scott_turner2

<p>Nevermind. Did some further googling with a different set of key words. Appears to be an issue with the lights, not the camera. Thanks!</p> <p>Scott</p>

<p>Hi all, strange thing happened here today with my XT1. I've noticed recently that in certain fluorescent light, there is a flicker in the viewfinder like when you take video of a TV screen and the frame rates don't match. Strangely, it never showed up in the pictures until today. I'm guessing that there is some kind of frequency thing with the viewfinder that causes this.<br> Anyway, it looks to me like an uneven white balance across the frame, that shows up as a huge orange band across the picture. Even weirder, it only happens with my 35mm f/1.4 lens. When I put my 18-55 on and took the same shot at 35mm, the problem went away. Even weirder still, I can't get it to repeat consistently. The camera is under warranty still, so I'm not terribly worried. But still, this is a little weird. I've attached a photo below, anyone ever seen anything like this before?</p><div></div>

<p>Ray-<br> Of course, both make incredible files. It's horses for courses :) Glad you are enjoying the benefits of the 240. I do miss those framelines!<br> Scott</p>

<p>Ray-<br> Sorry I never checked back on this thread. I just shot a large project using the M9 and I'll add a few more thoughts:<br /> The M9's dynamic range is more limited than I'm used to after using (in this order) Canon 5d3, Leica M240, 35mm Film (Portra 400), and finally the M9. The highlights clip really hard, and the shadows tend to be darker than what I experienced with the M240. No doubt you have seen this with the M9. So that being said, if you like a larger dynamic range, then the M240 would be a better fit. Personally, I equate this to paying more attention to the light I shoot in. I prefer flatter, softer light anyway, so for me its just a matter of 1) Finding this light 2) Making sure harsh light sources are over my shoulder and not behind the camera.<br> FWIW, I find (upon revisiting the M240 files) that the shadow detail captured on both is comparable, meaning that you can pull about 2 stops out of the shadows on both cameras (though on the M9, that's pushing it, pun intended ;) ). The main difference being, on the M240, my unscientific opinion is that there is more highlight detail that can be recovered and a wider range between shadow and dark.<br> I see them as two stylistically different cameras with regards to rendering; the M9 is like slide film and the M240 gives you a closer feel to color negative (though still not as easy to shoot :) ). YMMV. Personally, I love the bite in the M9 files, and when needed, I can pull the shadows up a stop or two. The M240 feels "digital" and "plastic" to me (that's from personal experience, not from reading other blogs), where as the M9 files give me a certain "air" that I've only been able to find in film, with added ISO flexibility and very high resolution. In comparison of M9 files against film, I find personally that on a well exposed/scanned negative of 400 ISO (My preferred film is Portra), the grain is comparable to 800-1000 ISO on the M9. That's pretty damn near all I ever need, and 1600 ISO still looks better than pushed/underexposed Portra IMO.<br> Don't know how to explain it, but I just love the render. If you can live with the ISO/DR capability of the M9, and the other quirks in operation, it's the camera to stick with IMO. Sounds like you feel the same, just wanted to add this for any future readers.<br> Cheers!</p>

Arthur- thanks! John- interesting. I suppose when you have a multi million dollar budget, the attention to detail does get quite fine! It's little details that the average person doesn't notice, but all add to the "feel" that the cinematography is responsible for. I suppose that the difference with modern SLR systems is that the lenses are all made by the same manufacturer within a period of time that is much shorter, so the contrast differences are much less noticeable. That being said, even between older and newer L glass from Canon, there are some differences. But, the rendering is still similar. That's probably why Leica folks seem more picky-there are too many options from a much wider array of years! As an update, I picked up a V3 cron 35mm. It's still a little more contrasty that my 50 from the same era, but the look is pretty consistent. It looks fantastic on my M9! Only thing I didn't expect-the corners get pretty soft at f/2, which for portraits is fine....not so much when you're trying to get more "editorial" image in low light (for me anyway). No matter. It's a stunning lens, and one I'll be happy with for a long time :) Cheers!

I would go for the M. The screen on the M is plenty good, and unless a frame line selector is worth the money, you're getting the same camera with a fancy paint job (albeit a much more desirable one IMO). I've no experience with the M-P, but I did have an M and sold it. It's a mighty fine camera, and leaves little to be desired.

<p>M9/35 Cron V3</p>

<p>M9/50CronV3</p>

<p>Try <a href="https://www.google.com/nikcollection/products/silver-efex-pro/">this link</a>. It's available as a download. I think you have to get the entire collection, which is $150. But I could be wrong about that.</p>

<p>Ray-</p> <p>My experience with Leica digital (M9 and M240) is that you really have to hammer the blacks hard in post to get a contrasty image, and the M9 more so than the M240 (depends on the light of course). Most of them are pretty flat right off the SD card, though lens selection will have something to do with that. I've found personally that even for color work, with older lenses, the image is still extremely flat, and requires some effort to get right. While my experience with it is pretty limited, I'd recommend Silver Efex Pro. That, or VSCO Film's presets, which use some toning curves to get a nice TRI-X or HP5+ look. I've had some good success with VSCO in achieving a nice Tri-X look. Trying to upload samples but it wont' let me.....</p> <p>Personally I like the leeway that the flat files give me for converting to B&W. Much like film, I'd rather have a flat negative to work from in the darkroom. It gives some more options for later, though if you are after the Trent Park Dreamtime look, or Jacob Aue Sobol or Moriyama look, it may be more difficult to achieve. Hammer the heck out of it in PS/LR on the tone curves. I'm personally going to buy SEP because I really liked the tonal control it provided.</p> <p>Hopefully that is helpful. Cheers!</p> <p>Scott</p>

<p>I used to have an M240 and sold it, only because I had to pay the bills (and it paid the bills for months :) ).</p> <p>Recently, I've acquired an M9, and while I'm fresh with it, I prefer the ergonomics of it over the M240. It's lighter, more compact. After shooting film M's for 6 months, I much prefer the size of the M9 as well. I have to say though, I find it much harder to focus than the M240, or my M6 for that matter, especially with a 50. The rangefinder on the M240 is quite spectacular, and obviously it's different than the M9 with the LED framelines, etc. I do miss that from the M240. The shutter on the M9 is annoying, but not a deal breaker. Still quieter than a DSLR which is good enough for me. It's no film M though in that regard. And I also miss the LCD, but again, after shooting film for 6 months straight, it's not a big deal.</p> <p>They are both spectacular cameras, but there is something about the CCD sensor of the M9. It really is spectacular. I'm trying to upload a few samples, but for some reason it won't allow me....I can send you a few RAWs if you want to play around :)</p> <p>Cheers!</p> <p>Scott<br> www.scotturnerphoto.com</p>

<p>David and Arthur- Thanks for the feedback. I think I understand what you are saying Arthur, in that you can only reach maximum definition, or accurate definition. The only problem with that, is that the camera itself is unable to record all of the tones present that our eyes see, especially on digital. So, the reduced contrast can help in high contrast situations. However, it can also make it harder to shoot silhouettes lol. <br> I think I've decided on the classic route, I like the way they look, and well, I can't afford the more expensive lenses anyhow. I think for what I'm shooting, they will do just fine. Thanks for the help!</p>

<p>Mukul- Yes, it is for a series of photos, and for creating a consistent look. I'm trying to create some consistency across my images in general, but yes, these will be used for a specific project. I was more just looking for experience from various folks as to which lenses had similar characteristics. I'm aware (from actual usage) that the older Leica lenses have a different character to them than the newer ones. I'm just looking to get some affirmation from people with more experience than I have to narrow it down a little.</p>

<p>Ray- Great info. Thanks for your feedback! I may or may not get the new 50. We shall see. I really like the V3 I have, and find that I can get great B&W images out of it on the M9. Sharp and classic looking. Really does well in contrasty light, but does tend to flare a little if you get a bright source in the frame. I like the idea of low contrast lenses because you can always boost it in post and they are more workable I feel (like they would be in the darkroom I suppose), but I guess you are right; you can reduce it as well. RE 28 V4, it seems to go for almost as much used as a used ASPH. Must be a pretty good lens!</p>

<p>Greg- Thanks for the reply. It's not so much about color as it is contrast and rendering and how the image is "drawn" as they say, though I suppose color is part of that. Yes, the raw processing will create a consistent color combination (which for me is always the goal for a set of images), it's not really color. It's like the difference between two people's handwriting; they are writing the same words, but the writing looks different. Is it significant? To me it is if I can tell and it bothers me. I could tell a difference between my 3 lens' handwriting. Maybe it's because I knew those lenses really well, which I guess means I was paying attention. But if it bothers me, I want to try to get it consistent!<br> Barry- Thanks for the info!</p>

<p>Fair enough. Maybe I am. But, the difference between my Zeiss Biogon 35mm, the 50 V3, and my 90 E46 was pretty noticeable to me on the M240. The 50 looked really different than the other two, and the 90mm had a different look than the Biogon. Less so on film, though the difference was there. Maybe I just stare at my photos too much...</p>

<p>I really feel like focal length selection comes down to personal style. Certain photographers prefer certain lengths to fit their style of shooting. And it may change over time. I read an interesting interview with David Allen Harvey and Martin Parr talking about trying different approaches at different points in their careers: stepping back with a tele, standard 50, get close and wide. Depends on the look and the feel you want in the image I suppose.</p> <p>I think what's really important is learning to visualize the compression that each focal length has, and how that can affect your picture. I'm a firm believer in prime lenses. There is no substitute for moving your feet. But there are times where quite frankly, I wish I could get the same shot with different compression without having to swap lenses. Zoom in and step back or zoom out and step closer. Same subject, different perspective. I think when you've gotten good enough with primes, zooms can be extremely powerful tools.</p> <p>I agree with what's been said about 35/50. I think that's a great combo. I've shot it for several years now exclusively across multiple camera systems, and I never get tired of it. It's only recently I've considered adding a 28mm to get closer to my subjects. While I love my 50 dearly and would be in pain without it, if I could only have one lens, it would be the 35mm. </p>

<p>Hey guys and gals, <br> As the title suggests, I'm looking to create a consistent set of M-lenses that render equally across focal lengths. I've got little experience with different versions of lenses, and I just need a set that will give me the focal lengths I need and the size/aperture combo I want. Here's what I know so far:</p> <p>If I go modern, I will most likely look at 28mm, 50mm, 90mm. If I go with the older designs, I will replace the 28mm with a 35mm, simply because the older 28s are huge. I'm also avoiding ASPH for high cost/high contrast. I would like lower contrast, even in the modern lenses.</p> <p>I'll take a guess at what I think will be similar based on production year and my limited experience:</p> <p>Modern: 28mm Elmarit V4, 50mm Summicron V4 or V5 (ergonomics are different not glass correct?), 90 Elmarit (last version with the built in hood before discontinued, E46)</p> <p>Classic: 35mm Summicron V3, 50mm Summicron V3, 90 Tele-Elmarit (E39)</p> <p>Would either of those sets be good fits for equal rendering? I ask because:<br> -I currently have the 50 V3<br> -I used to own a 90 Elmarit (E46)<br> -I have the opportunity to pick up a brand new 50mm Cron for a REALLY good price and could sell the V3. </p> <p>The 90 (E46) had a much more modern and contrasty look than my 50mm V3, both on film and digital. I wasn't a huge fan of the way it looked on my M240 but I loved the way it rendered on Portra (I don't own the M240 anymore, replaced with an M9). My only experience wider than a 50mm is the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2, which was a beautiful lens, but had a significantly different look. Beautiful, but not my preference.</p> <p>I realize this is subjective. I'm not looking for a decision between classic or modern. I need to make that decision myself, and it will come down to what I think about the new 50 cron I have an opportunity to buy and how it compares to the 90 I used to own, though it's not going to be apples to apples. I simply need an affirmation of what would be consistent in each set based on your experience, and anything that might fit better. Right now, I'm leaning classic.</p> <p>I know that's a novel. Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the replies. Dani, I've seen this pattern from two different Flextight scanners on two different continents. <br> Diego: I'll have to research the .fff file and see if they will give it to me in that format. I'm assuming that's the X5 equivalent of a ".DNG"?<br> I'm going in to the lab tomorrow for a couple other scans, I'll let you know what they say.</p>

<p>Sorry, I guess it was rather faint. I forget that it's my image and I've spent a lot of time looking at it :)<br> Thanks for the replies, and thanks Colin for adjusting that. The weird thing is that it only shows on some images that I've scanned and not others. <br> My workflow is pretty simple. Scan on an X5 to an uncompressed 40mb TIFF file, Adjust color balance in photoshop, and dodge and burn to taste using curves and masks. </p>

<p>Hi all, more film newbie questions. I'm scanning some of my negatives on an X5 Flextight and was wondering if you all had seen these weird patterns on the scans before. A sample is included. It's not the first time or the only lab that I've seen these patterns from. Was curious if you all had any information as to what it could be...it looks like a large pixelated pattern.</p>

<p>I just sold my digital cameras. Most people think I'm crazy, but there are several reasons why.<br> First, the places I like to shoot, often involve a lack (or potential lack of) of electricity and carrying as little weight as possible. It's pretty handy to just forget about battery life altogether and bring along a manual film camera.<br> Second, exposure latitude. Honestly, I don't think that much about exposure anymore. Which leaves me more time to worry about what's in the frame.<br> Third, shooting experience. Shoot. Forget. Process. Christmas morning. Nothing like getting a roll back from the lab and seeing all of your images in your hands and not on an LCD screen.<br> Fourth, the look. Can't replicate it with digital, though some have got close. There is substance to it. Digital feels flat/flimsy to me and lacks the depth that film has.<br> Fifth, it forces me to visualize more. To think ahead, to see the image before it happens and not rely on an LCD screen. While this sucked at first, and I messed up a lot of photos, it is getting easier the more I practice!<br> Sixth, I hate spending all that time in photoshop to get a certain "look". I'd much rather shoot and get the look by the film and lens combination. Much simpler.</p> <p>What do I not like about film?<br> Extra cost. Yeah the cameras are cheaper, but damn, the film processing costs for a good lab add up QUICK when you have a lot to develop.<br> I have to be really selective, as I have a limited supply of photographs. Sometimes this is stifling creatively.<br> Piles of negatives to deal with after you shoot. Much easier to deal with a couple hard drives.<br> Low light is MUCH more difficult to shoot in, even at 400 speed. </p>

<p>alright. well, need to get my camera serviced anyway, so i'll just include that as well. Thanks for the help!</p>