PLAMBERT

PLAMBERT

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a none
Joined on Oct 15, 2010

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

88SAL: Reminds me of miyazakis perar lenses. Is it rangefinder coupled?

The tiny Perar triplet lenses are sometimes seen for sale at high prices. Some comments can be seen online. Fall-off in the corners has been mentioned but what's new about that?
Does anybody have personal experience of these lenses?
Philip

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:04 UTC
In reply to:

Toccata47: Leica's sample images, as shot by Ragnar Axelsson, seem to show less dynamic range than the original, particularly in the blacks/shadow areas. This could very well simply be a matter of the quality of the uploaded files as they do seem pretty poor overall (hello iPhone).

Anyway, glad I bought the ccd model.

I used an M9 for 2 years; images improved when given extra exposure . This particularly applied to Voigtlander wide-angle images whose corners were vignetted and noisy. 1-2 stops more exposure made a real difference.
Moving to an M240 I did see blown highlights; I set the exposure at minus 1 stop and an improvement resulted.
I like the way both cameras wake up smartly when switched on; can't understand why some say otherwise. I use a fast card and SDFormatter. The playback is pretty quick. There are faults:the artificial horizon tilt thing is much better executed on my old Lumix G5. Dust is a regular visitor in the M9 but not the M240.
A limited Leica outfit (camera and three lenses) can be carried with no effort (quite unlike my Canon V and zooms). In the real world however I just bought a big outfit bag and carry my M240 with a sackful of lenses until commonsense returns.
The Canon is at Fixation having the mirror replaced.....
Philip

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to photography ( since retirement ). I enjoy looking at the pics, but hard for me to justify the cost.
What is the difference in buying a Leica lens and putting it on your existing camera and snapping some pics?
Is there that much difference?

I tend to hold my cameras for years. I can afford it if I really wanted it. I just cannot seem to turn the corner.

I am beginning to think these are for long time pro's that gradually move into this type of shooting. Not sure.

Leica lenses fit Leica cameras. How can you put them on another camera? The only adapters seem to be for macro.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

Monochrom: Allthough picture quality will be super, i still don't get why anyone wants to pay for a rangefinder and then use the camera with liveview or an EVF. M camera's were since the 70's a tool for photographers who wanted to work different: unobtrusive, quick and sure to get a picture up, close and personal. Now Leica is turning the M into a "do-it-all" camera. Maybe they feel that they can't sell their camera's without all the extra's, but i think they are losing the edge they allways use to have with the M line.

" i still don't get why anyone wants to pay for a rangefinder and then use the camera with liveview or an EVF."
This on an M240 is a great improvement after my M9. I use Voigtlander ultrawides sometimes and I no longer need the distorting supplementary viewfinders as I can see exactly what's going to be in the image. I use my Nikon PC lens sometimes for architecture and it's much easier to do so than on my M9. I just bought a sharp Leica R 35-70mm (heavy!) and it's easy to use on the M240. How would you use a zoom lens on an M9?
Philip

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Leica is a different company who makes camera having no LCD, but more expensive, so does the seller.

The seller charges $9.37 shipping for a $19,000.00 Leica.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100M-Cyber-shot-Digital-Camera/dp/B00K7O2DJU/ref=zg_bs_330405011_17

It has an excellent rear view screen now. Why do you need a separate lcd read-out? The main settings - aperture, shutter speed and focus are self-evident. The only thing lacking is a serious gap in the market for an M240 with the colour deleted. I can convert colour images to monochrome in P'shop, no charge.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
In reply to:

Boxbrownie: Looks interesting, but just look at the view of the side of the lenses you will get through the viewfinder!

Did you mean that the viewfinder outlines don't show the full coverage ? I understand the M240 is improved in this respect.
A real problem might be obstruction by the lenshood of the viewfinder's view. I recently bought a narrow tubular hood for a 40mm Summicron - can't see it in the viewfinder. Worth the money. The ultrawide Voigtlanders need an auxiliary viewfinder on the M9 mounted on the flash shoe so more out of the way. The M240 accepts an electronic live-view finder VF2 by Olympus or Panasonic (badged EVF2 by Leica!) This gives a good view of what the lens sees with no obstruction (fingers apart!)
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

OortCloud: 42mm portrait lens? LOL!

What's wrong with being an amateur? I gave up working years ago.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:46 UTC
On Hands-on with Nikon's new D5500 article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

OM2n Dan: Looking to buy a new camera absolutely loved my 40-year old OM2n
Got to make the jump into digital and was thinking about the Nikon D5500 camera any comments on how you would compare it to Sony a7?

Full frame versus non-full frame is not a big thing to me I don't quite understand that anyway. I do like the idea of more light getting to the chip/processor thingy whatever you call it.

I want a fairly rugged (so is mirrorless more rugged) camera that's excellent in lowlight situations a reasonable degree of lens (Sony a7??) options easy to operate in the automatic mode with full features for being creative in the other modes (took about 40 years to figure out everything on my last one) I do like the smaller body Cameras most of my stuff is Jeeping, hiking, hunting & sightseeing/vacation if it's too big I just don't take it.

Between those two (or add another) what your thoughts? Of course the Nikon would be a little easier on the pocketbook?

Small rugged and cheap? I use a micro 4/3 format Panasonic G5 (something like a reflex camera but no mirror) on holidays and can confirm how well-made it is after falling sideways onto granite paving and hearing the camera clatter along with me. Damage was two tiny scratches in the paint and a mark on the edge of the lenshood. It works as well as when it was new a couple of years ago.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: This is what Leica should be doing, an all electronic RF system at a reasonable price. If the IQ is good, this could be a very interesting camera for those with M lenses that find current Leica prices beyond their reach.

Leica doesn't do reasonable price! Not sure the M240 needs an improved rangefinder although it does need an electronic eye-level viewfinder when using zoom lenses.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:26 UTC
On More things we found cut in half (CP+ 2015 edition) article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: The electronics in the Pentax 645Z looks like something from the early 90s. It's not what I'd call compact, even cut in half.

Can you get ultrawide lenses for it for interiors of buildings? There's a lot to be said for keeping to 24x36mm, where plenty of lenses can be found, sometimes at sensible prices.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.

Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!

" it's not like the camera manufacturers don't know how to improve their jpg output. "
Exactly.... The poor M9 jpegs have been followed by better ones from the later M240. Why didn't they get it right first time?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.

Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!

" quite a few cameras... show lots of artifacts or other problems leading to sub-par image quality. Examples are the Leica M9 (lousy jpg but very good dng output)"
I save my Leica files as 18mb DNGs which make good sharp JPEGs via P'shop Elements able to withstand a lot of enlargement. If you were to complain about dust specks inside the camera or noise in dark corners of the image I would certainly agree but those are other grouses.
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 14:21 UTC
On Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 article (441 comments in total)

The new GM5 might just be a better camera as it has interchangeable lenses and the size is comparable. The drawback of interchangeable lenses is that you have to carry them with you to use them! The whole outfit would be much heavier than the LX100. I use a compact coupled rangefinder camera with various lenses and the outfit bag is heavy, no zoom lenses included.
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 07:46 UTC as 24th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Sweet! Part of me wishes that they would delete the LCD screen. The whole Leica philosophy involves keeping your head up and eyes peeled, not buried in a useless tiny screen.

The screen isn't quite useless. I can tell whether I have clipped off any vital subject corners. One of the cheap compact cameras has a five inch screen, which would be a great help.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 18:12 UTC

I have been using a secondhand M9 for a couple of years as a lighter alternative to a professional slr. It's easy to learn (I bought a book but don't need it often). At the widest end I use cheapish Voigtlander lenses and my Leica 28mm, 40mm and 90mm are all twenty to forty years old because that's all I can afford. The results are very good. It lacks a zoom lens, autofocus, + a built-in flash as found in the cheapest compact cameras . If I want to take sports pictures, motor racing, flower close-ups etc I use a different camera. I use the Leica because I like it. I taped over the red Leica ikon but a few knowledgeable people know what it is. The value of the outfit keeps me careful where I go.
Philip

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2014 at 18:09 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Pablom: The red dot is the reason for 90% of Leica sales.

No, it's the quality of the pictures and the durable build of the cameras and lenses which are the reasons.
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

rogerstpierre: For the price, Leica should provide a free stick-on Red Dot in the box ;-)

I cover up the red dot on my M9 to make the camera less eye-catching.
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

shigzeo: I wonder if I am alone in wanting a digital M that is as light/thin as an M2, or better yet, a really stripped down one the size/shape of the CL.

What essentials would you like in a stripped down digital Leica? What would you delete from an M240? I hope you aren't going to delete live view. Isn't the new Leica T suitable (value for money apart). In short, no it isn't.
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

I use old Leica film camera lenses on an M9 and the results are good and sharp, unless I forget to focus, or shake the camera. The only images that need heavy corrections (that I encounter) are by Voigtlander 12mm,15mm & 21mm whose image corners are vignetted and discoloured (corrected readily in Cornerfix then Photoshop.)
Phil

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

photoshack: I enjoyed shooting several weeks with the M and some fabulous lenses (about $14k of camera). It was a joyful experience, like drinking someone's 40 year old scotch with no penalty. The images are beautiful...but not worth the $$. The durability and output is all that matters to me and my Canon package was equal and superior in many ways to the Leica gear.

So...dot or no dot...I don't go for jewelry, rolexes, gucci or any of that status stuff. I can probably afford to spend it on those things...but they are not valuable to me so I don't. If someone gave me this Leica, I'd probably sell it and buy something that I can really use or go on a vacation with the proceeds :-)

I use the M9 on walks round places of interest every week or two and on holidays in the UK but I won't take it overseas. The outfit weighs a lot which comes out of my baggage limit and I don't care for the risk. I take a small cheao camera overseas and this works for me.
What's this about cats and phones?
Phili

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 14:45 UTC
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »