jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The venerable Summarit 50/1.5 LTM, wide open on the M8...
Ben Z
Veteran
Hopefully Santa's elves are making you an IR filter that will fit, because I'm not optimistic that the elves in Solms will 
Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar.
Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:Hopefully Santa's elves are making you an IR filter that will fit, because I'm not optimistic that the elves in Solms will
Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar.
Yea beacuse it's such an awsome color lens to begin with.
Merry Christmas Jaapv and a very nice holliday shot.
Aurelius
Well-known
jaapv said:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
and isn't the Summarit supposed to be a dog, especially at 1.5?
It's a nice shot, Jaap
It's a nice shot, Jaap
rvaubel
Well-known
Aurelius said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't clean it up - for me ISO 1250 is the nicest setting for the M8 in B&W.
And yes- the filter is available on special order.
And yes- the filter is available on special order.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I notice that the M8 threads bring out the PNuts in everybody.
I'm looking forward to the same, jaapv.
And, btw, you and I know that the IR filters are an absolute necessity for the Point-and-Shooters. :angel:
I'm looking forward to the same, jaapv.
And, btw, you and I know that the IR filters are an absolute necessity for the Point-and-Shooters. :angel:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
Of course you must know that the IR problem affects b&w too. Blacks not only turn magenta they go lighter on the grayscale. Ditto for the greens that go yellow. It's true the average viewer won't be jolted as badly as when he sees a shot of a room full of men in purple tuxes but it does still mess with the grayscale gradient and one would expect the photographer to notice and be bothered.
Jaap, glad a filter will be available for it--is is from Leica or B+W? I hope they have one in 43mm, even if the glass has to be transplanted into a Leitz mount, for the pre-ASPH 50 Lux. If I ever get an M8 I'd definitely want to use that lens!
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Wait until you get your R-D1. IR contamination is off the chart and far worse then what is commonly recognized. It's funny but when I post examples of IR contamination as well as other serious imaging issues the R-D1 has in s_pades they go largely unacknowledged. What is it with the R-D1 loving / M8 hating peanut gallery hurling their peanuts at the M8? I own an R-D1, like it, but I do not need to fool myself into thinking it's perfect, or as good as an M8 (because it is not), or that the M8's superior performance is somehow not worth the extra dosh- (it is). No Leica gear has always been about sending a great deal extra for that something extra and it's no different today. I guess I just don't feel threatened by the other DRF on the market
You'll see for yourself soon enough, or not, and if not then the M8's issues would likewise go unnoticed along with its superior performance. It's amazing. If the M8 had the same significant imaging shortcomings of the R-D1 the uproar would be far louder then is currently the case. Perhaps due to the lower cost of admission R-D1 owners are just not as demanding or do not expect as much from their kit as they do from the M8.
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
Gid
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:Wait until you get your R-D1. IR contamination is far worse then what is commonly admitted to. It's funny but when I post a prime example of IR contamination as well as the other issues the R-D1 has in s_pades they typically go unacknowledged. What is it with the R-D1 loving / M8 hating peanut gallery hurling their peanuts at the M8? I own an R-D1, like it, but do not need to fool myself into thinking it's perfect or as good as an M8 or that the M8's superior performance is not worth the extra expense- Leica has always been about sending a great deal extra for that something extra. I guess I just don't feel threatened by the other DRF on the market
You'll see for yourself soon enough, or not, and if not then the M8's issues would likewise go unnoticed along with its superior performance. It's amazing. If the M8 had the imaging shortcomings of the R-D1 the uproar would be far louder then it is now.
Merry Christmas.
For someone not threatened by the other DRF on the market you sure make a song and dance about it
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Gid said:For someone not threatened by the other DRF on the market you sure make a song and dance about it
Really? I own both you old goat.
Plus that's rich I don’t TROLL R-D1 rooms throwing up in their faces about how their cameras are inferior or have issues. Really this type of behavior is unprecedented. Can you imagine what the response would be if people were to join a Canon forum only to continually rag on Canon owners for their cameras "plastic image quality" and equally plastic aesthetic? To me the 5D camera looks like a first generation Xbox controller but if I pursued a similar line of communication to that of the M8 haters here on our forum in a Canon room I would be drummed out.Logical questions and discussion regarding the M8 are one thing but this circular crap and harassing should stop. Now.
Last edited:
Gid
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Good for you. Enjoy.
Back on topic. Nice shot jaapv. I do like this lens, but the focusing on my copy is a bit stiff, so it doesn't get out as much as it should do. I feel a CLA coming on.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ben Z said:
I can create an infinite number of greyscales using levels sliders in colour channels, not to mention the twenty-odd B&W profiles I have installed in C1. Using the green-filter #4 profile on a true Ir photo with 092 filter turns it into a normal B&W shot- so IR contamination in digital B&W is really irrelevant - luckily. And yes,Ben it is one of the all-time greats, that lens
rvaubel
Well-known
jaapv said:
jaapv
I thought you might say that. However, the little bit of noise under the beady looking ornament didn't look like film grain to me. It looked like a digital artifact.
What I found out in screing around with noise removal in Neat Image is it made the whole picture more "summarit" like.
Anyway, I really like the look of that lens, noise or no noise. Using older "dogs" is one of the joys of M mount cameras, film or digital. Their qualities really come thru
Rex
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I see what you mean. It does not appear in the full-size shot on my screen, so I guess it is resizing that did it. As for 1250ISO grain in the M8 - I think it adds to the result in print in general. I don't want it to look too Canon-like
dreamsandart
Well-known
Using older glass for something different is one of the joys of 'leica-rangefinder' photography. Just goes to show that there are no 'bad' lenses if you use them for what they are and the photographer is still the main element in a good photograph.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas
harmsr
M5 Nut
Jaapv,
I just got a 1953 iiif with its' original Summarit for christmas. The camera and lens are virtually perfect except for a slight haze in the lens.
I shot a roll with it today and just love how it handles bokeh and is actually pleasantly sharper than I expected. It does have a lower contrast level than my current lenses but that is easily adjust in post.
Mine flared some, and I don't know how much of this is normal and how much is because it needs a CLA.
Could you post some more samples of what is characteristic for this lens and possibly describe how it renders.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Best,
Ray
I just got a 1953 iiif with its' original Summarit for christmas. The camera and lens are virtually perfect except for a slight haze in the lens.
I shot a roll with it today and just love how it handles bokeh and is actually pleasantly sharper than I expected. It does have a lower contrast level than my current lenses but that is easily adjust in post.
Mine flared some, and I don't know how much of this is normal and how much is because it needs a CLA.
Could you post some more samples of what is characteristic for this lens and possibly describe how it renders.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Best,
Ray
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
I'm sure I'll see for myself soon enough. Right now all I have to go on is Sean Reid's word that it's far less than the M8.
Surely I'm not one of those. I never even considered getting an RD-1, having expected the M8 to improve upon it in every way, not just in some ways while "compromising"
in others. I still would never have dropped three grand on an RD-1, if not for the refurbs and the 10% discount I'd never have hit the "buy" button. Bingo. And it's not something we RD-1 owners invented for the occasion of the M8's birth. It's a concept billions of people apply to purchases every day. For $2200-3000 the RD-1 is, IMO, a worse value than the M8, filters and all. At $1395 including shipping, it's a bargain: an M-mount digital rangefinder for the price of a prosumer DSLR. If the IR contamination is as bad as you say, I'm sure I'll sell it for what I paid.
And finally, the RD-1's IR contamination issue does not in any way mitigate that of the M8. Leica had 2 years and the help of Kodak, Jenoptik and PhaseOne--all heavy-hitters in high-end digital, unlike Cosina and Epson--to solve it. Or at least to be up-front about it before they sold them.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
IR contamination is selective, so only some blacks will turn light gray. To get the grayscale to replicate what the eye saw, you would still need to either shoot with an IR filter, or select each affected subject and correct individually. Otherwise just as with color, any "filter" will affect other grays as well.