PLAMBERT

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

Comments

Total: 73, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Re-make/Re-model: Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 Samples (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dragonrider: Hey, you didn't even show us a picture of the lens. As to image quality, the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake is two stops faster and much better for a little over a hundred bucks.

EF-S lenses don't cover full frame so they can be smaller.
PLL

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
On article Re-make/Re-model: Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 Samples (171 comments in total)

Some interesting pictures here but the corners seem less than sharp in the two Raw images I opened up. I think the current small 28mm f2.8 makes more sense; certainly its images would be sharper at f5.6 than from this new lens and not vignetted.
Leica's marketing strategy is very strange at times..
Philip

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 17:22 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

ybizzle: "...real collector’s item" lol...They must be mistaking themselves for Leica! ;)

I can buy a used black 40mm f2 Summicron for less than these colourful upstarts........ I wonder which would give sharper images, more gradual bokeh..?

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:33 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Olympus/Panny need to make a m4/3 version of the Leica rangefinder with three really nice manual focus only f/1.7 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses. The single window optical viewfinder could just have a manual focus confirmation LED. Should be easy with a phase detect spot meter looking at a mirror on the focal plane shutter. The body should cost $600.00 and each lens about $300.00.

Sort of a digital version of the Leica CL.

Tedolph

Are Olympus bodies better built than Panasonic M43.? I used a succession of Panasonic bodies, which never broke physically ever but they all felt fragile. My GF7 will not operate the touch screen. The Olympus 9-18mm works on that camera (no anti-shake) and is good for interiors but it too feels fragile. Leica equipment doesn't. I have lenses from 1959 to 2005 (from £90 upwards) and everything works as it should.
Phil

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)

Barney, this is copied from Leica Rumors
"Update on my last Leica M10 camera Q&A post regarding the missing spirit level/virtual horizon: I received several confirmations that Leica will put back this feature in one of the upcoming M10 firmware updates (probably will not be part of the upcoming 1.0.2.0)."
"Update: I received some conflicting information on this rumour, so we should see if this will happen."

No doubt Leica will sort it out.
On another topic, the rangefinder of my secondhand M240 would not focus infinity with 90mm and 135mm lenses and Leica (London) sent it back to the factory who fixed it for nothing, as well as updating the firmware. Very nice of them.
Phil

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 19:52 UTC as 93rd comment | 3 replies
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: Olympus/Panny need to make a m4/3 version of the Leica rangefinder with three really nice manual focus only f/1.7 15mm, 20mm and 42.5mm lenses. The single window optical viewfinder could just have a manual focus confirmation LED. Should be easy with a phase detect spot meter looking at a mirror on the focal plane shutter. The body should cost $600.00 and each lens about $300.00.

Sort of a digital version of the Leica CL.

Tedolph

Same build quality?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (494 comments in total)

You ask about a horizon level in the M10. My M240 has one in Live-view (pressing menu buttons) so there will be one in the M10. It isn't as good as on my Panasonic GX7.
Although I mostly use 21mm to 50mm lenses I am starting to use a 1958 Elmar f4 90mm, which is surprisingly sharp from f5.6. For close work I experiment with a Minolta 35-105mm zoom having macro at 105mm only. Limited useful range but very sharp too. Often I use a 40mm Summicron, which I can recommend as being better at f2.8 than a modern f2.5 35mm Summarit (since sold!)
The raw files are very resilient: it is surprising how you can get an acceptable picture out of an "obvious failure" using P Elements 15. Problems I experienced using an M240? Camera shake sometimes, forgetting to focus, having the wrong lens in the camera!
I recommend an M240 if you can do without auto focus. Whether the improvements of the M10 are worth £5600 is up to you.
Philip

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 16:34 UTC as 110th comment | 1 reply
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

jeffcpix: The A2 was the last and best version. Two auxilliary lenses were available a tele which gave 300mm at 2,8 and a wide which was about 21mm -- both were big, heavy and inconvenient -- but they were the best aux lenses I've ever used. If Sony were to re-issue this camera with the latest/greatest sensor, OLED EVF and RAW+jpg I'd be interested. Unfortunately 'the mind of Minolta' didn't seem to be part of the Sony organization's inheritance -- groundbreaking designs like the Minolta Spot Meters, Color Temp Meter and Beseler/Minota 45A were abandoned. People forget that before Sony teamed up with Zeiss, Minolta had a fruitful relationship with Leica.

