Strange Bedfellows

[Bill Pierce]

I hear a lot of cries for a full frame digital Leica. The problem of light rays hitting the outer regions of a sensor at a steep angle are a problem even for full frame DSLR's much less rangefinders with wide angle lenses that are less retrofocus or not retrofocus at all and produce even steeper angles. It's a complex problem made all the more complex by the variety of lenses available.

In other words, there is a pretty strong argument for the smaller frame size of the M8. And it also has a hidden advantage. Lenses that show less than ideal performance towards the edges of the frame of a full frame film camera can turn out to be real winners on the smaller M8 frame. I'm using a mix of Cosina Voigtlander and Leitz lenses on my M8. In a sense, all of them are better on the M8 than the M3 thru 7. I always thought the CV lenses were remarkable quality for the price when I was using them on film Leicas. But, for the most part, they have become my main lenses on the M8. Anybody else have thoughts on using a $5,500 camera body with a $350 lens?

Bill

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a Kodak 14n that cost about $5000 new and I regularly use Nikon primes on it. All of them cost me less than $350 when I bought them new several yrs ago, though some are a little more costly now. I use the 'cheap' Nikon primes because they work well, are incredibly sharp, and didn't cost me a fortune. Of course, no Nikon lens costs what Leica lenses cost, but in the Nikon world the real expensive lenses are either zooms or super-teles.

 

[Spider67]

Actually you describe an appoach that is dictated by lack of funds (in my case) as I also use Nikon primes with Digital monsters (pricewise) and I keep my VC/Canon-LTM-lenses with the firm knowledge that One day I could use them on an M8/9.
It would be interesting to hear what will work and what won´t work at all.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The Leica lenses are the sharpest that I have ever used. Yes, I do like their sharpness. And, they are small. As for Nikon they are great lenses, too, as demonstrated by Chris's portfolio which I perused. (If you have some time, please do so. His work of Indiana is terrific!) I have not used the CV lenses but have heard great things about them. The question I would like answered is why are the lenses better on a M8 than an M3 thru M7?

 

[BillP]

I always wear a suit when I drive my Bentley...

In other words, it doesn't matter one jot or iota. The end justifies the means.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Bill Pierce]

I have not used the CV lenses but have heard great things about them. The question I would like answered is why are the lenses better on a M8 than an M3 thru M7?

Steve - It's not a question of the CV lenses getting better. Almost all high speed, wide angle lenses designed for a full frame film camera are going to be better in the central areas than the edges. The degree to which this is true varies with a lot of things - and gets even more complicated with full frame digital sensors than film. Cameras with a smaller than conventional frame simply eliminate this problem area. Of course, they also become the equivalent of effectively longer focal lengths upholding the old photographic axiom - there is no free lunch.

Bill

 

[nikon_sam]

Anybody else have thoughts on using a $5,500 camera body with a $350 lens?
Bill

I don't see any problem with this combination as long as the final results are just what you're looking for...
I'm not using a Leica nor am I using any digital camera BUT I have put these two items together and getting great results...
>>>>>Nikon F5 & Nikkor-O 35mm 2.0 AI'd lens<<<<<<
I bought both items on Ebay...I paid $75 for the Lens and it came attached to a Nikon FE body...
Then there's the Pinhole Lens cap and the LensBaby...I say if it works for you go for it...😀

 

[Harry Lime]

1) I don't have an M8, but have shot with smaller than full frame cameras. With the M8 you get 33% more DOF at a given stop, than a full frame camera. This can be a big advantage for street photography and documentary work. You are getting more DOF without having to up the asa or stop down.

2) I love my Leica glass. I still think it's better than anything else out there, in terms of sheer performance. But at the end of the day it's the pictures that count and anything that VC makes is probably better than anything that the greats like Capa, Rodger etc shot with decades ago and they all made out just fine... Leica galss is great if you can afford it, but I would be perfectly happy if all I could afford was VC glass.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Leica lenses are the sharpest that I have ever used. Yes, I do like their sharpness. And, they are small. As for Nikon they are great lenses, too, as demonstrated by Chris's portfolio which I perused. (If you have some time, please do so. His work of Indiana is terrific!) I have not used the CV lenses but have heard great things about them. The question I would like answered is why are the lenses better on a M8 than an M3 thru M7?

Steve,

Thanks for the compliment! Actually most of what's on my website was shot with a Mamiya 645. I go back and forth with the Kodak digital. It makes great images (though it is not so good for low light), but I hate how it handles, and I think film is still better for BW, though I have done some great black and white with the Kodak. Like these two:

I've been shooting a Hasselblad a lot lately, because one was GIVEN to me a month ago! Yeah GIVEN to me! For 35mm I am still in love with my Olympus cameras, though I'd like to get a Leica or a Nikon rangefinder someday to play with.

 

[maggieo]

I've got nothing but CV glass for my M8 and am thrilled with it.

 

[aizan]

then there's putting a super expensive lens on a super cheap body.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

then there's putting a super expensive lens on a super cheap body.

That made sense with film cameras, since the body has no effect on image quality (assuming it isn't so crappy it doesn't keep the film flat). With digital the old line that the lens is all that matters is no longer true since the 'film' is permanantly built into the body and there are large differences in resolution, noise, low light sensitivity, and color accuracy between different digital cameras.

 

[charjohncarter]

All I know is that I rung my hands hoping for a Pentax FF DSLR. I bought an inexpensive DL so I could continue to wait. It became obvious FF wasn't coming to Pentax anytime soon so I bought the K10d. Frankly, I've never rung my hands since, my lenses work fine on the DSLRs, and I don't notice the angst of not having FF. My problem is I don't like digital images. Not just the Pentax but the Canon, Nikon, etc. The only exception is M8, I do like many of them. Is it possible that being a RF is better for digital?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

All I know is that I rung my hands hoping for a Pentax FF DSLR. I bought an inexpensive DL so I could continue to wait. It became obvious FF wasn't coming to Pentax anytime soon so I bought the K10d. Frankly, I've never rung my hands since, my lenses work fine on the DSLRs, and I don't notice the angst of not having FF. My problem is I don't like digital images. Not just the Pentax but the Canon, Nikon, etc. The only exception is M8, I do like many of them. Is it possible that being a RF is better for digital?

What don't you like about digital images? I honestly can't see much difference, if any, for color photos shot on film or a high-res fullframe camera like my Kodak 14n. For black & white I think you can still get better tonality out of film, but you can get pretty close and even equal with digital and the right light/subject matter.

 

[ChrisN]

Continuing this slight excursion off-topic, I wonder if the new cmos (?) sensor in the K20D will produce a different "look".

And CC; how are you finding the Hasselblad? I find the square format both restricting and liberating.

 

[charjohncarter]

What don't you like about digital images? I honestly can't see much difference, if any, for color photos shot on film or a high-res fullframe camera like my Kodak 14n. For black & white I think you can still get better tonality out of film, but you can get pretty close and even equal with digital and the right light/subject matter.

B&W on film, as you say is better than on digital. I do mostly B&W so digital is out. I still like to have all those wonder films with all those wonderful color choices, but the biggest problem is the plastic look of digital and short dynamic range. Besides, I can put cheap C-41 in a small RF shoot it, have the negative processed, scan them myself, and not mess with PS. Besides those Japanese digital cameras like Japanese cars have way to many adjustments, knobs, buttons, switches, readouts. It is much easier to use film with an ISO, a camera with a F-stop, and shutter speed. I know digital is here to stay and I will use them on holidays, but not when I'm trying to enjoy photography.

 

[maddoc]

I think that the digital imaging process cuts off to much of the original - by the lens - transformed information to judge lens performance properly. Additionally our internet and monitor society got used to "see" photos on more or less good performing monitors, another imitating factor. In my case, I started using rangefinder lenses with the Epson Rd-1s / CV lenses and coming from a Nikon DSLR system (but had some experience with film before). Then, when I first used a film Leica, the difference in image quality was great compared to the Epson results and after using my first Leica lens I thought it is a different world. It took me some time afterwards to judge a lens and find out its characteristics by inspecting the photos but this is a learning process like listening to good music with well performing equipment (or reading world class literature).

So using CV lenses with a 5000$ digital M8 makes sense to me, the limitating factor is the sensor and not the lens, IMHO.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Continuing this slight excursion off-topic, I wonder if the new cmos (?) sensor in the K20D will produce a different "look".

And CC; how are you finding the Hasselblad? I find the square format both restricting and liberating.

I love the Hasselblad. I have liked square format for a very long time though. I have an ancient prewar Rolleiflex that I got when I was 14 or 15. Paid $65 for it at a photo swap meet my dad took me to back then. In college I got a Mamiya C330f and did my art school graduation project with it entirely in square format. I had to sell the Mamiya a few years after graduating because I needed money to eat. I couldn't find a job or make a living after graduating and was very poor until i moved to New Mexico a few yrs ago. I kep the Rollei through all that because it was beat up and not worth anything. I don't often use it anymore because it is so old and it feels delicate; I'm afraid I'll break it if I use it all the time. So, getting the Hasselblad has been nice since I can shoot square all the time now. Now, I just need to find some money for a couple more lenses!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

B&W on film, as you say is better than on digital. I do mostly B&W so digital is out. I still like to have all those wonder films with all those wonderful color choices, but the biggest problem is the plastic look of digital and short dynamic range. Besides, I can put cheap C-41 in a small RF shoot it, have the negative processed, scan them myself, and not mess with PS. Besides those Japanese digital cameras like Japanese cars have way to many adjustments, knobs, buttons, switches, readouts. It is much easier to use film with an ISO, a camera with a F-stop, and shutter speed. I know digital is here to stay and I will use them on holidays, but not when I'm trying to enjoy photography.

Digital photos only look plastic if you use too much noise reduction. Shooting JPEGs in a digital camera gives the plastic look too because most cameras use too much noise reductions to make jpegs. I shoot RAW only in my Kodak 14n and never get plastic looking images. They look nice. I agree that the controls on digital cameras suck, but I think that about most 35mm SLRs made since 1990 too. I hate the control-wheel and LCD control systems, that's why I like my old Olympus OM-system stuff.

 

[Harry Lime]

Digital photos only look plastic if you use too much noise reduction. Shooting JPEGs in a digital camera gives the plastic look too because most cameras use too much noise reductions to make jpegs. I shoot RAW only in my Kodak 14n and never get plastic looking images. They look nice.

A lot of it has to do with the strength of the AA filer, Bayer pattern interpolation and bit depth. Luckily the Kodak and M8 have a weak or no AA filter, so you get good accutance.