Jump to content

Zeiss Ikon- v- M7 -v- Nikon F100


Recommended Posts

<p>Bob,<br /> I recently did a comparison of some 50mm lenses in order to see which one I'd keep. I cannot find the original files anymore but here are some 100% crops looking at the sharpness/contrast and bokeh of the 50mm Summilux, 50 f1.4 AF-D and 50 f1.2 AI-S shot wide open. The newspaper was in the center of the shot. Post processing was the same in LR3 (mildly sharpened)<br /> Hope that helps.</p><div>00YZnZ-348811684.jpg.c022a88325a5a5f5e63c9a5fd0a54d85.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bob- Sorry to hear about the revolver issues mate. As a casual shooter with little free time I like them very much, mostly because of the easier maintainence. But if I were in the line of duty, and (heaven forbid) got into a firefight, I'd definitely want a pistol with a few extra rounds and a easy-to-reload magazine system. Speedloaders are great, but I can only imagine they'd be a lot more fiddly than changing a magazine when you have enough adrenaline running through you that you're acting like a freaked-out cokehead. Then again, I obviously lack years of combat training and stress management :)</p>

<p>Benjamin, good test. Worth nothing though, the 50 f/1.2 isn't one of Nikon's best lenses. It is often outperformed by the Minolta or Pentax lenses of the same era. Supposedly, Nikon didn't feel that a 1.2 was capable of the same level of quality as a 1.4, so they didn't put nearly as much research into it as the 1.4. They basically released the 1.2 'to have one.' I think you'll find the Nikon 1.4 AIS outperforms most other 1.4 SLR lenses (aside from the Zeiss/Contax), while the 1.2 falls way at the back of the pack.</p>

<p>*sigh* I wish I kept my Pentax 1.2. I have nothing to use it with now, but it's only a matter of time until I buy a PEN or NEX :(</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> One thing about gun people is they always want to talk about which gun they would prefer for shooting people. The thing I really love is when gun folks are in their imaginary war defending their homes against marauders they are always fat, slow and completely inadequate from defending their home from a senior citizen with a wet noodle. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ross- In this case, the ORIGINAL COMMENT about guns had to do with the selection of guns for law enforcement. Believe it or not, talking about guns outside the context of shooting people would have been off-topic. I still agree it's a bad analogy, but that's how we got here: from the very first post.</p>

<p>As far as home defense goes, I think your comment shows massive ignorance on your part. The difference between a person that likes guns and a person that takes them seriously is just as wide as that for cameras. Your inability to differentiate between rednecks that wanna' blow stuff up and people like Bob and myself that respect the power and danger of our hobby (in Bob's case, profession) is insulting. Many people (like myself) are concerned enough with safety that we keep our guns locked up at all times, with a lock on the gun itself as well, and with the ammunition stored somewhere else altogether. Additionally, I excersise fairly regularly, am 6' with a 33" waist, and work almost 50 hours a week between two photography-related jobs, sales and education. I also read at least one book a month, very few of them about guns, war, or survival.</p>

<p>Suffice to say, I strongly resent your implication that the fact that I own and use firearms (almost all of which were left to me by my grandfather, btw - my only purcahse was a .22 for practice) that I'm some out-of-shape, gun-toting moron obsessed with societal collapse.</p>

<p>Enough about me being offended. Back on topic. There is one common rule with gun people though that you're overlooking, and it brings it all back to the camera discussion. Do you what the best firearm for home defense is? The one you have with you, that you've practiced with, and that you keep in good working condition. Whether it's a shotgun, a handgun, or a .22 rifle. People that buy an expensive firearm because it's supposed to be good and think it makes them safe are idiots.</p>

<p>Do you know what the best camera is? The one that you have with you, that you've practiced with, and that you keep in good working condition. Whether it's a Nikon, a Zeiss, or a Leica. People that buy an expensive camera because it's supposed to be good and think it makes them a good photographer are idiots.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Because rangefinder cameras lack a mirror housing, the rear element of lenses designed for them sit much closer to the focal plane. This results in smaller more simple lens designs for rangefinder cameras and generally superior performing optics. SLR lenses have to be designed so that the rear of the lens can avoid the swing of the mirror. This requires making some optical design compromises that RF lenses are immune to. Generally speaking, wide angle to normal focal length rangefinder lenses perform better than SLR lenses in the same range. When I say perform better, I'm talking about corner to corner sharpness and lack of distortion among other things.</p>

<p>The rangefinder camera has another advantage in that there is no mirror vibration, a slow shutter speed consideration, and also less of a lag between pushing the shutter button and actuation of the shutter. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bob,<br>

changing over from a Single Lens Reflex to a Rangefinder can be quite a huge leap. I did it, sold all my Nikon gear and MF primes and got a Leica. Personally it was the best choice I could make, considering my type of photography. Your conclusions might be different.</p>

<ol>

<li>RF and SLRs are handled in a completely different way: the Leica is smaller, even if not much lighter, you use brightline frames to compose. These cover nearly the whole viewfinder in case of the 28mm and only a quite small portion in case of the 90mm and 135mm. You would also be able to follow more of the composed scene in the viewfider, which normally covers an area wider than the mounted lens.</li>

<li>The 28mm will be difficult to frame if you wear glasses.</li>

<li>Any lens wider than 28mm will require an external viewfinder, with increased parallax problems, which the SRL does not have since the image you see in the finder is on the same axis than the one of the lens.</li>

<li>Leica lenses are very, very good. Better than the Nikon lenses, and the reasons have been posted before. They are also much, much more expensive. You need to spend at least 1800 Euros for a used f1.4/50 mm, at least 1200 Euros for a f2.8/28mm, at least 1600 Euros for a f2/35mm, at least 1200 Euros for a f2.8/90mm. For these prices you get new Nikkor lenses. Leica lenses are also very difficult to find. Both the new and the used ones.</li>

<li>The Leica requires a completely different usage pattern: in principle only prime lenses, limited in focal length. It is not too easy to focus fast moving subjects, unless you stop down the lens a lot, which has a limited effect with longer lenses. But then there is an issue with exposure time. Leicas are not good for sports photography and for subjects which require long lenses and fast speeds.</li>

<li>Leicas are light and compact: I travel with my M and one lens in my pocket all the time. But you have to be your zoom moving forward and backwards to compose.</li>

<li>If you are careful in pressing the shutter button, with a Leica you can easily hold 1/15 of a second without a tripod, maybe also 1/8 of a second.</li>

<li>To use a Leica you need some training, after being used to the automated features of a F100.</li>

</ol>

<p>I am very happy to have changed. But I know there are people who really had a hard time to change their way of working from a SLR to a rangefinder. Considering the price of the Leica equipment, and mainly of the lenses, the decision might be regretted.<br>

Good luck,<br>

L.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have 2 shot's to compare- one with a SLR and the other with "that look" of a Zeiss or Leica?<br />Please post your best shot with a Rangefinder that has "that look" and let's see. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>These aren't my shots Bob, because I don't waste my time doing comparisons...but here is someone who has:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW.html">http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW.html</a></p>

<p>Steve Huff does a review of a 35mm 1.4L on a 5D2, and then compares an image shot with a Leica M8 and a 28mm Elmarit (half the resolution sensor) and the Leica shot is MUCH sharper. That said, the Leica (or Zeiss) look is not just about sharpness, the colours and the character of the shots just look...well ...different. </p>

<p>Believe me, I am not trying to start a flame war with Canon lovers...I myself shoot Canon, and probably always will. I have or have owned an Eos 3, 20D, 5D, 7D, 1DS2 and various L glass. However, now that I just bought a used Leica M8 and two Zeiss primes I am amazed at the image quality at lower iso's , and how sharp the files are from 'only' 10mp. Combine the image quality with how small the lenses are...well let's just say it can become an addictive thing.</p>

<p>If you can live with manual focus, awful user interface (from a Canon perspective), then you will be amazed at the rangefinder system and the awesome lenses available to them. My Zeiss 25mm 2.8ZM Biogon is sharp corner to corner, fairly fast at f2.8, and is only a 46mm filter size. My old 16-35mm 2.8L is nowhere near as sharp and 4x the size.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe any police officer in dangerous duty would choose the Colt over the Glock. Similarly, I don't believe any photojournalist would choose Leica or Zeiss over the Nikon, as his only camera, on an assignment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice analogy...but it's a little outdated. I don't ANY photojournalists who shoots film anymore...digital is where it is at for pure speed....so your point is rather moot.<br>

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS QUOTED FROM EARLIER IN THE THREAD<br>

Hold on; both Leica and Nikon make very popular digital cameras (you even mention owning an M8), so the point is not moot. However, the point being made is wrong. I know there are photojournalists that use the M9, and, if I recall correctly, Salgado still uses film Leicas. Secondly, I don't know of a single professional, photojournalist or otherwise, who would have only one camera on an assignment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

<p>I formerly used Leica RF, moved to Leica Reflex (R5) when I preferred the image framing, finally went to Nikon (F5)and recognized no deterioration in image quality, although the Nikon lens image colors and contrast ARE different from Leica glass, but although real may not make any eventual difference. I am now Nikon Digital and wonder why I waited so long.<br>

Nevertheless, there is a REAL difference between the Leica RF ( and other RF cameras) and all other reflex cameras: the physical focussing difference. Rangefinder cameras focus the image on the film plane, film or digital. Reflex cameras are retrofucussed: the image is focussed by the lens on an imaginary point and then expanded (retrofucussed) to the plane. Computer lens design as well as improvements in glass including rare earths have addressed this problem, particularly Chromatic aberration, but as any optical physicist will demonstrate that the problem is inherent. Hence, on a theoretic basis, reflex imaging can approach but not equal a correctly focussed direct image from a RF camera lens. There is a visible difference, but does it matter?<br>

We all know that practice does not always follow theory, so a "good enough" Nikon or Canon or similar AF SLR image is extremely good, and I also would not trade my Nikon SLR for a 'better' RF (Leica or other). How many angels can stand on the head of pin?<br>

Stan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...