It's not just you, the kit lens is definitely lacking contrast. These were taken without hoods, except for the Summicron-C which has the rubber hood.
The kit lens is great, if you are happy with slow. If you like to shoot wide open, f/5.6 isn't very. 
I'm not sure how a sensor could enhance adapted lenses, as it has no idea any lens is even attached.
I'm not sure how a sensor could enhance adapted lenses, as it has no idea any lens is even attached.
NickTrop
Veteran
The primes are better - obvs. The kit does look "flare-y" but what do you expect... how many groups/elements does that thing have? Meh - give me a fast 6/4 f1.8 50mm. I'll zoom with my feet. The kit lens is also slow - little bokeh and flatter. Meh (again). The image is very "digital" - technically acceptable but nothing interesting going on. Don't forget - the lens isn't the only thing with "character" - film has it too. And - "character" is usually seen at wider aps (I'd say up to F4), after that they all look good (50mm primes - that is, not zooms) from a lowly banger $10 Chinon, to a brand new $1000 'Cron - all sharp and "contrasty"... If you want to add character, I think Fred Miranda has a "Character" Photoshop Action he sells for $20 on his site. You control the amount of character with a slider...
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I gotta get that Character Slider!! And I can't wait until the new Oly comes out with the Ansel Adams scene mode (shutter won't fire if there's anything man-made in the frame).
Nick, regarding your comment about film adding "character": I could rephrase my original question and ask "Does the digital sensor somehow oversharpen your Sonnar lens images? Does it mess with the OOF qualities of your Noctilux images? Does it add too much punch to your Summar images?" I guess I still would like to hear from someone that's made, say, an 8x10 print from a negative out of their Leica M3/50 Summicron kit and another 8x10 print of the same scene from a digital file out of their G1/50 Summicron kit. What difference(s) do they see? Anyone?
Nick, regarding your comment about film adding "character": I could rephrase my original question and ask "Does the digital sensor somehow oversharpen your Sonnar lens images? Does it mess with the OOF qualities of your Noctilux images? Does it add too much punch to your Summar images?" I guess I still would like to hear from someone that's made, say, an 8x10 print from a negative out of their Leica M3/50 Summicron kit and another 8x10 print of the same scene from a digital file out of their G1/50 Summicron kit. What difference(s) do they see? Anyone?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Jamie, you are really comparing apples.
djonesii
Well-known
I have done a fair bit of work with my G1, while I have not done extensive comparisons w/ Kit lens versus my other ones, it goes something like this ..
The need for speed is not met by kit lens, nor in the 25mm length, in my price range, there is no M mount lens either, therefore, I use C mount lenses.
This is from a 25mm Wollensak 1.5
This is from a Kodak 25mm 1.4
There is no way the kit lens can do this.
In the 40mm range, I can afford the 40mm 1.4 CV, and it does a super job IMHO
This is no flash, hand held in a dark room. Again, no way that the kit lens can do this.
The 12mm/4.5 and the 25/4, and the 50mm Sumicron are not near as nice to me. and in fact, as soon as I get around to it, they will be on the for sale part of this site.
Much the same is true of the 12mm Cine lenses, they do have some cool looks, but they loose too much in the image circle. The C mount cheapos from surveillance cameras are very sharp, but have little character to me.
Hope this shows you some things you were looking for.
Dave
The need for speed is not met by kit lens, nor in the 25mm length, in my price range, there is no M mount lens either, therefore, I use C mount lenses.
This is from a 25mm Wollensak 1.5
There is no way the kit lens can do this.
In the 40mm range, I can afford the 40mm 1.4 CV, and it does a super job IMHO
This is no flash, hand held in a dark room. Again, no way that the kit lens can do this.
The 12mm/4.5 and the 25/4, and the 50mm Sumicron are not near as nice to me. and in fact, as soon as I get around to it, they will be on the for sale part of this site.
Much the same is true of the 12mm Cine lenses, they do have some cool looks, but they loose too much in the image circle. The C mount cheapos from surveillance cameras are very sharp, but have little character to me.
Hope this shows you some things you were looking for.
Dave
How could the sensor do this exactly? Why would it oversharpen a Sonnar image as opposed to any other image? Why and how would it change the OOF qualities of a Noct? The light is focused or it's not, how would the sensor change this?
Prime lenses are going to perform differently than the kit, just like a prime lens will perform differently than a kit lens on a D40, just like a prime will perform differently than a general purpose zoom lens does on an F5.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Interesting comparisons, and discussion. We need to remember, when discussing the kit lens, that when it's being used you are looking at the composite results of the camera's RAW image file being manipulated in software, if SilkyPix is being used to process the RAW files, to correct for off-axis abberations. Panasonic designed the camera, kit lens and software to function as an integrated system (unless you're processing the RAW files using something other than SilkyPix). In this regard the in-camera JPEGs can be revealing, since they, too, operate on the image to correct off-axis abberations when using the kit lens.
When you adapt a 3rd party lens to the G1 it's no longer the same camera/lens/software integrated system.
These sorts of lens comparisons may therefore be more accurate by using in-camera JPEGs. The degree of post-processing the RAW files undergo is dependant on the type of RAW developer software being used.
I also find it funny that the Gumby tests used lens shades on the 3rd party glass, and not on the kit lens. Not exactly a fair comparison?
I'd also like to see the full-frame images, and discuss off-axis abberations between the various lenses, as that's the area where you'd expect the biggest difference between the kit lens and 3rd party glass, for reasons stated above.
~Joe
When you adapt a 3rd party lens to the G1 it's no longer the same camera/lens/software integrated system.
These sorts of lens comparisons may therefore be more accurate by using in-camera JPEGs. The degree of post-processing the RAW files undergo is dependant on the type of RAW developer software being used.
I also find it funny that the Gumby tests used lens shades on the 3rd party glass, and not on the kit lens. Not exactly a fair comparison?
I'd also like to see the full-frame images, and discuss off-axis abberations between the various lenses, as that's the area where you'd expect the biggest difference between the kit lens and 3rd party glass, for reasons stated above.
~Joe
As stated, the tests are not comprehensive, and it was even stated that it wasn't fair. This wasn't meant to be a test for flare. I'd be happy to do that, however. The contrast differences just happened, and yes, only one lens had a hood, so two lenses were handicapped in that regard, including one of the adapted lenses. It is interesting that a 40+ year old unshaded adapted lens did handle flare better, however.
Silkypix wasn't used, the workflow was outlined.
But that wasn't the reason for the comparison; the biggest difference that adapted lenses offer is speed and the resulting character and rendering differences, which are a direct result of the additional speed. It's pretty obvious (as in the djonesii post) that the kit lens is bokeh-challenged due to its slowness.
Full frame images are linked as stated in the post.
This wasn't meant to be a test for flare. I'd be happy to do that, however. The contrast differences just happened, and yes, only one lens had a hood, so two lenses were handicapped in that regard, including one of the adapted lenses. It is interesting that a 40+ year old unshaded adapted lens did handle flare better, however.Silkypix wasn't used, the workflow was outlined.
But that wasn't the reason for the comparison; the biggest difference that adapted lenses offer is speed and the resulting character and rendering differences, which are a direct result of the additional speed. It's pretty obvious (as in the djonesii post) that the kit lens is bokeh-challenged due to its slowness.
Full frame images are linked as stated in the post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Avotius
Some guy
Luminous Landscape had a thing on it not too long ago
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Sensors manipulate images with software. Camera designers have to build in all sorts of "manipulations" into the in-camera software that takes the electronic data from the sensor. The software can correct all sorts of things that they've not been able to solve 'mechanically' yet... things like aberation, vignetting, noise, etc.. Sharpening is a software manipulation that could "revise" the image seen through a Summar for instance.
Of course, it can do that with the kit lens (although noise isn't lens-related.) But how does it know a Summar is mounted on the bayonet? Or as I said earlier, any lens at all?
[To use an adapted lens, the camera must be set to 'shoot without lens.']
Or as I said earlier, any lens at all?[To use an adapted lens, the camera must be set to 'shoot without lens.']
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
No, I'll leave the computer comparisons to someone else. ["apples"... ] I'm trying to understand the difference between sensor-based images vs. film-based images using the same lens.
] I'm trying to understand the difference between sensor-based images vs. film-based images using the same lens.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Dave... nice images. Now... go try to make the same images with those same lenses, but mounted on a film camera. Then come back and tell if you see differences.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
And I'm not interested in comparisons of the kit lenses with M-mount lenses. I'm asking about an apples-to-apples comparison... How do M-mount lens/G1 images compare with images made with the same lens on a Leica M body?
Well the sensor can't make those adjustments you talk about on M lenses. So I guess I'm a bit confused on that part.
But the images will be very similar. Other than the film look vs. digital look, the other difference will be the angle of view. The bokeh and rendering and individual lens characteristics will still show.
It's no different from when a 50 Summicron is on an M3 or an M8 -- there will still be a Summicron signature, unless the lens is stopped down to the point where it becomes a 'lowly banger $10 Chinon' -- to quote Nick.
But the images will be very similar. Other than the film look vs. digital look, the other difference will be the angle of view. The bokeh and rendering and individual lens characteristics will still show.
It's no different from when a 50 Summicron is on an M3 or an M8 -- there will still be a Summicron signature, unless the lens is stopped down to the point where it becomes a 'lowly banger $10 Chinon' -- to quote Nick.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Thanks, Jamie, for clarifying the purpose of your inquiry. The only other issue I can think of that might effect the image quality of an M-series lens on the G1 vs a film camera is off-axis falloff, due to the digital sensor requiring a tele-centric lens design to capture more off-axis light. With a non-telecentric lens on the G1 you may have more vignetting and off-axis light falloff compared to a film camera using the same lens.
OTOH, some of the newer Leica glass, intended for the M8, have a somewhat telecentric design (the M8 having a similar issue as the G1, but less severe due to the M8's micro-lens design) and may therefore operate a bit better on the G1 in this regard.
I was also thinking today about older lens designs and how their designs often are compromises between center and edge performance. Those designs that have poorer edge performance would benefit better from the crop factor of the G1, while a lens design better optimized for 35mm film may in fact not perform as well on the G1 due to the center of the lens being compromised for better corner performance.
I look forward to more testing in this regard.
~Joe
OTOH, some of the newer Leica glass, intended for the M8, have a somewhat telecentric design (the M8 having a similar issue as the G1, but less severe due to the M8's micro-lens design) and may therefore operate a bit better on the G1 in this regard.
I was also thinking today about older lens designs and how their designs often are compromises between center and edge performance. Those designs that have poorer edge performance would benefit better from the crop factor of the G1, while a lens design better optimized for 35mm film may in fact not perform as well on the G1 due to the center of the lens being compromised for better corner performance.
I look forward to more testing in this regard.
~Joe
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Joe... I'm learning something here!! Thanks. Yes... the crop factor can affect the outcome. One of the things I've been concerned about actually is that I LIKE that light fall-off and less-than-perfect focus out on the edges. This often enhances the central figure, especially in portraits or portrait-like images. So with less-than full frame sensors I'd lose that characteristic! Thanks.
The best option (for highest performance center-to-corner) for adapted lenses for the G1 are generally not rangefinder lenses, due to the non-telecentric design that Joe mentions. This is why Leica designed the micro lenses on the M8.
There are other reasons why RF lenses aren't always the best choice, one being that RF lenses can't focus very closely. This is exactly why I was doing a test of the Pen F 38/1.8 vs. the 40/2 Summicron-C, the former being an SLR lens and of course the 40/2 an RF lens.
If the goal is central sharpness and less than stellar corner performance, then rangefinder lenses, especially wide angle, are exactly what you want. Many (though not all) of these lenses exhibit so-called 'smearing' in the corners, due to the light hitting the sensor at oblique angles. This isn't an issue for film but it is with sensors.
There are many threads on getdpi.com about this, do a search for 'corner smearing.' Here is one: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5566
There are other reasons why RF lenses aren't always the best choice, one being that RF lenses can't focus very closely. This is exactly why I was doing a test of the Pen F 38/1.8 vs. the 40/2 Summicron-C, the former being an SLR lens and of course the 40/2 an RF lens.
If the goal is central sharpness and less than stellar corner performance, then rangefinder lenses, especially wide angle, are exactly what you want. Many (though not all) of these lenses exhibit so-called 'smearing' in the corners, due to the light hitting the sensor at oblique angles. This isn't an issue for film but it is with sensors.
There are many threads on getdpi.com about this, do a search for 'corner smearing.' Here is one: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5566
Last edited by a moderator:
KEH
Well-known
I really like the way the G1 renders my CV40/1.4 SC. The single coating gives a pastel look to the raw image, which is a great point of departure for further processing. An example:
Original photo, minimal sharpening and clarity:
With Lightroom 'direct positive' preset, then desaturating the blues:
With Michael Gray's Pantomic X preset:
Finally, a current favorite taken with this lens:
I am reasonably sure that I am getting more of the 'character' I like from this lens than I was getting with my R-D1.
Cheers,
Kirk
Original photo, minimal sharpening and clarity:
With Lightroom 'direct positive' preset, then desaturating the blues:
With Michael Gray's Pantomic X preset:
Finally, a current favorite taken with this lens:
I am reasonably sure that I am getting more of the 'character' I like from this lens than I was getting with my R-D1.
Cheers,
Kirk