MCTuomey
Veteran
Kevin, you may well be right, and if someone has a shot taken with some other type of lens that they would like to post, showing a similar resolution, I would enjoy seeing it.
Best,
-Tim
Although I have owned and do own Canon glass that has impressive resolving power - some TS-E lenses, an 85/1.2, a 135/2, a 200/1.8, a 300/2.8, and a 400/2.8 for example - what would be the point of posting? That your lens is better/worse/same than mine? That I'm supposed to want Leica lenses more than I did beforehand? That you derive enjoyment from pixel peeping and inferring the value and worth of your lenses from doing so and want me to play in your sandbox? That somehow the resolution of that aircraft makes the picture better than it would have been taken by someone else with a different lens or sensor or film?
I don't get it. Other than being glad an RFF member finds value in what he uses, I'm clearly missing something.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Wow ... isn't this the ultimate pixel peeper's thread? 
Chinasaur
Well-known
Tamron Glass baby...totally amazing...
All in fun brother
All in fun brother
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I don't get it ... I find it absolutely incredible! How does a speck of sensor dust get to be shaped like a jet?
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
thanks for the laughs guys.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
This just isn't true. I've owned Canon lenses that outperformed the equivalent FL Leica lenses. Some Leica lenses are excellent. The 35 Summicron-ASPH was maybe my favorite. But, there's no rule that accurately says any lens Leica puts out is better than one by Canon or Nikon.
It's always amusing to see threads like this. 99% of professional photographers shoot gear other than Leica, and people come here to crow about incidentally capturing an airplane blob. [Apologies to the OP. I get what you're saying. But, without an actual comparison, we don't know that a 5DII wouldn't have done the same thing.]
Spyro
Well-known
if someone has a shot taken with some other type of lens that they would like to post, showing a similar resolution, I would enjoy seeing it.
I'll play
A couple of old handheld photos that I overcooked in LR, and I cant seem to find the raw files right now. Anyway:
Crop. I like how I can read all the little letters:
Another (probably oversharpened)
Crop
The camera was a 5D and the lens a zuiko that I picked up for $129 and mounted on the camera with an $8 flange
Not too bad I think for a DSLR with AA filter and a cheap ancient lens wide open. Doesnt mean a thing of course because leica lenses are awesome in so many ways. But since this little zuiko I do think twice about spending a lot on lenses for resolution purposes only.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I don't get it ... I find it absolutely incredible! How does a speck of sensor dust get to be shaped like a jet?
Bill, you wouldn't believe how long it took me to cut that thing out with an X-acto knife, and then find a way to stick it to the sensor.
Best,
-Tim
Krosya
Konicaze
The third image shows what the dust spec actually was.
We live twenty-two miles from the airport. And that plane had to be thousands of feet up in the air at that point. It never ceases to amaze me the detail Leica lenses can capture.
Best,
-Tim
Hmmm - this is Not why they are worth the money they sell for. I dont buy lenses based on this. By many accounts (even Putts) Leica lenses are often only better wide open - when compared to other similar lenses. Or may have better distortion. I would expect Zeiss, Hexanon, and even CV to deliver this sort of thing at f8 or thereabouts.
Actually, I think that in most cases Leica lenses are not worth the money - many counterparts from other manufacturers do just as well if not better. Sure there are some great lenses from Leica, even unique ones, - if they are worth their cost to you - great, but I'd doubt that this is the case for everyone.
n5jrn
Well-known
Bingo. Without setting up a bunch of DSLR's with their lenses and shooting the same scene at the same time that Leica shot was taken (then comparing the results), it's really hard to claim the Leica lens was doing anything extraordinary in terms of resolution when taking that shot.
john_nyc
Established
I love my Leica gear, lenses included. I also have a Canon 1DsMK2 and a 70-200/2.8 mk2. Although I'd never use it as a carry camera because it's like walking around with a fire hydrant, I have to admit that the IQ from this combo is quite excellent, approaching what I'm used to seeing come out of my M8 w/ 50 lux asph. Heresy, I know....
Contarama
Well-known
I like the OP photo...interesting little discovery...this "discovery" is the kind of thing that makes photography fun for me personally. IMHO there is no doubt that Leica M lenses can carry their weight...I know I would surely have a blast shooting with one if I had the opportunity and therein lies the true merit I think - any fine lens that will get one out looking at things and making pictures and enjoying it all is immeasurably valuable.
efirmage
Established
This thread has a lot of good laughs. Although I do think it's more of a "why I love having nice photography equipment" rather than M-Glass thread. But I sure do love M-glass.
KM-25
Well-known
Yeah, yeah, Leica glass is sharp, but when it comes down to pixel peeping, a lot of glass is right up there with it. The reason I use Leica M at all is that it just gets the heck out of the way of what I need to do, make professional and publishable photographs with a minimum of technical fuss..
Shot Sunday on Tri-X:
http://www.powdermag.com/photos/kind-of-seeing-is-believing/
Gotta love black and white..
Shot Sunday on Tri-X:
http://www.powdermag.com/photos/kind-of-seeing-is-believing/
Gotta love black and white..
Last edited:
Efra1
Established
took a snap shot the other day at the beach
i saw something in the picture that looked like dust. but wait
ENHANCEEEE!
ENHANCEEE
i live about 238,857 miles from the moon, it never ceases to amaze me the detail minolta lenses can capture.
FAKE FAKE FAKE
And BAD FAKE, the Photoshop is not well did jejejejeje
Rico
Well-known
Unplanned birding found me with Canon D30 and $200 EF 28/2.8. The D30 has an AA filter and three whole megapixels.... if someone has a shot taken with some other type of lens that they would like to post, showing a similar resolution, I would enjoy seeing it.
I have several lenses that produce color aliasing on the M8, and will on the M9 as well. The size of the sensor element and design of the Bayer pattern Mosaic filter is the same. The IR absorbing glass of the M8 is thinner, and I have read that the M8 images are sharper due to this. I have not done any tests, the M9 is certainly good enough for me.
The limit of the M8/M9 sensor is ~72line pairs per millimeter. Put the Bayer pattern Mosaic filter over it, and you get 36LP/mm as the worst case resolution- an object with a color that shows up in either the blue or red pixels. I have a 1953 Jupiter-3 that cost me $60 that will produce color aliasing on the M8 when used wide-open at F1.5. It was well worth $60.
From a 1976 lens test, picked Nikon.
and Leica
The bar represents performance of all lenses in that class. The black dot is the individual lens. So at F4, most lenses will be limited by the resolution of the M8 and M9 sensor.
The limit of the M8/M9 sensor is ~72line pairs per millimeter. Put the Bayer pattern Mosaic filter over it, and you get 36LP/mm as the worst case resolution- an object with a color that shows up in either the blue or red pixels. I have a 1953 Jupiter-3 that cost me $60 that will produce color aliasing on the M8 when used wide-open at F1.5. It was well worth $60.
From a 1976 lens test, picked Nikon.
and Leica
The bar represents performance of all lenses in that class. The black dot is the individual lens. So at F4, most lenses will be limited by the resolution of the M8 and M9 sensor.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
Mister E
Well-known
When did you go from M8 to M9, I missed the transition.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Nothing ever proves much of anything. Even the very well studied, demonstrated and verifiable Newtonian Physics, which are often disproved by Quantum Physics (depending on your point of reference, which is very Relativistic if I may say so), which they themselves aren't exactly 100% proven.
Why, if one argued that the sky is blue, you could pretty much prove that it isn't. But just saying "not sure this proves much of anything" isn't exactly an argument against its truthfulness. Or truthiness.
On the Intertoobes, nobody is ever happy. Ever.