they are same I am not sure. Medium format still better than any DSLR or 35mm film at infinity distance.At closer subjects DSLR can be same good or better. This is my current experience based on personal one and pictures what I saw here from full frame DSLR owners.


Current full frame DSLRs have UV/IR filter just before the sensor, because of this filter, the field curvature will not be flat (you can trace rays passing the center and at other field position, you will notice focus position will be further down as the ray is further off the center axis). The more oblique the ray the effect will be more obvious. This is the reason why Leica tried to make the UV/IR filter of M8 as thin as possible to avoid the curved field curvature and result in leak of IR ray which generate the famous magenta cast.

Because of this, I hardly agree that DSLR can produce better picture than film, especiallly shown high magnification print. If exposure is optimal, 35mm film can easily produce superb pictures of size 30" x 40"; I had enlarged a lot of 30x40" photos taken with Leica M6 camera and Summicron-M 35/2. On contrary, my Canon 1Ds Mark II can never produce comparable 30x40" print.


Thank you for explanation!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
amoebahydra wrote:
Attila wrote:

... I think current full frame DSLR cameras like Canon 5DII provide better quality at every distance , perhaps at infinity they are same I am not sure. Medium format still better than any DSLR or 35mm film at infinity distance.At closer subjects DSLR can be same good or better. This is my current experience based on personal one and pictures what I saw here from full frame DSLR owners.


Current full frame DSLRs have UV/IR filter just before the sensor, because of this filter, the field curvature will not be flat (you can trace rays passing the center and at other field position, you will notice focus position will be further down as the ray is further off the center axis). The more oblique the ray the effect will be more obvious. This is the reason why Leica tried to make the UV/IR filter of M8 as thin as possible to avoid the curved field curvature and result in leak of IR ray which generate the famous magenta cast.

Because of this, I hardly agree that DSLR can produce better picture than film, especiallly shown high magnification print. If exposure is optimal, 35mm film can easily produce superb pictures of size 30" x 40"; I had enlarged a lot of 30x40" photos taken with Leica M6 camera and Summicron-M 35/2. On contrary, my Canon 1Ds Mark II can never produce comparable 30x40" print.


Thanks, amoebahydra very much


PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I don't have almost any experience with printed images and we are more tolerant with printed images I guess than pixel piped monitor images. Alessandro also told me many times printed images are best ones. Orio said projected slide is best one. (I like this one from all best) A projected colorful slide AWESOME.


I agree with both.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3