Leica Ms are rubbish for macro work...

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by paul hart, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. Well it's not a macro shot since it's not even close to 1:1. Other than that, is there something this flower snapshot is supposed to prove?
  2. For a handheld closeup, it looks good.
  3. Sea Chemistry, what is your definition of "macro".
  4. It doesn't have to be at 1:1 to be considered Macro. The macro range, as I recall, is from 1:1 out to 1:10. This shot looks like it must be around 1:3 or so.

    Nice work, Paul. It makes me want the lens! Why do you say, "rubbish?"
  5. 1:1 or better. It's not my definition. It's the actual definition.
  6. Rob: tongue in cheek stuff, I'm afraid.

    Maritime Scientist: I don't claim it proves anything. One interesting option with photographs
    is just to enjoy them.
  7. I just got the 90mm Macro and the Adapter and for what it is , I find it a great combo and
    nice small package. Nice shot . Also you may want to look at a Visoflex III with the 90mm. I
    tried it the other day and it is also a great macro setup and the magnifaction is even greater.
  8. The Leica M is not rubbish. It just was not designed for macro.
  9. Main Entry: macro lens
    Function: noun
    Etymology: macr-, from the fact that the focal length is greater than normal
    : a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image
  10. Ocean is correct with the definition. However, I agree with Guy.
    The Viso is such a beautiful/useful accessory and should let one do real macros.
    Example shot there from Epson R-D1s and C-V Heliar (used as a P&S setup). Magnification is about 1:3. I am waiting for my Viso III to do real macros.
  11. Then, Leica is wrong. What about a Close-up-Elmar-M 90/4 + Close-up adapter-M?
  12. Macro photography - From Wikipedia

    "Macro photography refers to close-up photography; the classical definition that the image projected on the 'film plane' (i.e film or a digital sensor) is the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens must have the ability to focus on an area at least as small as 24×36 mm, as this is the size of the image on the film. This is known as 'life-size magnification' or simply 1:1."


    "In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 4×6 inch (102×152 mm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers."
  13. SCL


    Use a Visoflex and you'll change your mind. The Visoflex was the accessory Leica specifically designed to provide for both telephoto and macro shots with the Leica M series.
  14. Then, Leica is wrong. What about a Close-up-Elmar-M 90/4 + Close-up adapter-M?
    Jose, AFAIK, only Nikon got the nomenclature right. Micro and Macro Nikkors. Leica did make true macro lenses (Summar, Milar and Photar of various focal lengths and for various magnifications) to be used with appropriate accessories.
    Every other manufacturer (Sigma, Canon, Olympus, etc) got it wrong.
  15. It is like a 117mm in 35mm format, thought.

    I think it will be my next Leica lens, just to shot face portraits. I would like to check it before, to see how it performs at infinity... Shame it is only f/4. The price for a great overall size & great 39mm filters.
  16. Small and with 39mm filters... I see Micro Elmar is more appropiate.
  17. Never waste irony on photographers...
  18. Webter's:
    Main Entry: macro lens
    Function: noun
    Etymology: macr-, from the fact that the focal length is greater than normal
    : a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image
    Emphasis added by yours truly. The actual definition is a nonsense phrase.
  19. "The actual definition (from Webster?)is a nonsense phrase."

    I agree.
  20. And here is a $300 digital P&S macro shot. It really worth to pay $2500 for that macro Elmar. Duh... Silvio
  21. another one
  22. Boy, it really pays off to buy $6000 Leica for macro work. Silvio
  23. "And here is a $300 digital P&S macro shot. It really worth to pay $2500 for that macro Elmar. Duh... Silvio"

    Not for web displays. No, it isn't worth the cash.
  24. A Leica rangefinder with Visoflex system already mentioned here, is superb for macro work. I suggest you look into it. Shown here is my M3 with Visoflex and the renowned Hektor 135mm. I use it frequently I suspect there is more to the Leica M history than you have so far become aware of. Something for you to look forward to.
  25. And a Leica M mounted on the Leitz Reprovit 2A, one of the best copy setups ever built, again with superb macro capabilities.
  26. Paul, what you intended as sarcasm is really the truth, and your picture proves it. An SLR (or turning an M into an SLR with the Viso-Rubo- Goldbergo-Flex) would have given you some ability to visualize and therefore control the relationship between your subject and...

    Distracting backgrounds.

    Even a point and shoot is a better device for close up photography.
  27. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Silvio's first photo proves the usual maxim...
  28. The real question is, what would HCB use for Macro?
  29. Ocean Physics, while I agree with your definition, from a technical viewpoint, for educational purposes, I modify it to include a reference to the 35mm film frame height.

    My working definition, and the one I usually teach, is "A macro photograph is one that allows a 1 inch subject to fill the frame".

    Without this little addition, you have to take into consideration point and shoot cameras with 1/4 inch sensors, rangefinders and DSLRs, medium format, and view cameras. On an 11x14, 1:1 is a "headshot".

    I flesh it out with macro being the range from 1 inch to the point at which you need to think about using a microscope to control the relationship between subject, lens, and camera.

    p.s. hey gang, attacking the nickname is even worse than attacking the man. You've gone from ad hominem attacks to ad pseudonym attacks. ;)

    One can make exception if the name is deliberately provocative (such as the occasional person who signs onto a photography site as Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bressan, or an annoying troll on dpReview who signs himself "furryberry", a slang term for a gonad) but in general, most people choose a nickname because it means something to them. It's an aspect of their personality.
  30. What rubbish! Any good photographer would have no limitations whatsoever on his creative possibilities, in using the Viso II or III with 65 mm or other lenses and bellowsa II.

    And if you want mico, then Leica was the choice camera for many years (probably still is) for microscope(ic) photography.

    However, a Leica cannot prevent a macro photographer from producing rubbish. That is unquestionable!
  31. Set yourself up with this outfit, and welcome to the world of Macro with a Leica:
  32. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
    summilux M 75 @ f1.4http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/
    132701148_a85bfe183d_o.jpgon a Leicaflex SL
  33. Daisy flower head diameter: 16-25mm

  34. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

    Even with a Rangefinder, you're still peering at the world through the looking glass, at least within the bounds of the focusing patch, so Humpty's rules still apply.
  35. Mark U,

    The image Paul posted is a crop and his M8+90/4 Macro-Elmar-M+macro adapter set-up at its maximum magnification would go to 1/3X at best

    The daisy image posted here was made at a magnification of about 1/5X:

  36. Whenever I see a photo posted to the forum monster-sized I wonder why. To make up for
    deficiencies? Really big does not equal good...
  37. Well, there I was posting a cheery spring photo that took all of 30 seconds to take, download,
    crop and upload (and yes, I'm sure some of you can tell that's all it took). Some spotted the
    irony of tone and treated it in the spirit it was intended. As for others, oh well...I'm sure
    you're the life and soul of the party really.
  38. Pardon me if I wronged, Paul.

    Are you saying that any shot you post here should be treated in accordance with your intended tone?
  39. Vivek: not the slightest difficulty with your contributions (which are always helpful).
  40. Paul, I fear the only thing this thread proves beyond doubt is that things like irony are not easily communicated in this form...or at least, not in this forum. Nice pic, by the way.
  41. OK, Paul. John said it well.
  42. Irony or not, his picture sucks big time regardless of the equipment he used or if he can print it 40"x60" without any quality loss. But hey, doesn't matter as long as LEICA was used.

    Regards, Silvio
  43. Devastating commentary, especially coming from a prominent critic and world-renowned photographer like Silvio "B".
  44. Can someone point Silvio B to the 'I can do better than that with a $20 P&S' forum, please?
  45. I just can't understand why someone would show their out of focus pictures and then brag about them.
  46. An interesting debate. I know I am late into the discussion and as a newb probably not the greatest authority. I just wanted to add the virtues of using the Leica D-LUX 2 - an 8mp digicam for macro work. The one thing I do like about using the D-LUX 2 in closeup situations is that you can get in very close without bending in two at low heights and see in real time what you are about to capture. You can certainly blow images up to A3 and get good results (I have done so). Attached is one of my best results - I was staggered that I could actually see a reflection in the carapace of the insect. I'm not decrying other solutions, just that for individuals on a budget, or with a moderate interest in macro photography, it is a satisfactory solution, or starting point. LouisB
  47. I like using Leica M for Macro photos.
    The best way to do macro work is through a M-visoflex adapter and a bellow, which are
    really cheap.
    Here is an example taken with a Leica MP and a 90mm elmarit-M lens wide open.

  48. Try again. MP with 90 elmarit-M and visoflex II
  49. Here is another example:
  50. Another example:
  51. I'm so sorry for the previous mistakes. It's my first try posting photo on a forum thread.
  52. I also want to participate in this macro open war. This guy unespectedly flies and get stucked to my shirt and, even at my own life risk, I had the calmness of the great photographers & journalists (see Capa), I picked my digi-camera (the crappiest one, of course), and take this shot. Sometimes it is better to have a good pair than a dedicated macro set-up, guys...
  53. Oooops, I forget to show up the monster...
  54. Another point and shoot macro ... to add fuel!
  55. And yet another post proving many Leica shooters take themselves FAR TOO SERIOUSLY...good on you Paul...the irony was evident to anyone with even a minimal sense of humour...unfortunatley that's often a scarce commodity around here.
  56. I think what many forgot here was that Paul like others have a M8 and it is nice to be able to
    find a way to use it for macro which obviously not something it really was designed to do , so
    instead of buying a different solution and figure a way to use what you have there are some
    nice options to get this done using the M8 first is the 90 macro yes it is not cheap but it is
    also a nice all around travel lens. the adpter is expensive no question. But a Visoflex is very
    inexpensive and a load of fun to use. i just got a Bellows II for under 50 dollars and maybe
    stick a enlarging lens on that and have a real macro option. Folks need to remember
    photography is supposed to be fun too and playing around with this with a Visoflex has been
    a blast. Lighten up
  57. Some threads on Leica M and close-ups:


  58. Louis Berk, Apr 09, 2007; 05:17 a.m.

  59. Every time i try to get a shot like that the little bugs see me coming and buzz off.
  60. >>> the irony was evident to anyone with even a minimal sense of humour

    I could see irony and humor if the original post was an outstanding photo, visually
    interesting, and sharp. Not that
    photos need be about sharpness. But in this case it should be. That's where irony and
    humor fail.

    I'm with Allen. Louis' photo is superb - very sharp and very interesting visually...
  61. Guy said it. Spot on.
  62. Thanks Paul and i am alergic to bee's so the longer the lens the better. LOL

    But for M8 users the darn Viso is a lot of fun and for a cheap way to get macro , might be
    worth looking at. There are several threads on the LUF forum about the gear side of it and
    what you may need. It is a little hard to figure on your own but there are some great options
    to work with. Have fun
  63. Of course it's rubbish for macro , any secondhand nikon F2 with a micro nikkor will beat any leica M macro equipment, it's just not the field for a Leica. The leica being vibration proof will however beat any other 35mm below 1/500 speed in standard photo, not to mention high aperture low speed and so on
    PS: the leica M is also rubbish for bird photography!

Share This Page