E. Puts on the new Leica M lenses

[john_gleason1]

Here's the link:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page122/page122.html

 

And a couple of other new-ish offerings from Mr. Puts that I haven't seen discussed here:

 

 

M8.2 vs. Nikon D3:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page120/page120.html

 

 

M8 vs. M8.2:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page121/page121.html

[peteradownunder]

From same paragraph as quoted above...just tobe fair <p><i>"The Nikon D3 blows away the Leica M8 when you look at

the possibilities, speed and range of photographic assignments that you can cope with. The D3 can handle almost

every task with ease and good performance. The operative speed is impressive, the sensitivity of the sensor is

amazing and the scope of customization leaves no wishes. .....The very low noise of the D3 (shutter, mirror, AF)

is really amazing and the M8 has trouble to match that level of decibels..."</i>

[jose_angel]

El, this is a good one indeed, probably the best.

[vivek iyer]

I am waiting for the Panasonic G1 vs M8.2 comparison. With even a shorter camera registry than the M, the micro 4/3rds do not need UV-IR cut filters.

 

I am curious to find what sort of a "technical" excuse folks will come up with to explain that mystery. :)

[dstate1]

"But when you see an excellent Nikon picture, the camera takes the credit for 75%, where in the case of the Leica the user

takes 90% of the credits."

 

Oh lord, what a load of rubbish. I still can't believe how many people buy into this kind of double talk. He's the Ken

Rockwell of Leica Photography. The formula is pretty predictable: Three ounces of psuedo scientific babble, two ounces

of nostalgic "good old days talk" and nine pounds of "Start Wars/Zen Buddist" chatter. "Be the camera Grasshopper"!

[john_shriver]

But Micro 4/3rds lenses probably are not allowed to have the glass protruding into the camera, and probably are still rather tele-centric, with their nodal points far from the sensor.

 

Also, the 4/3rds sensor is really small.

[vivek iyer]

Nice try, John. I bet that even without a lens, the micro 4/3rds will show no IR problems.

[marc_bergman1]

If DSLRs such as the Nikon D3 are so difficult to operate with their 20-30 push buttons and multi-page menus then I believe any photographer that manages to take a compelling image with said camera deserves to take not 90% but 110% of the credit.

 

Overall it is rather silly.

[aplumpton]

Important to note that Puts shows the D3 is faster, more convenient, more silent, more automated than the M8.2 (or M8).

Where it is less performing is in closer accurate focussing and the ability to choose the subject that gets best focus. As

far as image quality goes, he does not indicate a difference. For many of us, that is the bottom line.

[doug herr]

Vivek Iyer wrote: "<I> I bet that even without a lens, the micro 4/3rds will show no IR problems </I>"

<P>

Vivek you may be correct but that's missing the point. The 4/3-camera's sensor can be filtered for IR much more easily than the M8's sensor can be because on the 4/3 sensor the angle of incidence of the light rays from the lens, as John explained, are much closer to perpendicular. The M8's sensor must accomodate a much greater range of incidence angles because it's a larger sensor and because the rear of many lenses made to fit the M cameras are closer to the imaging plane. This means that on the M8 a 1/4-wave IR-interference coating will vary in effectiveness from center to edge, likewise an IR-absorbing filter will vary in effectiveness from center to edge.

[doug herr]

Correction: I wrote "<I>a 1/4-wave IR-interference coating</I>"

<P>

An interference coating is 1/2-wave, not 1/4-wave.

[vivek iyer]

Doug,

 

<p>

<i>The M8's sensor must accomodate a much greater range of incidence angles because it's a larger sensor ..</i>

<p>

There are even larger sized sensors with very efficient IR cut properties and these precede the M8.2.

<p>

 

<i>..and because the rear of many lenses made to fit the M cameras are closer to the imaging plane.</i>

<p>

Most, if not all of the current Leica M lenses do not have this problem.

<p>

[derek_stanton2]

Arthur on the D3: "Where it is less performing is in closer accurate focussing and the ability to choose the subject that gets

best focus."

 

Can you clarify? With a D3, or any dSLR, you can choose the exact point of AF. There are (at least) two different types of

AF function. Either the camera chooses what it thinks should be in focus, or, the method every serious photographer i've

ever met uses — the photographer chooses the single focus point, using a joystick or dial/wheel.

 

I know there are still, sadly, a lot of people out there who still think that "autofocus" means they have no control, but i would

have thought folks in this forum might be a little better-informed.

[derek_stanton2]

Wow. I just read the D3 versus M8 bit. That's the last time i read anything by Puts. He has lost it. What a complete idiot. And,

now, aside from the ridiculous and ignorant camera comments, he's making similarly stupid statements about my favorite

sport....

 

What does this fool look like? For some reason, i now need to connect a face to the drivel.

[doug herr]

Vivek, the M8 can use not only current lenses but also lenses dating back many decades, many of which are much

closer to the image plane than current lenses. This compatability with older lenses has always been one of the M's

selling points. That there are larger sensors with better IR cut properties means little if we don't also know what the

angle of incidence is. You brought this up in comparison with the 4/3-camera sensors. For a given exit pupil to

image plane distance, a larger sensor will see more oblique incident rays at the edges than a smaller sensor will.

The M8's sensor not only is larger than the 4/3 sensor but it also needs to be able to handle lenses that are closer to

the image plane, which compounds the problem.

[chris_mearns]

It always amazes me how people start projectile vomiting as soon as the E. Puts name is linked to opinion or information.

Given that people come here for precisely this, why does he cop it for providing it?

 

And no, its not because he is wrong. Thats not it.

[vivek iyer]

Doug, Indeed. Keeping the same form factor to keep the loyal customers and this backward compatibility "problem" are crippling factors.

 

4/3rds started anew chucking the old OM mount and system out. Others have done away (completely or to a major extent) with the backward compatibilities as well.

[joseph_wisniewski]

The micro four thirds allows the lenses to enter the film chamber and approach within a few mm of the sensor. Have a look at the white paper.

 

The MFT cameras will almost be guaranteed to do better than the M8 in the IR department. As I have explained elsewhere, at length, Leica specified a very poorly performing IR cut glass from Kyocera, for reasons totally unknown. Better glasses were available from Schott and Hoya. Nikon and Canon were using them years ago, higher performance, yet thinner (0.3mm for Canon, compared to 0.5mm for M8). And, as I've also explained, at length, all other modern cameras place an additional dichroic IR filter (a "hot mirror") in front of the sensor. A dichroic filter is a microscopic thin coating and is much more effective when placed on the sensor cover glass than when it is placed in front of the lens, as in Leica's remedial solution. It is also much more cost effective in the camera, and less dangerous to the photographer.

[vivek iyer]

Joe, I intend to hack a Micro 4/3rds (as soon as they are available) for my specific uses and will provide the actual thickness of the filter stacks (cut filters, AA, etc). I am positive that they are very thick. Panasonic built their G1, for example, around the sensor unlike the M8 which kept the old style M form factors.

 

While I am sure the plastic G1 is no fondler's delight, it will be a very useful picture taking device.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Well, as Brian Caldwell mentioned in another thread, the thicker the layers of stuff in front of the sensor and the closer we let the exit pupil get to the sensor, the more astigmatism we induce. And, I believe we also induce spherical aberration at large apertures. Lenses can be designed to compensate for that, the way fast (high numeric aperture) microscope lenses often have adjustment collars to compensate for various thicknesses of cover glass on slides.

 

The MFT system is the perfect opportunity to build the lenses with compensation for the sensor cover glass and filter stack. No "baggage" to worry about.

[35mmdelux]

we already know the D3 and the D700 are the best FF cameras out there; comparing to M8 crop camera is nonsensical.

[rjacksonphoto]

By E. Puts' logic, the successful user of the Holga should be the proudest of his accomplishment! Or, maybe the pinhole

camera?

 

Does anyone here ever use their DSLR in manual mode? With CW metering? Spot meter? Dial in exposure compensation?

Does he assume that, just because there is a "P" on the dial that that is what serious photographers use?

 

I hope he feels better about himself and his camera choice after writing this.

[pete_myers]

I find it sad to see mud slinging at Erwin Puts. Writing in a foreign language and expressing yourself in nuance is not an easy task, and I

think Erwin does not always accomplish his intent. It is difficult for me to write on photography and english is my native language.

 

I find Erwin quite gifted in his understanding of lens optics and performance in all regards and I think he is well respected for his

knowledge even at Leica. And as with many of us that write on photography, he gets little out of his efforts other then appreciation of his

work by readers.

 

On the issue of the D3 vs Leica rangefinder, I think he is being straight forward in admiring the marvel of the D3 in cost and performance

over the M8. What I do not think he illustrated in this article, but has talked about extensively over time in other articles is the difference

in photographic technique between an DSLR and a rangefinder.

 

With the ease of taking pictures with a DSLR, it is quite easy to become self-indulgent. It is not uncommon for photographers to come

back with several thousand photos from an outing. With a rangefinder, it is not as easy to wind through the motions and there is a

tendency to slow down and compose an image more exacting. While excellent photos can be made on each camera system, I would

say that it is this tendency towards excessive 'plinking' with the DSLR that Ewin has commented on over time and fits in with the issue

of D3 photography vs M8.

 

I shot the Kodak DCS 760m for 18 months and made two thousand exposures in total. I would say that I shot two to three times more

images then I would have with film because of the ease of doing so. Most of those extra shots were dial-in to get the exact histogram

desired. With film and my MP, a full days work is three rolls---many days its just one roll.

 

I say this in contrast to reports of photographers shooting thousands of frames each time they go out. I personally do not think it leads

to better photography---and perhaps that was Erwin's point as well with the D3 vs M8 issue.

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

Um, yeah, the statement "a Formule-1 racer does not brake or steer by himself, but is reacting to processor controlled

monitoring of speed and forces." shows that E has no idea what Formula One is and what it involves.

 

If anything, the F1 car is a pretty manual vehicle, yes you still need to steer, but no ABS nor Traction Control, gear

shifts are paddle mounted (flick of the finger) and the launch at the start is still with manual clutch (no electronic launch

control). Since F1 cut out tons of pitlane controlled 2-way telemetry, the drivers now have massive control of the

mechanics of the car, from brake bias to differential settings/bias, maximum engine revs ETC. Go google an F1 car

steering wheel and you'll see what I mean.

 

Full disclosure, D3 and M4, chrome and black, use them both all the time. The D3 is very good, especially when you

wade thru the manual to figure out how to configure it to behave like an F, then its very simple. F stop, shutter speed,

focus, shoot. Of course its easy to stand around staring at the camera but Leica shooters seem to do that just as well.

[james_symington1]

I think a lot of Erwin Puts' writing and views are pretty good but I have to say the D3 and M8 comparison stretches

credibility. Just because you can make a D3 do everything for you doesn't mean you do - I certainly don't. I've never

used P mode in my life and when I have a manual focus lens on my D3 - pretty often - I use that in exactly the same

way I would use an M8 (if I owned one). The difference in satisfaction with the finished result is non-existent.

 

Where that difference is keenly felt - by me at any rate - is pulling a great picture out of 35mm film shot on an M

Leica (or other similar camera) which is carefully developed and printed. That's a whole different story.