Leica M8 & M9 ... and Olympus Pen-F digital?

Sonny: I will keep my M8 and M9, and I may add a Pen-F maybe.
B&H has this deal (for you): Pen-F plus 17mm lens.

Price: $1,698.00

Instant Savings: $350.00

You Pay: $1,348.00.

Will you get the camera in silver or black?
 
Raid,

I'm ordering in black - though I may have to wait as they are backordered. I'm also ordering the 3.5/30mm Macro for an additional $149.99 ($150 off). I'm toying with the idea of a M4/3 to Leica M adapter from CameraQuest, as well.

Also - my real name is Mike. Sonny Sichtstein is just an alias - a play on Sunny 16.

raid said:
Sonny: I will keep my M8 and M9, and I may add a Pen-F maybe.
B&H has this deal (for you): Pen-F plus 17mm lens.

Price: $1,698.00

Instant Savings: $350.00

You Pay: $1,348.00.

Will you get the camera in silver or black?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Mike, and good luck with your purchase. You are getting a nice selection of useful lenses. If I had $2000 to burn, I would have had more options open to me now. I just hate selling any equipment at all, and I have lots of stuff.
 
Here's some shots I took today with an early 1900's cine lens on M 4/3..off of a WW1 movie cam..got the cam for 20 bux at a flea market..with 2 Cooke and 1 Zeiss lens..this lens is the Cooke..it is so tiny...hazy...and fun to use..when I want to do something different..fluffy stuff...I use this lens..which does a circle on M 4/3. First the lens...then the pics..
RWbU0ZE.jpg

FFv0ieu.jpg

NsqyLJu.jpg

oajyQuN.jpg

Y5VOpEd.jpg

Obht5y8.jpg

JogSH9D.jpg

iXDMnTQ.jpg
 
I have not read the whole thread, so apologies, if I repeat someone else:
Next to my Leica (M10, currently) and a few other cameras, I have a Pen-F. It is my "Togo-camera", that is always with me, when I leave the house and I don't have one of the others with me for a particular reason.

I am and always was a fan of the FT- and now µFT-System. They are (even with their weaknesses in some areas) great cameras.

The 14mm Panasonic is almost always on the camera, since this combination makes a really small, pocketable street-shooting setup, that is also capable of much more. I own a few other lenses, but have greatly reduced my collection, since I want µFT as a supplement to what the other systems are for and don't want to have doubled systems.

One lens, that I can really recommend and that is criminally underestimated most times is the Olympus 45mm/f1.8 - the quality of that lens is just amazing. I don't really often use 90mm-equivalent, but if I do, I prefer this one to any Leica, Fuji or other system 90mm FOV, that I have ever used. If you search a good lens and don't have it already. Buy it. It is cheap, small and light. The designer must have sold his sold to the devil, when he designed the lens, otherwise I can't explain...
 
So you use mostly the 14mm lens and the 45/1.8. More support for the Pen-F d.
I have a very good 25/1.4 Lux (Panasonic) as my only high quality M 4/3 lens. My best "tele" is the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 for the Rollei QBM system. I don't have a high quality wide angle lens for a M 4/3 camera. This is what I need to get. The Olympus 17/1.8 may be a good choice.
 
I must admit that there are days when I just cannot face trying to manually focus with my M8 (or my anticipated subject matter just does not lend itself to it). That damn viewfinder has such tiny magnification and is so relatively poor by Leica M standards that my old eyes are just not up to it anymore, especially when I want to use a longer / faster lens for subject separation. On those days I will pick up my OMD EM5 which is easier to manually focus or even better my NEX 7 which has focus peaking. While I seldom rely solely on focus peaking for critical sharpness, it does help get close to correct focus before I magnify the image and complete the task of focusing using my eyeball. If stopped down a little though the focus peaking can be used on its own most days though I am still not happy with the result. And on days when I really can't bother I just mount an AF lens on one of the above mirrorless cameras. There is no doubt in my mind that they do supplement Leica M cameras. And there is no doubt in my mind that we have been spoiled by digital camers - the latest ones in particular are so good that I find I can get pin sharp images I seldom dreamed of back in the day.

I also often mount Leica lenses (and other rangefinder lens like Voigtlander and Canon) on my mirrorless cameras which perform nicely with them. My favourite go to longer lens right now is a Summicron 90mm f2 (Canadian version) that I got recently. It looks as if it was built for the OMD EM 5 and is just fun to use.
 
I have a silver 90/2 Summicron with built-in hood (Made in Canada), and I love using this (heavy) lens!
The digital cameras are spoiling us, Peter. My SWC "reminds me" to also use film.
 
raid said:
So you use mostly the 14mm lens and the 45/1.8. More support for the Pen-F d.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a good camera, even with its few bad design-choices.

raid said:
I have a very good 25/1.4 Lux (Panasonic) as my only high quality M 4/3 lens. My best "tele" is the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 for the Rollei QBM system. I don't have a high quality wide angle lens for a M 4/3 camera. This is what I need to get. The Olympus 17/1.8 may be a good choice.
Click to expand...

Technically the 17mm/f1,8 is a good lens, I think. I had it twice, because I "see" in 35mm. However, I also sold it twice... I never was really satisfied with the lens itself and with its result. I can't even say why, I just don't feel the magic with that lens. Sadly there is no really good alternative in the system: I really hated the Panasonic 20mm (both versions) and the 15mm seems to be a cheapo, that is no match for the 17mm. Maybe the 17 Pro would be it, but that is also big and heavy (im terms of µFT, of course...). I would love, if Panasonic made a 17mm like the 14mm, same size and weight, even f2,5 would be okay...
 
The Canon FD 17/4 may work well here. It would be a slow 34mm lens then. It is not light or small.
 
I did not want to suggest to skip the Oly 17mm/f1,8... It just doesn't fit me. Maybe you would love it. I solved the problem be using 35mm strictly on Leica only. There I have all I want in that focal length.
 
When my M9-P went off to have its sensor replaced, I got a Pen-F as a stand-in for the Leica.

I've got an EM-5II and a set of primes (Zuiko 12/2 & 17/1.8, Lumix '25/1.4 Lux), the Pen-F was an easy choice for a straight up street shooter.

The Oly isn't a Leica, but it's a fine camera and the 20MP sensor is a gem.

Now that the M-P is back, I think I'll sell the Pen, as the OM-D is my favorite of the two, despite its older & smaller sensor.

Some Pen-F pix (most with the 17/1.8):


The Forrest Girls Exalt, Intersection Of US136 And 610 Ave, W Of Vesta, NE by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Leilani And Her Eclipse Mask. Intersection Of US136 And 610 Ave, W Of Vesta, NE by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Fano Alt de Facto TC6 and Rick Kelly Bowery Pine Tele, August 10, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


The Merry-Go-Round, April 06, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Baseball Practice, April 06, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Angry Return, April 01, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Mollie, March 19, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr


Mollie, March 19, 2017 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
 
I would go for it Raid... it's a decent upgrade and it'll feel a little nicer in the hand compared to your other m43 bodies.
 
I am building up a "case" in favor of the Pen-F, and I am slowly but surely getting there. I already had "that discussion" with my wife about it. I am thinking next of which lens to get that is 35mm or wider (in 135 format) that is amazingly good ...
 
raid said:
In my case, I would ask if your evaluations of M 4/3 photography would be different if you almost only shoot in sunny situations where no high ISO is needed. ...

...
Click to expand...

Not at all. Although it would be at the bottom of my list.

Perceived image quality is directly related to the inhererent raw file's signal-to-noise ratio. One factor that determines the total light (signal) you can record is the square root of sensor area.

Sometimes S/N is very useful in "in sunny situations".

In bright light. some regions important to the photograph could be in shadow. A common example would be someone's face well-shaded by a hat brim. If the the person's eyes are important to the photograph, you have to selectively push this shadow region in post-production. Or, you could have used a powerful strobe or even a strategically placed passive reflector.

Important shadow regions in well-lit scenes regions are underexposed. Their S/N is lower than the brightest regions (usually the sky) that are well exposed. The perceived image quality of shadow regions is affected. This has nothing to do with ISO amplification after the shutter closes. In fact at a camera's base ISO (e.g. 200), there is no ISO amplification.

The problem in a low-light scene is the same as shadow regions' in a bright-light scene. The problem is underexpose compared to the maximum possible exposure of the sensor when the shutter is open. The problem is S/N. With most contemporary cameras ISO amplification does not significantly increase noise levels. The purpose of ISO amplification is to increase the signal levels after the shutter closes. The purpose of increasing ISO is to compensate for unavoidable underexposure. Every time you think about high-ISO, think about low signal instead.

To be complete, the inherent sensor area S/N disadvantage of m4/3 compared to APS-C is small.

Also, often shadow regions in sunlight are not important and are best left as shadows during post-production rendering. Now their lower S/N is irrelevant.

Finally, in bright light (base ISO) much of the image area is well-exposed. Only shadow regions, and deep shadow regions in particular, are significantly affected decreased signal levels. In low light (when signal amplification is applied after the shutter closes) much more, if not all, of the image has a lower S/N ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom