SteveRD1
Well-known
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
The photo is very impressive indeed.
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
Very nice. The almost shockingly sharp and bright eyes really make this one. Two questions though, for anyone:
1. What's going on at the edge of his right cheek? The pale aura-like border. A bit of movement?
2. Are those subcutaneous blood vessels visible on his left cheek, due to the excessive IR sensitivity? Steve, did you use the IR cut filter for this shot?
1. What's going on at the edge of his right cheek? The pale aura-like border. A bit of movement?
2. Are those subcutaneous blood vessels visible on his left cheek, due to the excessive IR sensitivity? Steve, did you use the IR cut filter for this shot?
Last edited:
HAnkg
Well-known
Wow, Impressive. I'm not sure that lens would be very flattering to an adult's skin. Incredible at 1.4. The OOF at 1.4 is very soft and smooth none of the vibrating tension I am accustomed to seeing with the ASPH lenses. Beautiful.
Nachkebia
Well-known
I think sonnar 1.5 can be as sharp as this with same shutter and size of the image, which is around 3 time smaller of original 
LeicaM3
Well-known
Matthew Runkel said:
I am wondering as well. Especially since they are OOF.
LeicaM3
Well-known
Nachkebia said:I think sonnar 1.5 can be as sharp as this
You mind posting some examples?
Andreas
wintoid
Back to film
Gosh that's the first time I've seen an image from a wide open Leica lens on a rangefinder camera that (in my opinion) beats my Canon 20D+35L. Of course, there's more to life than sharpness, but that is very very impressive.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Nachkebia said:I think sonnar 1.5 can be as sharp as this with same shutter and size of the image, which is around 3 time smaller of original
Oh yea that's a sharp lens wide open
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Matthew Runkel said:
Or perhaps they were just there?
LeicaM3
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
That is why he asked...
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Well he asked if they were due to: "due to the excessive IR sensitivity? Steve, did you use the IR cut filter for this shot?" My comment poised a different, and in my mind a more plausible option as the boy seems like a fair skinned young lad for whom such would not be uncommon. Also if Steve is the boy’s father then this would stand to reason given his fair complexion (how do you live in all the intense sunshine Steve? : )
LeicaM3
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
This is the complete question:
"Are those subcutaneous blood vessels visible on his left cheek, due to the excessive IR sensitivity? Steve, did you use the IR cut filter for this shot?"
I am interested in the answer as well, because I have numerous very fair skinned children and I can see their capillaries on images, but not in the OOF areas. Here you can see pretty pronounced caps in OOF, something that is atypical in my experience.
But recently I had one image taken with the R-D1 where I could seem them more than on film images. Until the questions was asked I was just wondering about it, but did not connect the dots. Likely, because I have had no IR issues so far.
No reason to get defensive. The M8 is a fine camera, just not what it could have been w/o the IR issue.
Andreas
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Defensive? One thing I've noticed since going with the M8- detail across a broad spectrum that went unnoticed (or less) when compared to shooting film in my M6. I doubt very seriously this is a "feature" of IR sensitivity nor do I wish to derail this thread with such.
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
IR sensitivity is a camera characteristic ..... not an issue.LeicaM3 said:
Some people turn it into an issue ....... for different reasons, some valid most not.
For some people it is a non-issue for others it is even a virtue
kbg32
neo-romanticist
LeicaM3 said:
M8 is a fine camera period. It is all that it can be. No camera is perfect. Whatever issues a camera has, the concerns vary from user to user. Look at all the QC issues with the RD-1. It doesn't prevent people form using it. They get it fixed, work around it, and it still produces damn fine images. The so called "defects" of the M8 have been discussed to death. Buy one. Use it. You will love it. It will lay to rest all of your concerns.
SteveRD1
Well-known
Wow!
Wow!
SO many reponses already! 1st, yea, my son is VERY fair skinned. More so than me and his blood vessels are there, and seen normally. I did not use an IR filter as I do not own any yet. Since only having the M8 for 2 1/2 days, I am making sure it is not going to shut down on me while in my return period. After that, I will register for my two filters SO far, I LOVE THIS CAMERA. It's an amazing tool and if this in any indication of what is to come, I am sure by the time an M9 is released it will be my perfect camera.
The 50 ASPH is a crazy, amazing lens for sure. best I have ever used. Ever.
BTW, when I had the sonnar, there would be no way to get this sharpness up close like this at 1.5. 99% of the shots i took with it at 1.5 were very very soft. Not even close. The sonnar is more suited to F2-F4 for shots like this.
Also, if you want to see the 100% out of camera file for this, click on the link!
http://www.pbase.com/stevehuff/image/74161423
Wow!
SO many reponses already! 1st, yea, my son is VERY fair skinned. More so than me and his blood vessels are there, and seen normally. I did not use an IR filter as I do not own any yet. Since only having the M8 for 2 1/2 days, I am making sure it is not going to shut down on me while in my return period. After that, I will register for my two filters
SO far, I LOVE THIS CAMERA. It's an amazing tool and if this in any indication of what is to come, I am sure by the time an M9 is released it will be my perfect camera.The 50 ASPH is a crazy, amazing lens for sure. best I have ever used. Ever.
BTW, when I had the sonnar, there would be no way to get this sharpness up close like this at 1.5. 99% of the shots i took with it at 1.5 were very very soft. Not even close. The sonnar is more suited to F2-F4 for shots like this.
Also, if you want to see the 100% out of camera file for this, click on the link!
http://www.pbase.com/stevehuff/image/74161423
LeicaM3
Well-known
kbg32 said:
Used one for 48 hours and a lot of images.
It did not lay to rest all of my concerns.
Therefore I will not buy one.
It is a fine camera. Just not what it could have been w/o the need to use IR filters. I do not think "it is all that it can be".
You are a great contributor to this forum and I enjoy reading your posts. We just disagree here.
For me, it is as simple as that. You might be happy to put IR filters on your lenses, I am not. No firmware update will fix IR. So I am waiting for M8.2 or M9.
Enjoy yours. It is a fine camera, I will just join the club at a later stage. I entirely respect everybody who bought one. Hopefully Leica will get out of their financial malaise.
Sorry for OT, did not mean to derail the thread.
Andreas
LeicaM3
Well-known
SteveRD1 said:
Steve,
thanks for posting the link. Nice images. The Lux is impressive.
Appreciate your comments on the Sonnar vs. Lux very much.
Agree with you, "by the time an M9 is released it will be my perfect camera" as well.
Enjoy and use it a lot,
Andreas
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Why must every thread be "derailed" as such- and then an apology? You made your point of not wanting the camera and why. Then you need to reiterate this and then apologize?
"You know that a real disaster."
"Who asked you I thought were talking about XYZ?"
"No this is a real disaster- I feel this way for the following reasons 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. and furthermore, and so on etc. Oh sorry for saying this is a real disaster"
"You know that a real disaster."
"Who asked you I thought were talking about XYZ?"
"No this is a real disaster- I feel this way for the following reasons 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. and furthermore, and so on etc. Oh sorry for saying this is a real disaster"
Last edited: