Nikon z6 or Leica SL for use with Leica M glass?

As a user of a Z6 with adapted Leica M lenses, as well as some native Z glass, I would like to make a remark about focus magnification on the Z's:
When you have put magnification on the af-on button in a user setting, after having focused in the magnified view and you half press the shutter button it does not pop back to full view of the image! You have to press your focus magnification button again to return tu full view. That is something my sony a7II always did. (Overall I still much prefer the Z though)
 
Timmyjoe said:
...Also have found that the Z6 with IBIS and the old rangefinder lenses allow me to make images that never would have been possible with the film bodies.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Could you explain a bit further of what kind of images you can make now that you couldn't have done before. Very interested and all the inspiration i can get while waiting for the shipment to come is welcome. Sounds like you really give good use to your lens arsenal.

I was also wondering if could use my Pentax 67 105mm lens on this Z system. And if using Mid format lenses give any benefits. Will have to check out a smart way to try and match adapters and give it a try.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Okay here is a test shot I did today with a 3.5cm Summaron LTM lens, shot wide open at f/3.5:


Summaron Test by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Crop from the above photo:


Summaron Test Crop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I have to say that the focus peaking function makes a world of difference. Here again, still not sure how much I'm going to use this Novoflex adapter.
Click to expand...

Thanks Vince. Always likes the look of the 3.5cm summaron but since i have the 35mm f2 v4 i did not give in at the urge to buy one. i really like it.
 
Roel said:
...I was also wondering if could use my Pentax 67 105mm lens on this Z system. And if using Mid format lenses give any benefits. Will have to check out a smart way to try and match adapters and give it a try.
Click to expand...
Pentax offered an adapter to use the P67 lenses on Pentax K-mount bodies, so that would be a good start. Then find an adapter for K-mount lenses to the Nikon Z and you're home. As to the benefit, I don't know. There's a lot of excess frame coverage that would go unused but it would be fun to try if you have the lenses sitting around! I have quite a few P67 lenses and they work well adapted to the Leica S (30x45mm sensor). Search my RFF Gallery to see some samples.
 
Another maybe pointless test....

50/1.4 Summilux ASPH vs 50/1.8 Nikon S, shot at f/2, 1/1600 sec, ISO 320. No sharpening, no NR, both adjusted in ACR the same way, tried to focus on pretty much the same spot. I used focus peaking for the Summilux, AF for the Nikon:

Summilux:

Z7 Summilux Test1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Nikon:

Z7 Nikon 50 Test1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Summilux detail of above:

Z7 Summilux Test1 Crop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Nikon detail of above:

Z7 Nikon 50 Test1 Crop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Calzone said:
Vince,

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to draw the parallel that like you I am spoiled by both the convenience of having the speed of AF and also loving the IQ of the native glass.

My manual focus capabilities are seldom used, even though I have a lot of flexibility.

Cal
Click to expand...

I followed your thought process, Cal. I understand what you meant to say here,
 
NicolasCooper said:
As a user of a Z6 with adapted Leica M lenses, as well as some native Z glass, I would like to make a remark about focus magnification on the Z's:
When you have put magnification on the af-on button in a user setting, after having focused in the magnified view and you half press the shutter button it does not pop back to full view of the image! You have to press your focus magnification button again to return tu full view. That is something my sony a7II always did. (Overall I still much prefer the Z though)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is so annoying. Same with the Z7. Seems it would be an easy firmware update but they haven't done it.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Another maybe pointless test....

50/1.4 Summilux ASPH vs 50/1.8 Nikon S, shot at f/2, 1/1600 sec, ISO 320. No sharpening, no NR, both adjusted in ACR the same way, tried to focus on pretty much the same spot. I used focus peaking for the Summilux, AF for the Nikon:
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the trouble, Vince. Not pointless at all. If you ever feel like it, another comparison at f/2 outside with a subject fairly near, but with busy background significantly farther away would be interesting. As long as I am handing out busywork:) Some find the out of focus backgrounds from the 50/1.8 to be a little busy compared to the Summilux, just wondering what you thought. No need to take comparison photos if you already have an opinion you could share. Nothing to fault in the sharpness of the Nikkor, however.
The resolution of the Nikon is impressive by comparison, though I guess some will say that the Summilux suffers here because it is on the wrong sensor. Though center sharpness should be unaffected. Not trolling.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Thanks for taking the trouble, Vince. Not pointless at all. If you ever feel like it, another comparison at f/2 outside with a subject fairly near, but with busy background significantly farther away would be interesting. As long as I am handing out busywork:) Some find the out of focus backgrounds from the 50/1.8 to be a little busy compared to the Summilux, just wondering what you thought. No need to take comparison photos if you already have an opinion you could share. Nothing to fault in the sharpness of the Nikkor, however.
The resolution of the Nikon is impressive by comparison, though I guess some will say that the Summilux suffers here because it is on the wrong sensor. Though center sharpness should be unaffected. Not trolling.
Click to expand...

Sure I can try to do that - no trouble at all.

As an aside, I downloaded some sample DNG files from the new M10 Monochrom and they’re actually a bit smaller in size than the Z7’s. Not that it necessarily affects the price of cheese, but it was something that I noticed. I’m still on the fence about the new Monochrom!
 
Larry Cloetta said:
For wide angles, better to match M lenses to a Leica body? Absolutely. “Much better”? That’s where we probably disagree, as to how much much is contained in the word much. It’s much to you, it’s not much to me in day to day results, although I notoriously don’t give a d..n about corner sharpness since half the time I am adding vignetting in post to get a result I can take pleasure in looking at more than once. Plus, I don’t really find that the issues with corner sharpness of wide angle rf lenses are usually photographically significant. Personally. They are there if you actively look for them, and because they are known to be there, people talk about them. It’s what people do. Made the photo bad, impacted in a meaningful way? I don’t think so. Personally. And at 50mm and above, it’s a non issue. There are esthetic and other choices that enter into it which transcend charts and graphs. For me anyway.
But as long as people know what they are getting and it is something that fits their actual desires, and satisfies their personal needs, as opposed to something some reviewer surmised from looking at charts, then everybody’s good.
Click to expand...


The Nikon Z6 really intrigues me from the perspective of handling, and thus, how it performs with native and adapted lenses. One path of musing is to get a Z6 and pair it with a couple of native primes and a good zoom, and use adapted glass from Minolta MD, Pentax K and Leica M and R. The SL looks like a great camera, but TBH, I'm not fond of the brick like feel. And the SL2 is out of my budget for the forseeable future, so I'm tossing around the idea of the Z6.

It's surprising how much subliminal difference corner and edge sharpness can make. For example, I have the Panasonic LX10 and Sony RX0, both being 1 inch sensor cameras with 24mm equivalent lenses. My copy of the LX10 is sharp in the middle, but the outer thirds of the lens exhibit so much blur that text like car license plates appears slightly doubled when viewed at 100%. The RX0 has almost no distortion, and is very sharp across the frame. There is something subliminally different and better quality about a landscape image with the RX0 compared with the LX10. You don't know what it is, you just know the image quality is better somehow.

Having said that, I use the LX10 a lot, mostly for everyday happy snaps, people candids, and general documentation, as those subjects don't require a high level of sharpness across the frame. So, I'm happy with that because I know what to expect.
 
Hi again -- per my marching orders(!) from Larry, here is another Nikon/Leica lens test....ready?

Both shot at f/2, ISO 100, pretty much focused on the same spot. No sharpening, both processed the same via ACR.

Summilux:

Z7 Summilux Test2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Nikon:

Z7 Nikon 50 Test2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Summilux Crop #1:

Z7 Summilux Test2 Crop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Nikon Crop #1:

Z7 Nikon 50 Test2 Crop by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Summilux Crop #2:

Z7 Summilux Test2 Crop2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Nikon Crop #2:

Z7 Nikon 50 Test2 Crop2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Not sure if this is as 'busy' a background as you'd like, but I don't find the Nikon one at all objectionable. Actually I think it's a bit smoother, but here again maybe it depends upon what is in the background (like leaves or something along those lines). If you look at the second crop, notice the round reflection on the car - a bit different between the two!
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Fascinating - the Nikon is definitely sharper, I prefer the uncropped bokeh of the Summilux, but the other way round when cropped!
Click to expand...

Charles, it's results like this (and from prints I've made from the black and white images) that makes me pause in terms of buying the new M10 Monochrom. The Z7 is super-duper, and with the possible release of the 61mp Z8 on the horizon later this year, I'm definitely considering remaining in a holding pattern. I'm still a Leica loyalist, but unsure as to whether I'm going to jump on this newest bandwagon.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Hi again -- per my marching orders(!) from Larry, here is another Nikon/Leica lens test....ready?

Both shot at f/2, ISO 100, pretty much focused on the same spot. No sharpening, both processed the same via ACR.


Not sure if this as 'busy' a background as you'd like, but I don't find the Nikon one at all objectionable. Actually I think it's a bit smoother, but here again maybe it depends upon what it in the background (like leaves or something along those lines). If you look at the second crop, notice the round reflection on the car - a bit different between the two!
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks Vince. Was more than I could have hoped for, though I wasn’t expecting it, only interested in seeing it if you happened to do it. Perfect test case. I had expected the Summilux to have the smoother background in a situation like this, given the common wisdom about the Nikon lens, but that’s not the case. I had noticed the difference in the prominence of the highlight on the car, as well as the smaller highlight bokeh balls, even beside the onion rings visible in the crop. That’s interesting as well.
I realize these are just details, and could vary from situation to situation, but God is in the details, as they say.
Thanks for taking the time, no more requests from this corner, will be happy just to occasionally hear your overall subjective impressions based on your experience.
 
Probably for my own financial good I'm not in a position to buy a new Monochrome, but by coincidence my local camera shop had a come and try Leica day last Saturday. I have to say the M10P was lovely, but ultimately it makes no sense (that it still has the M6 metering display I hated is a real downer) to buy an extremely expensive digital camera when you can get the same results elsewhere for a lot less and enjoy AF.

I'm enjoying your results and I've come to the conclusion I need to try printing from my Fuji XH1 results.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Wow, thanks Vince. Was more than I could have hoped for, though I wasn’t expecting it, only interested in seeing it if you happened to do it. Perfect test case. I had expected the Summilux to have the smoother background in a situation like this, given the common wisdom about the Nikon lens, but that’s not the case. I had noticed the difference in the prominence of the highlight on the car, as well as the smaller highlight bokeh balls, even beside the onion rings visible in the crop. That’s interesting as well.
I realize these are just details, and could vary from situation to situation, but God is in the details, as they say.
Thanks for taking the time, no more requests from this corner, will be happy just to occasionally hear your overall subjective impressions based on your experience.
Click to expand...

Of course! I like doing these kinds of tests -- takes me back to my undergrad days in all those Tech classes. I did exactly this kind of stuff.

One thing these tests do (at least for me) is make me pause in terms of spending all this money on expensive Leica equipment for my personal work. I've been doing it for so long that it was just something that I did as a matter of course. I realize this is a whole other conversation and is not necessarily in the spirit of the original intent of this thread, but it is something for me to personally think about.
 
Archiver said:
It's surprising how much subliminal difference corner and edge sharpness can make.
Click to expand...

That’s certainly true. The questions I ask myself, though, with regard to the utility of adapted wide angle M lenses on Nikon Z bodies are 1. Is the fall off of corner sharpness, aka the presence of corner smearing, enough to have any effect on the photo I am actually trying to make, even subliminally? 2. Would the slight falloff of corner sharpness actually improve the photo I am trying to make? A question which is related to what an individual’s actual style is. For landscapes, or what we traditionally consider to be perfect landscapes, sharpness and corner to corner sharpness is a prerequisite, or at a minimum, almost a prerequisite. For anything other than landscapes, perhaps not. Any photo where one desires subject separation, which is what I tend to do more often than not, begs for as little corner sharpness as possible, completely distinct from depth of field effects. This is why the unusual traits of the original Noct Nikkor are valued in certain situations, even when the subject and the subject’s surroundings are all on the same plane. Different people have different needs, sometimes satisfied by one camera, sometimes only satisfied by owning more than one.

For someone who only has M lenses and is primarily a landscape photographer, using M wides, then using an SL instead of a Z body makes more sense. Though I am not so sure many people who are primarily landscape photographers are using M bodies and M wides in the first place. For every other kind of photography, the Z bodies work well with M lenses, even the wides, up to a point. They are not very compromised. But there are other ways to put a kit together than that. Looking forward to the 20mm/1.8 Z lens though, both for landscapes and for giving people large noses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom