Official Talk Leica thread

Used the 50mm 1.4 SL at a wedding Friday..

These are unprocessed, except for exposure tweak, both at f1.4

There is no AA filter, and so there is potential moire - this is the first time i really noticed it.. and it's quite extreme

Full size 6000x4000
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2939/33167514130_fc90dea4f2_o.jpg

Moire by dancook1982, on Flickr

Just another sample of the 50mm

Full size 6000x4000
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2902/32707527334_842252f5b2_o.jpg

B+G 50mm example by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
Yes, but the price of no aa filter.. First time I've ever noticed it..and assumed it was just an illusion at first.. Not going to spoil photo though
Click to expand...
Yes it's a price worth paying for the amazing detail. Is it easy to remove in post processing?
 
magicolor1 said:
Yes it's a price worth paying for the amazing detail. Is it easy to remove in post processing?
Click to expand...

There appear to be guides online, looks like it could be a case of making the moire effect the same colour as the suit so it blends in.
 
Not easy (for me) to notice the moire on the first image as shown here, but when you get it large off the flickr image it is pretty awful. I'd be interested to know how you get on with post processing it out. (Not that I'm at all likely to buy one of these cameras!)
 
ChrisR said:
Not easy (for me) to notice the moire on the first image as shown here, but when you get it large off the flickr image it is pretty awful. I'd be interested to know how you get on with post processing it out. (Not that I'm at all likely to buy one of these cameras!)
Click to expand...

I won't be processing any of these wedding images, I don't need to :D I'm second shooting, and I just hand them all over.

There are other cameras without AA filters, the negative doesn't come up often
 
Tobers said:
Looks good @dancook. Nice separation as you'd expect from that lens. How was the usability, focus etc?
Click to expand...

Cheers,

Well originally it seemed the AF speed isn't the best but I've been playing around with it -

Using 'field' AF which is actually a fairly regular box, instead of the crosshair single pixel AF point - it performs better.

Then, just today, I started to experiment with continuous AF mode....it seems to keep the AF alive, it feels more responsive like this.

I shot C-AF, f1.4 on a car travelling towards me at 20-30mph and each of these sequential shots were in focus, and the dof gave isolation to the car. I want to try C-AF on some human subjects next..

(not sure why the colours got destroyed uploading it to TP)

caf_test.jpg

here's a prettier photo to leave you with :D

Leica SL with 50mm 1.4 SL Summilux by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
I also made a video on the AF speed of this lens, it might not be the clearest - but you can see the green confirmation square when it gains AF - and the change in the image as it's achieving focus..

The closer left side focusing quickly, and the further right side taking a moment longer

View: https://youtu.be/Pj4-wKjAkKI


Hopefully it'll be better than reading into people's opinions and generating new ones based on one's imagination...
 
It's effectively an interference pattern caused when the subject has (usually) stripes that are close in frequency to the sensor itself. You very occasionally see it on TV when someone wears a stripy suit :) The anti-aliasing filter prevents it by slightly blurring the image which obviously has a negative effect on sharpness.
 
dancook said:
Used the 50mm 1.4 SL at a wedding Friday..

These are unprocessed, except for exposure tweak, both at f1.4

There is no AA filter, and so there is potential moire - this is the first time i really noticed it.. and it's quite extreme

Full size 6000x4000
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2939/33167514130_fc90dea4f2_o.jpg

Moire by dancook1982, on Flickr

Just another sample of the 50mm

Full size 6000x4000
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2902/32707527334_842252f5b2_o.jpg

B+G 50mm example by dancook1982, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I must admit I didn't see the moire at first but once spotted it's pretty obvious. I'm guessing most non photographers wouldn't see it though, all they're bothered in is the 'moment', far less picky than us ;)
 
snerkler said:
I must admit I didn't see the moire at first but once spotted it's pretty obvious. I'm guessing most non photographers wouldn't see it though, all they're bothered in is the 'moment', far less picky than us ;)
Click to expand...

I think I've seen it just on a monitor before, viewing a fine pattern at a certain magnification, creating a moire effect - so my first instinct is that it's an optical illusion.. :D
 
dancook said:
I think I've seen it just on a monitor before, viewing a fine pattern at a certain magnification, creating a moire effect - so my first instinct is that it's an optical illusion.. :D
Click to expand...
I see it quite often on TV programs (especially bargain hunt :LOL:), but never on a photo I don't think.
 
ndwgolf said:
What's morie
Click to expand...

Moiré or 'alliasing' is an interference pattern caused when the regular lines of pixels clash with similar patterns of fine detail in the subject - eg some fabrics, roof tiles etc. You see it a lot on telly with herringbone jackets etc because of the course TV resolution - higher resolution sensors reduce it, and so does an anti-alliasing AA filter by slightly blurring very fine detail.

Normally not a problem, though I get it all the time when doing product shots of camera bags for my work, even on cameras with a AA filter. However, it's very easy to get rid of in LightRoom with the moiré local adjustment brush. I've found this to be a total solution and dead easy - unless you've got a hundred weddings photos to fix.

Article here https://photographylife.com/what-is-moire/
 
They look really nice, Dan. The SL Lux 1.4 does seem a logical choice for the system. Gotta love a 50mm! I'd love to have a play with one at some point.

Just picked up a used Sonnar 50mm 1.5 for my M and initial test shots around the house make me think that I'm going to enjoy this lens. So dreamy!
Selling off my Nokton 35mm 1.4 in the next few days either on here or eBay.
 
I was having a bit of trouble getting properly sharp shots with my M10 and 90 Summicron at widest aperture. After getting grumpy and seeing another post on the Leica forum about a guy who did his own rangefinder adjustment, I thought I'd do some more detailed investigations and tests. I found that all my lenses were back focusing a bit (most noticeable on the 90 for obvious reasons). So some of my own rangefinder adjustment was called for.

For those not familiar, the inside of the lens mount of an M camera contains a mechanical lever which "couples" the focus ramp on the lens to the rangefinder assembly in the camera to enable you to see if your shot is in focus in the viewfinder. The rangefinder coupling has an arm with a pivot at one end which connects it to the body, and an eccentric cam at the other which the lens focus ramp touches. This linkage is often regarded (including by me) as some sort of magic voodoo that you must never touch. I have previously sent my M240 and a couple of lenses back to Leica to get them "adjusted" with not a huge amount of success.

So, I ventured into the mouth of of the camera with a 2mm allen key and made some teeny adjustments to the eccentric cam. It was actually extremely easy to do. I went the wrong way initially, making the back focus worse. I then went the correct way, and went a bit too far and ended up slightly front focusing. A smidge back, and it was spot on. I am so relieved and happy. It was just annoying that I couldn't nail focus every time, and I thought it was me. Now I know it was the camera that was slightly out.

Now sorted. Here's a before (left) and after (right) using my 90. This is a 100% crop of my near focus target. It's important to check focus at mid-distance, and infinity as well, during this process.

33952957376_157c3e808f_c.jpg
 
Bought a 1963 M2 a couple of weeks ago and now I'm thinking I want to sell up all my digital kit and buy an M9. I'm thinking I need to add a decent 50mm such as a Summicron first before going mad on Leica digital!

Love the rangefinder way though, a little slower for me but so far so good!
 
wibbly said:
Bought a 1963 M2 a couple of weeks ago and now I'm thinking I want to sell up all my digital kit and buy an M9. I'm thinking I need to add a decent 50mm such as a Summicron first before going mad on Leica digital!

Love the rangefinder way though, a little slower for me but so far so good!
Click to expand...

It does make you see differently by allowing you to slow down.

I used a V4 Cron on the M9 for a few months and must admit, having recently picked up a mint used Sonnar-C 1.5, I actually think (dare I say) that I prefer it to the Cron.

A Summicron and Tri-X film however feels like a perfect match.
 
Ruffmeister said:
I used a V4 Cron on the M9 for a few months and must admit, having recently picked up a mint used Sonnar-C 1.5, I actually think (dare I say) that I prefer it to the Cron.

A Summicron and Tri-X film however feels like a perfect match.
Click to expand...

Sounds just the sort of set up I want. I'm just not sure having shot with my Df and X-Pro1/2 I'll be taking a step back. However, it's something I want to do and accept the limitations.

I've got hold of a collapsible 50mm 'crown, just waiting for a first film back to see how good it is - then I'll decide next lens move :)
 
wibbly said:
Sounds just the sort of set up I want. I'm just not sure having shot with my Df and X-Pro1/2 I'll be taking a step back. However, it's something I want to do and accept the limitations.

I've got hold of a collapsible 50mm 'crown, just waiting for a first film back to see how good it is - then I'll decide next lens move :)
Click to expand...

I did it for a little while. Sold up a 5D classic and lenses plus and X-T10 and lenses for an M8 and then having dipped my foot into digital M, moved on to an M9. They hold their money!
To be honest, many may slate the M8 but I loved it. Files were lovely, like the M9's.

I say a little while because I later got a 6D mainly because I occasionally do the odd shoot for others where I would feel comfortable having AF, and also I like doing some long exposures and so on. The M is a much nicer camera to use however. It does make you work more for the shot.

I've been keeping a look out for an X100 to have a small 35mm option alongside the M when travelling. It seems cheaper than getting a decent 35mm M lens and saves switching haha
 
Ruffmeister said:
I did it for a little while. Sold up a 5D classic and lenses plus and X-T10 and lenses for an M8 and then having dipped my foot into digital M, moved on to an M9. They hold their money!
To be honest, many may slate the M8 but I loved it. Files were lovely, like the M9's.
Click to expand...

Interesting about the M8, I've kind of discounted one of those as the reviews I've read aren't the greatest. It appears the M9 was a big step on after the M8.

My thinking is get used to the system with the M2 & then add an M9 once I'm comfortable with the RF system. Problem is the prices are just eye watering! :D
 
wibbly said:
Interesting about the M8, I've kind of discounted one of those as the reviews I've read aren't the greatest. It appears the M9 was a big step on after the M8.

My thinking is get used to the system with the M2 & then add an M9 once I'm comfortable with the RF system. Problem is the prices are just eye watering! :D
Click to expand...

You need a UV/IR cut filter as the colours can be a bit funky. Also parts are hard to get if it fails. That's "if".

They are a bit of a cult camera now I think. The M9 is definitely what the digital M should have been but the M8 still holds a special place for me as it's what got me into the digital M to begin with. Loved some of the images I got from it.

The prices seem to be creeping too of the M9
 
Last edited:
Definitely food for thought for an M8 maybe as a stepping stone into M's. as you say Leica prices just seem to be going north whatever M body you have!
 
wibbly said:
Definitely food for thought for an M8 maybe as a stepping stone into M's. as you say Leica prices just seem to be going north whatever M body you have!
Click to expand...
I stuck with the M8 for one main reason - you can switch it between visible and IR just by changing the filter :) With the right filter it can be used for IR photography hand-held with great effect, and then switched to "normal" by swapping to an IR-block filter. They "fixed" that with the M9...
 
Don't discount the Leica Elmar-M 50/2.8 if you are looking for a 'cheap' Leica lens. I bought one recently for a great price and am extremely pleased with it. The rendering on the M240 is delightful. Excuse the content of the attached image but I think it illustrates my point. Many moan about the fiddle with collapsible lenses but I can't say that find it a problem.

elmar-m.jpg


elmar-m_2.jpg
 
Ruffmeister said:
I was really shocked when I saw your for sale thread I must admit. I thought you'd formed a good relationship with the SL
Click to expand...

I have, it felt like I was selling a limb... I'm glad I came around.

I thought, perhaps, that my best shots are representative of my worth, and I could be missing out on those most dynamic and emotional shots due to the odd AF trouble..

I shot a wedding on Saturday, and rarely had an issue, I got plenty of shots I enjoyed, that the odd few I missed didn't matter.. and I would sorely miss the image quality, I thought about my website which current only has Leica Q and Leica SL image, and how I would feel adding non Leica stuff... :D


I'm looking forward to future glass, 35mm f2, 75mm f2 - potential to be faster focusing, they have the wide aperture and it'll be down to how fast the glass moves.
Then maybe the Leica SL 2 will have contrast and phase detection AF ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top