lot_wxs

E=M8²

Excellent!

This month I was at Leica Solms and they told me that the digital M that will be presented at Photokina 2006 will carry the name M8 and it has not the big sensor, but it will have the same size as the DMR, so your M lenses will have a 1,33* narrower field. The sensor will be built by the same company as the one Zeiss cooperates with, so not the same as in the DMR (so we may hope for unpostponed delivery).

 

Apart from that I heard a rumor that the M8 can handle film also, but I can hardly believe that myself.

At f2.0

Dove by Macro Elmar M 90/4

Chassidic School Antwerpen Belgium

Langres, France

50Asa, 1+50, 20C, 13'.

just a girl

Leiden, Netherlands

I do not understand your irritation or anger about this, my original post was intended to state to Mark that it just depends. As you say now

No, I'm not saying that. As you can see, I only talk from my own experience. An M camera is a handmade product and I would never order one. Leica � la carte is nothing for me, for that reason. When I buy a Leica I want to see, feel and hear how it is. Every click is different, every leather feels different. And flare in the viewfinder is also something you can see in the store before you buy it.

My experience is that it is easier to focus with a 75mm on a 0.72 M7 than on a 0.85 M6 TTL. So the referral above to the thread on a 0.58TTL (which is M6) is beside the point.

Rodinal 1+50 (ISO 50, 11', 20�C) gives, in my experience also, a very nice rendition, especially of skintones; sharp but "soft", very good for Leica lenses.

both lenses will be beautiful; theoretically.

the apo90 is bulkier than the apo75. the apo90 might be better on paper, you should read erwin puts about this, but in the practice of shooting it is questionable whether this will be seen in the results: in low-light I would prefer a more handy lens like the 75 for stability reasons.

the apo75 comes closer up (smaller object-field; 17*25cm) than the apo90 (22*33cm), which is in my experience, owning the s'lux 75, a very welcome addition to other m-lenses except the new 4.0/90.

I appreciate the focal length of 75 but that is a matter of personal working-style.

I thought that - on paper - Leica M was still the most accurate RF thus far, including the new Zeiss, given the fact that its effective measurement base is the longest of all RF's. To reduce costs, you could also try the M6 with a Zeiss 50/2.0 which will definitely have the typical Zeiss 'fingerprint', but I would not advise a Zeiss body with a Leica lens.

i read wetzlar

I once had the 21 Leica and got rid of it, because of too much grain in my prints, I once had the VC 25, liked it very much and it seems the best buy relative to other VC and Leica wide-angles, considering price-quality. But I now own the VC 15mm which I use much more often because it covers the whole area quickly, focusing takes less time and for creative purposes it's much more interesting than anything in the 20's. It has a nice rendition of colour, I have to use a separate incident lightmeter though, otherwise too many underexposures. I also have a separate body for it. IMO choosing between 28, 24, 25 or 21 is very difficult, if not impossible. But with a 15 you've got a real interesting angle.

The showed flare in the picture above is very familiar to me, that is why I got rid of this lens 10 years ago, I owned the latest version, e.i. the non-tele design with the metal hood. The remark of someone above that every other lens in this situation would not do any better is plain BS to me. Something is wrong with this lens. My humble theory about flare in the latest Elmarit 90 is that the light coming in through the lens-tube hits the messing ring at the rear end and produces reflections there, which in fact is what you see when you look through the lens in the same situation as where the (flared) picture was taken, as I did several times. As Erwin Puts writes in his review #2 of the latest Zeiss ZM lenses:

"It is a matter of taste whether you like the naked look of the Leica lenses where you can actually see the rear mount or the Voigtlander method where the rear mount is disguised. Theoretically the Leica solution might induce some additional flare, but in practice the causes of flare are so numerous that this single one might not be important." This seems, by the way, quite an irrational reasoning to me because it is a factor which is pretty easy to eliminate.

another try

I can't seem to send two pictures at once

A little late but just saw this thread, because I hesitated changing my Summilux 75 for a new S'cron 75. I decided not to do that, because of the photo's beneath for instance. No harsh bokeh in my version of this lens, it's from 1996. The portrait is shot at F2.8 (PlusXPan), the other one at F4.0 (FP4).

Question says it all, except that I'm only interested in the latest

versions of both lenses, especially at close distance.

Noctilux at 1.0? (considering the third horizontal rod). I can't guess what you mean with comments 'in terms of the attributes you see'.

I never had problems with this, and am doing this about 14 years now. I used to do it with my M4 and now with my M6TTL. However, I hardly really carry the camera with the wriststrap but use it as a security strap so to speak, so my ergonomics may be different from yours. When changing lenses or film I sometimes let the body hang from the wrist for a moment. And I pull the body out of my camerabag with the wriststrap.