I had a Leica CL also a Minolta CLE that followed it and was better. Both cameras felt flimsy compared with a Leica M4P I bought next but I don't believe the results were better. Minolta 40mm and 90mm lenses were either made by Leica or designed by Leica and made in Japan; no difference in quality. I have still have the 40mm today and it performs better than the modern f2.5 Summarit I bought lately and sold soon after. Incidentally some old Leica lenses are remarkably sharp on an M9 and an M240.
Phil

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

Cameracist: Wonder how it works on Sony a7...

Actually some Leica lenses are retrofocus.
See Erwin Puts on 21mm Elmarit M:- "This lens is the first retrofocus design by Leica for the M body"
Problems arise on M9 and M240 with Voigtlander wide-angle lenses due to the close proximity of their rear elements to the sensor surface,causing the rays forming the corners of the image to reach the sensor at an acute angle.. This did not matter so much on film cameras, although vignetting might have been present..
The Perar lenses are very interesting but the prices / rarity put them out of reach.
Phil

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Would rather have a CV 15mm III.

The CV15mm is the smallest of my M-bay lenses; cost about £300. Vignetting on my M240 is not heavy and is easily fixed in PS Elements 15 or Cornerfix with a bit more effort (it also deals with edge coloration).
The real advantage of the MS lenses is minimal weight. If the prices made more sense I would be interested. I suspect that the resolution is not up to Leica standards but have seen no data.
Phil.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Cockerell: For the 65mm "macro", where are they measuring the minimum focus distance from? If it's the focal plane, as is usual, then the magnification will be 0.43 (1:2.3), far short of a true 1:1 macro. That's actually the best case. If they're measuring it from, say an effective lens plane about halfway through the lens, the magnification will be around close to 0.31 (1:3.2). To be a true macro lens, the minimum focal distance would need to be 0.26m or less (4x the focal length). I always thought that if a lens mentioned "macro" in its name, then it's a true macro lens.

I had several macro lenses in film days that would work closer using extension rings. I now have a Minolta 35-70mm with a zoom setting at 70mm which works well adapted to a Leica M and permits extension rings if desired.
A point of interest is that macro lenses if of longer focal length than the standard lens might permit a greater distance between the front glass and the subject, so allowing light to get to the subject. Perspective might improve as well.
Phil

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 12:39 UTC
On article Leica improves Q functionality with firmware 2.0 (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

schaki: While it is not much of an upgrade, at least it is better than no upgrade at all. Seems like Leica have something to learn from Ricoh, the way they support their GR cameras over a two-year period of time.

Leica recently updated the firmware on the M240 which is over 2 years in production.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 17:42 UTC
On article Leica improves Q functionality with firmware 2.0 (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

Treve1: Having previously owned the Q, I think most of these new/improved features would be very welcome from a usability perspective.

Was it sold because it had a fixed 28mm lens?

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 11:36 UTC
On article Leica improves Q functionality with firmware 2.0 (59 comments in total)

"Ugh. For a split-second I thought I was, at long last, seeing a firmware announcement for the LX100"
a) I sold my LX100- viewfinder useless in bright sunlight also image quality variable; gave up waiting for new firmware. Don't carry my Leica outfit on holiday (weight,value) so use Lumix G6.
b) Why buy a Leica Q when you can't fit wider lenses?
Phil

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 08:14 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

kewlguy: Leica is more a living fossil than the pandas.

M240- first-class images. What more do you need- value for money?

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: So an 80mm f2.8 lens will yield 56mm and about f2.0 on a full frame camera. Plus whatever interesting artifacts are added by the reducer optics, combined with the less than stellar optics of the original lens, plus manual focus and likely manual exposure. It might be fun to do, assuming you already have the MF lenses, but there's really no compelling reason. I like the comment about a mechanical adapter with no optics and using it as a shift lens to take advantage of the larger image circle. That sounds more useful since shift lenses and pricey.

" and using it as a shift lens to take advantage of the larger image circle. That sounds more useful since shift lenses and pricey."
A shift lens for architecture on a FF camera needs to be 35mm or 28mm. I bought an Olympus 35mm shift lens for £200 and have had good results shifted+well stopped down. The Nikon 28mm might cost £300. There was a 24mm Olympus but very expensive.
Philip

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 09:43 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.

Sounds like you have an M10. If it's anything like mine, the focus peaking is not its best feature, hard to spot, sometimes hard to get to appear. However the magnified view of the image is good.
Mine's back at the manufacturer getting infinity focus fixed!
Philip

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 16:46 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

DF58: How many are looking at "legacy" lenses on digital - is it worth it?

I have a small number of well used Leica screw mount lenses (and a couple of Leica IIIs). Then an M3 and bayonet adaptor. (also a Visoflex!). Then digital happened.

Thinking about a Panasonic GX7 (GX8 looks lovely but too expensive) with 14-140 lens, but what about those old Leica lenses?

Presumably with the EVF framefinding is not a problem - even with a stopped down lens. Is the EVF good enough for manual focus? (I tried manual focus on my LX100 and was pleasantly surprised). In body image stabilisation presumably will have some functionality?

Now to adaptors. Ideally a screw to MFT, but if necessary a Leica M Bayonet to MFT & my Leica screw to bayonet adaptor. Must be more solid than the 14-42 kit lens that I tried a year ago on a GX7 (not saying very much). Anyone seen a visoflex to MFT adaptor - or again will that be a matter of multiple adaptors?

Presumably you set the stop & put the shutter speed to Auto?

"Thinking about a Panasonic GX7... with 14-140 lens, but what about those old Leica lenses?"
I just bought a little GF7 and a 14-140mm zoom (not the brightest of lenses) and wonder what Leica lenses would do for me- I have a few (f2 or f4) and CV 12mm, 15mm, 21mm. Not much scope for using the Leica mount lenses unless the f2 would suit. M43 uses only the centre of field of the 35mm lenses so corner softness/vignetting wouldn't show up.

I do have an Olympus 55mm macro on an adapter which works with M4/3 but the working distance close-up is quite small... a 100mm lens standing further back would give better perspective.
One problem I have not overcome is that slr lenses intended for 24x36mm give a much narrower angle view of building interiors on M4/3. I don't think the CV 12mm f5.6 would be much help here; pity M4/3 ultrawides are so expensive.
Philip

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

olyduck1: Leica M glass on Sony A 7R II - I have some M mount Leica lenses circa early 1960's. Setting aside issues of connectivity and functionality, I was wondering about any opinions of how well these old lenses do OPTICALLY when used via adapters on the newer digital cameras.

I'm trying to decide whether to just use my Leica M-3 and scan the film as needed vs. investing in a digital camera that could really take advantage of the Leica M glass.

Thanks, David

I used a 90mm f4 Elmar from the 1950s on my M240. Stopped well down on a sunny day it was remarkably sharp. Currently I am using a 1975 40mm Summicron to good effect. My old f4 135mm Elmar is very sharp stopped down a little for some depth of field. Maybe a dealer will allow you to try your lenses with an adapter on a Sony.
Philip

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
On article Video: a look at the Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

nycgazelle: Too many people complaining about the price. Jesus christ people. Life isn't cheap, nor is this camera. Its a far better value than LEICA or really any other compact full frame camera out there. I had to return the mark 1 when I had it because I had become accustomed to the 36mp files that just looked more natural and film like to me than the smaller mp of the rx1r. Now that its the bigger sensor, I can use it for work and travel. The price point is TOTALLY fair for what you get with this camera.

I liked your comment about Leica, value for money.... However
Leica equipment does last a long time, given the occasional service.
I use a 1970s 40mm f2 Summicron successfully on M4-P, M9 and M240. Will Sony equipment last? Will old lenses get excluded by changing technology?
Philip

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2015 at 11:20 UTC
Total: 73, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »