Leica M or Leica IIIF?

[chuckroast]

Speak for yourself.

I was speaking only for myself and I am amused. They are taking a very high resolution image with a very deep color palette, in some cases using HDR compositing to expand the dynamic range, only to map it onto a low resolution sRGB space on a monitor - even lower if it's viewed on a phone. This seems to me to be ... not cost effective, but what do I know.

 

[Pieter12]

Why would I ever wish to use a zoom lens on a rangefinder camera? I wouldn't even use one on a SLR.

I'm not sure how came to the conclusion that I was recommending the use of a zoom lens on a rangefinder camera.

 

[Pieter12]

I was speaking only for myself and I am amused. They are taking a very high resolution image with a very deep color palette, in some cases using HDR compositing to expand the dynamic range, only to map it onto a low resolution sRGB space on a monitor - even lower if it's viewed on a phone. This seems to me to be ... not cost effective, but what do I know.

People jump to conclusions and promote stereotypes based on minimal knowledge and fact. It amuses me.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I think the complaint about focus shift it primarily found in the very high resolution d****al world. The pixel peepers with M11s complain about this and speak of having to have the lens tuned to the body. In my view, this is

A) Suspect

B) Only an issue, if it is, under very critical, very high magnification

C) Pragmatically unimportant

I am, however, the first to stipulate that I do not have such a camera, nor the money or interest to buy one, so I am more than willing to be shown to be wrong on this.

I am deeply amused to see people with $15-30K worth of digisnapper and lenses complaining about this, but whose output is destined only for the web ...

Agreed. Real photographers adapt to whatever they have and make good images. Splitting hairs about these tiny differences is what gear junkies do.

 

[Pieter12]

Agreed. Real photographers adapt to whatever they have and make good images. Splitting hairs about these tiny differences is what gear junkies do.

I don’t think you have to be a gear junky to be concerned with sharpness.

 

[Don_ih]

For a change, I have to agree with Pieter12. He's not describing something so unusual as to be unheard of. While I doubt it's relevant to the vast majority of rangefinder lenses used in the vast majority of situations, it is totally relevant if you were to try close focusing with a lens with a large aperture (small number). I think perhaps some people don't actually know what the issue is.

Some lenses may exhibit the characteristic of focusing on a different plane depending on aperture. It's most readily noticed on very fast lenses at close distances, thus Pieter mentioning the Sonnar 1.5. It's a matter of physics and is not necessarily possible to overcome by lens designers. It has nothing to do with "gear" or "digital" anything. Factually, most rangefinder lenses will have been designed with this in mind and have been optimized for best focus across all apertures - not to mention most rangefinder lenses are not that fast and don't focus that closely. It doesn't eliminate the possibility. I find it interesting that he brought it up.

 

[Pieter12]

For a change, I have to agree with Pieter12. He's not describing something so unusual as to be unheard of. While I doubt it's relevant to the vast majority of rangefinder lenses used in the vast majority of situations, it is totally relevant if you were to try close focusing with a lens with a large aperture (small number). I think perhaps some people don't actually know what the issue is.

Some lenses may exhibit the characteristic of focusing on a different plane depending on aperture. It's most readily noticed on very fast lenses at close distances, thus Pieter mentioning the Sonnar 1.5. It's a matter of physics and is not necessarily possible to overcome by lens designers. It has nothing to do with "gear" or "digital" anything. Factually, most rangefinder lenses will have been designed with this in mind and have been optimized for best focus across all apertures - not to mention most rangefinder lenses are not that fast and don't focus that closely. It doesn't eliminate the possibility. I find it interesting that he brought it up.

Thank you.

 

[chuckroast]

I don’t think you have to be a gear junky to be concerned with sharpness.

There is no such thing. There are circles of confusion and the perception of sharpness. Yes, the lens is a factor, but so are a myriad of other factors like edge transitions, distance of view, size of viewed image, local contrast, and so forth, not to mention early onset diffraction innate in the way sensors work. In the film-only era, focus shift was rarely, if ever discussed, except perhaps in early generation zooms.

Prior to the advent of very high resolution d****al capture, these were accepted as matters of physics and human psychology. But today, when anyone with $20K to burn can buy a 60Mpix M11, we start hearing these somber claims that "the lens on this Leica is front focusing". How do they know? They've magnified the image to the very edges of pixel resolution to try and spot how "perfect" their investment its, all the while never considering the aforementioned factors - factors that have way more to do with how perceptually sharp an image appears (for any reasonable level of magnification to final display they are likely to use).

I am an engineer by profession, and any competent engineer is well acquainted with manufacturing tolerances. There is no such thing as perfect because A) It's doesn't exist (see above) and B) It would be stratospherically expensive to even try to approximate it. Engineering is the art of compromise, and one of those compromises is how much up the cost curve of incrementally declining improvements does the problem at hand justify. Those tradeoffs are made by Leica and Hasselblad every bit as much as any other manufacturer. Chasing perfect sharpness is an illusion. All optical systems are - in some degree - compromises.

Even if someone were willing to endure the cost of engaging a top tier machine shop to hand tune, say an M11, for "perfect" focus. It would only be for one specific lens, at one aperture, at one distance, and probably most relevant, at one temperature.

I grant that there are edge cases where this isn't true, but they are pretty rare in practice. That's why
I made the prior point that people go off on these excruciating journeys of detail but often - not always - they never render anything larger than a web page. At 1920x1280, I would defy anyone to show a statistically different perception of an image shot on a 12mpix Leica D-Lux Typ 109 and a Leica M11, assuming both were executed competently. (The one exception would be noise performance in low light which I stipulate the M would win all day (night) long.)

There is precedent for this. I own several 4x5s and use them routinely. But unless you are going to print at 16x20 or so, you're not going to see that much meaningful difference in "sharpness" as compared to, say, a 6x9 negative. You may see some difference in tonal information, though, which does argue for the larger format at smaller magnifications. Perhaps the is a analogous digital behaviour to this, I do not know.

I do not begrudge anyone doing whatever makes them happy. If people enjoy shooting resolution charts and then pixel peeping the results, by all means. If people are equipment junkies, well .. who among us isn't. But let's at least be honest about it - it has almost nothing to do with "sharpness" in actual practice.

Again - I am willing to be shown otherwise (not argued into it).

P.S. I have yet to see an actual example demonstrating the claimed focus shift. In fact the people I've read claiming this almost never display any images. It makes me go, "hmmmmmm" ...

 

[Pieter12]

A quick search gives a couple of examples:

 

[chuckroast]

A quick search gives a couple of examples:



View attachment 390292

Interesting (and thanks for the reference). Perhaps my lack of ever having seen this was that I've never had a lens anywhere near this fast. I will have to put some of my 1.4s to the test to if this is even an issue.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

There is no such thing. There are circles of confusion and the perception of sharpness. Yes, the lens is a factor, but so are a myriad of other factors like edge transitions, distance of view, size of viewed image, local contrast, and so forth, not to mention early onset diffraction innate in the way sensors work. In the film-only era, focus shift was rarely, if ever discussed, except perhaps in early generation zooms.

Prior to the advent of very high resolution d****al capture, these were accepted as matters of physics and human psychology. But today, when anyone with $20K to burn can buy a 60Mpix M11, we start hearing these somber claims that "the lens on this Leica is front focusing". How do they know? They've magnified the image to the very edges of pixel resolution to try and spot how "perfect" their investment its, all the while never considering the aforementioned factors - factors that have way more to do with how perceptually sharp an image appears (for any reasonable level of magnification to final display they are likely to use).

I am an engineer by profession, and any competent engineer is well acquainted with manufacturing tolerances. There is no such thing as perfect because A) It's doesn't exist (see above) and B) It would be stratospherically expensive to even try to approximate it. Engineering is the art of compromise, and one of those compromises is how much up the cost curve of incrementally declining improvements does the problem at hand justify. Those tradeoffs are made by Leica and Hasselblad every bit as much as any other manufacturer. Chasing perfect sharpness is an illusion. All optical systems are - in some degree - compromises.

Even if someone were willing to endure the cost of engaging a top tier machine shop to hand tune, say an M11, for "perfect" focus. It would only be for one specific lens, at one aperture, at one distance, and probably most relevant, at one temperature.

I grant that there are edge cases where this isn't true, but they are pretty rare in practice. That's why
I made the prior point that people go off on these excruciating journeys of detail but often - not always - they never render anything larger than a web page. At 1920x1280, I would defy anyone to show a statistically different perception of an image shot on a 12mpix Leica D-Lux Typ 109 and a Leica M11, assuming both were executed competently. (The one exception would be noise performance in low light which I stipulate the M would win all day (night) long.)

There is precedent for this. I own several 4x5s and use them routinely. But unless you are going to print at 16x20 or so, you're not going to see that much meaningful difference in "sharpness" as compared to, say, a 6x9 negative. You may see some difference in tonal information, though, which does argue for the larger format at smaller magnifications. Perhaps the is a analogous digital behaviour to this, I do not know.

I do not begrudge anyone doing whatever makes them happy. If people enjoy shooting resolution charts and then pixel peeping the results, by all means. If people are equipment junkies, well .. who among us isn't. But let's at least be honest about it - it has almost nothing to do with "sharpness" in actual practice.

Again - I am willing to be shown otherwise (not argued into it).

P.S. I have yet to see an actual example demonstrating the claimed focus shift. In fact the people I've read claiming this almost never display any images. It makes me go, "hmmmmmm" ...

Thanks for trying to dispel this "lens X is sharper than lens Y" doodoo, over which so many people obsess. It's probably a hopeless quest. And it does not matter.

As for focus shift, that was usually only an issue with Sonnar type lenses used at max aperture and close focus distance (portrait where the eye might not be exactly in the optimum plane of focus). The 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss ZM mitigated most of that (minor) issue, but I am not sure how the designers did it. That ZM is a brilliant lens.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

There is no such thing. There are circles of confusion and the perception of sharpness. Yes, the lens is a factor, but so are a myriad of other factors like edge transitions, distance of view, size of viewed image, local contrast, and so forth, not to mention early onset diffraction innate in the way sensors work. In the film-only era, focus shift was rarely, if ever discussed, except perhaps in early generation zooms.

Prior to the advent of very high resolution d****al capture, these were accepted as matters of physics and human psychology. But today, when anyone with $20K to burn can buy a 60Mpix M11, we start hearing these somber claims that "the lens on this Leica is front focusing". How do they know? They've magnified the image to the very edges of pixel resolution to try and spot how "perfect" their investment its, all the while never considering the aforementioned factors - factors that have way more to do with how perceptually sharp an image appears (for any reasonable level of magnification to final display they are likely to use).

I am an engineer by profession, and any competent engineer is well acquainted with manufacturing tolerances. There is no such thing as perfect because A) It's doesn't exist (see above) and B) It would be stratospherically expensive to even try to approximate it. Engineering is the art of compromise, and one of those compromises is how much up the cost curve of incrementally declining improvements does the problem at hand justify. Those tradeoffs are made by Leica and Hasselblad every bit as much as any other manufacturer. Chasing perfect sharpness is an illusion. All optical systems are - in some degree - compromises.

Even if someone were willing to endure the cost of engaging a top tier machine shop to hand tune, say an M11, for "perfect" focus. It would only be for one specific lens, at one aperture, at one distance, and probably most relevant, at one temperature.

I grant that there are edge cases where this isn't true, but they are pretty rare in practice. That's why
I made the prior point that people go off on these excruciating journeys of detail but often - not always - they never render anything larger than a web page. At 1920x1280, I would defy anyone to show a statistically different perception of an image shot on a 12mpix Leica D-Lux Typ 109 and a Leica M11, assuming both were executed competently. (The one exception would be noise performance in low light which I stipulate the M would win all day (night) long.)

There is precedent for this. I own several 4x5s and use them routinely. But unless you are going to print at 16x20 or so, you're not going to see that much meaningful difference in "sharpness" as compared to, say, a 6x9 negative. You may see some difference in tonal information, though, which does argue for the larger format at smaller magnifications. Perhaps the is a analogous digital behaviour to this, I do not know.

I do not begrudge anyone doing whatever makes them happy. If people enjoy shooting resolution charts and then pixel peeping the results, by all means. If people are equipment junkies, well .. who among us isn't. But let's at least be honest about it - it has almost nothing to do with "sharpness" in actual practice.

Again - I am willing to be shown otherwise (not argued into it).

P.S. I have yet to see an actual example demonstrating the claimed focus shift. In fact the people I've read claiming this almost never display any images. It makes me go, "hmmmmmm" ...

Well said. And most of them end up shooting handheld, which is usually a much bigger detriment to image quality.

Right tool for the job. My rangefinder cameras are shot handheld 99% of the time, they all use film, and instead of pixel peeping I print using traditional methods and sell the photos in galleries. No art collector has ever complained to me about focus shift.

If I want better resolution I use medium format with great lenses. If I want great resolution along with camera movements I shoot 4x5, 5x7 (my favorite format), and sometimes 8x10.

 

[Pieter12]

Sharpness is indeed a concept and the perception is dependent on many factors. However, lens designers over the years have always tried to improve sharpness and many users are willing to spend large amounts of money for those lenses. The only reason I brought up focus shift is because it can be an unexpected result when shooting with certain lenses, usually wide open. No "collector" is going to complain about focus shift if they like the image, they have no clue if such a thing occurred. It is only the photographer who may have thought that steps were taken to make a photo with a vey limited depth of focus only to see that the focus point was not what was intended, like carefully focusing on the eyes and getting them soft with the nose in sharp focus instead. This phenomenon is real, but has largely been mitigated with modern lens designs. Many of the forum members do use older and sometimes less than optimum lenses and may or may not be aware of the possibility. The other point I was trying to make, since early in the thread there was a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of an SLR vs an RF camera, is that one can use the depth of field preview button on most SLRs to check the exact focus point.

Or we can all just fall back on the infamous HCB quote that sharpness is a bourgeois concept, even though he was joking about his hands shaking at his advanced age.

 

[chuckroast]

Sharpness is indeed a concept and the perception is dependent on many factors. However, lens designers over the years have always tried to improve sharpness and many users are willing to spend large amounts of money for those lenses. The only reason I brought up focus shift is because it can be an unexpected result when shooting with certain lenses, usually wide open. No "collector" is going to complain about focus shift if they like the image, they have no clue if such a thing occurred. It is only the photographer who may have thought that steps were taken to make a photo with a vey limited depth of focus only to see that the focus point was not what was intended, like carefully focusing on the eyes and getting them soft with the nose in sharp focus instead. This phenomenon is real, but has largely been mitigated with modern lens designs. Many of the forum members do use older and sometimes less than optimum lenses and may or may not be aware of the possibility. The other point I was trying to make, since early in the thread there was a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of an SLR vs an RF camera, is that one can use the depth of field preview button on most SLRs to check the exact focus point.

Or we can all just fall back on the infamous HCB quote that sharpness is a bourgeois concept, even though he was joking about his hands shaking at his advanced age.

Well, that, and his stuff was never in focus, so mebbe it was retrospective justification

I appreciate your patience with me on this, and I learned something new, which makes me happy.

 

[chuckroast]

Well said. And most of them end up shooting handheld, which is usually a much bigger detriment to image quality.

Right tool for the job. My rangefinder cameras are shot handheld 99% of the time, they all use film, and instead of pixel peeping I print using traditional methods and sell the photos in galleries. No art collector has ever complained to me about focus shift.

If I want better resolution I use medium format with great lenses. If I want great resolution along with camera movements I shoot 4x5, 5x7 (my favorite format), and sometimes 8x10.

I finally just got around to reading Thornton's "Edge Of Darkness" which is essentially a multi-chapter exploration of how to make things as sharp as possible.

It's an excellent book and I recommend it without reservation. However, it only addresses part of what makes a great picture. Midtone contrast is every bit as important as sharpness, maybe more important. David Kachel's monograph on this very subject is a must-read (as is his monograph on how film works).

Clinical perfection alone is insufficient to make a compelling picture - one that grabs your emotion and fills you with wonder. There are all manner of pictures I see here and elsewhere, like RFF, that are perhaps technically limited but nonetheless create that "wow" effect.

In my own case, after many years of shooting almost nothing but Hasselblad and LF film, I spent the last year shooting almost nothing but 35mm - brought on primarily because I contracted a very virulent disease known as Leica Acquisition Syndrome. The years of larger format had taught me a lot about good technique, but going back to 35mm after mostly being away from it for four decades was an incredibly freeing experience. It made me revisit the question of being more in the moment, reading the light in near realtime, and generally looking for things I wouldn't consider at all with the larger, bulkier cameras.

I now routinely consider compositionial choices I hadn't thought of with the larger cameras, because the smaller format revealed them to me via its convenience. I expect to bring that back to my MF and LF shooting. (I have even - GASP - shot my 'Blads handheld ... oh the blasphemy.)

Are my Summicron images as "sharp" as my Distagon and Schneider negatives? Well, yes, but not at huge print sizes. But they are still compelling (to me anyway, YMMV). And that's the point - to find that "wow" moment.

I once had a professional musician explain to me that you have to "visit" speed in your playing, but then forget about it. Having it in your repertoire extends the musician's vocabulary but cannot be it's sole language. I think things like clinical perfection in photography are much the same. You should have it at your disposal, but then transcend it.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I finally just got around to reading Thornton's "Edge Of Darkness" which is essentially a multi-chapter exploration of how to make things as sharp as possible.

It's an excellent book and I recommend it without reservation. However, it only addresses part of what makes a great picture. Midtone contrast is every bit as important as sharpness, maybe more important. David Kachel's monograph on this very subject is a must-read (as is his monograph on how film works).

Clinical perfection alone is insufficient to make a compelling picture - one that grabs your emotion and fills you with wonder. There are all manner of pictures I see here and elsewhere, like RFF, that are perhaps technically limited but nonetheless create that "wow" effect.

In my own case, after many years of shooting almost nothing but Hasselblad and LF film, I spent the last year shooting almost nothing but 35mm - brought on primarily because I contracted a very virulent disease known as Leica Acquisition Syndrome. The years of larger format had taught me a lot about good technique, but going back to 35mm after mostly being away from it for four decades was an incredibly freeing experience. It made me revisit the question of being more in the moment, reading the light in near realtime, and generally looking for things I wouldn't consider at all with the larger, bulkier cameras.

I now routinely consider compositionial choices I hadn't thought of with the larger cameras, because the smaller format revealed them to me via its convenience. I expect to bring that back to my MF and LF shooting. (I have even - GASP - shot my 'Blads handheld ... oh the blasphemy.)

Are my Summicron images as "sharp" as my Distagon and Schneider negatives? Well, yes, but not at huge print sizes. But they are still compelling (to me anyway, YMMV). And that's the point - to find that "wow" moment.

I once had a professional musician explain to me that you have to "visit" speed in your playing, but then forget about it. Having it in your repertoire extends the musician's vocabulary but cannot be it's sole language. I think things like clinical perfection in photography are much the same. You should have it at your disposal, but then transcend it.

Good book, and well said. There are a lot of people obsessed with sharpness, but completely miss the boat in terms of what makes a good photograph.

 

[chuckroast]

Good book, and well said. There are a lot of people obsessed with sharpness, but completely miss the boat in terms of what makes a good photograph.

In fairness, it works both ways. I've seen people justifying execrably bad technical execution on the grounds "artistic vision". You can often spot them by their very long winded "Artist's Statement" - which I have never quite understood. Artists should be making art, first and foremost, for themselves and thus shouldn't need to explain or justify their work.

It's always a tradeoff. Working for the perfect technique may lose you the shot. Slopping through the technique may significantly compromise an otherwise interesting image. I know this, because I have done both of these things.

As I said in my prior post, jumping back into 35mm due to Leica Acquisition Syndrome has breathed new air into my work in that it's made me more more spontaneous than I've been in years. I mean there are actually people in my images now ... oh the horror.

I am currently exploring the film/developer/printing variables to try and find he optimal 35mm negative. Why? Because I do still miss the incredible tonality and sharpness of larger formats. Fortunately, modern developer formulations like Pyrocat-HDC seem to be part of the key, along with extended high dilution development. Even Tri-X is showing promise I never thought possible.

 

[Axelwik]

In fairness, it works both ways. I've seen people justifying execrably bad technical execution on the grounds "artistic vision". You can often spot them by their very long winded "Artist's Statement" - which I have never quite understood. Artists should be making art, first and foremost, for themselves and thus shouldn't need to explain or justify their work.

It's always a tradeoff. Working for the perfect technique may lose you the shot. Slopping through the technique may significantly compromise an otherwise interesting image. I know this, because I have done both of these things.

As I said in my prior post, jumping back into 35mm due to Leica Acquisition Syndrome has breathed new air into my work in that it's made me more more spontaneous than I've been in years. I mean there are actually people in my images now ... oh the horror.

I am currently exploring the film/developer/printing variables to try and find he optimal 35mm negative. Why? Because I do still miss the incredible tonality and sharpness of larger formats. Fortunately, modern developer formulations like Pyrocat-HDC seem to be part of the key, along with extended high dilution development. Even Tri-X is showing promise I never thought possible.

A good photographer needs both for sure. I'm kind of on the same path - spent most of my time with medium format and now shooting mostly 35mm rangefinders and some large format. My Hasselblad kit is sitting idle. I travel a lot and like to go as light as possible, so the rangefinders make sense. On Friday I returned from motorcycle trip to South America with some film to develop. And yes, the pyro developers are interesting - pretty good results in my experience. Will use Barry Thornton's two bath for this batch though.

I seem to have two accounts here - on my iPhone it's M. Axel Wikstrom and on this computer it's Axelwik. No idea how that happened.

 

[Pieter12]

In fairness, it works both ways. I've seen people justifying execrably bad technical execution on the grounds "artistic vision". You can often spot them by their very long winded "Artist's Statement" - which I have never quite understood. Artists should be making art, first and foremost, for themselves and thus shouldn't need to explain or justify their work.

It's always a tradeoff. Working for the perfect technique may lose you the shot. Slopping through the technique may significantly compromise an otherwise interesting image. I know this, because I have done both of these things.

As I said in my prior post, jumping back into 35mm due to Leica Acquisition Syndrome has breathed new air into my work in that it's made me more more spontaneous than I've been in years. I mean there are actually people in my images now ... oh the horror.

I am currently exploring the film/developer/printing variables to try and find he optimal 35mm negative. Why? Because I do still miss the incredible tonality and sharpness of larger formats. Fortunately, modern developer formulations like Pyrocat-HDC seem to be part of the key, along with extended high dilution development. Even Tri-X is showing promise I never thought possible.

A couple of points. First, an artist's statement is often a requirement for submissions to galleries, publishers and collectors as well as calls for entry. But any artist's statement that goes into technique is BS, not about the work or artist's vision. Second, I usually shoot MF (even handheld, blasphemy I know) but I am starting shoot more 35 for similar reasons to yours. I like Rodinal 1+25. But I don't usually enlarge more than 11x14. It may not be your piece of cake.

 

[MattKing]

I seem to have two accounts here - on my iPhone it's M. Axel Wikstrom and on this computer it's Axelwik. No idea how that happened.

I'll give Sean a heads-up on this - to see if it is something that can and should be resolved.

 

[MattKing]

A couple of points. First, an artist's statement is often a requirement for submissions to galleries, publishers and collectors as well as calls for entry. But any artist's statement that goes into technique is BS, not about the work or artist's vision.

Sometimes, the technique has some relevance to the vision, as it relates to the form of presentation.
Jeff Wall comes to mind, as does Alexey Titarenko.

From the biography section of one of my most recent Artist Statements:

"Matthew’s photography is almost entirely film based. He finds inspiration in the world of the photographic darkroom - primarily with black and white film and light sensitive, photographic paper. He is particularly inspired by the challenge and reward of the photographic print."

 

[cliveh]

An artist statement should not be needed, as the images should speak for themselves. If I am viewing an exhibition of images by HCB, I don't need him to make any artists statement.

 

[MattKing]

An artist statement should not be needed, as the images should speak for themselves. If I am viewing an exhibition of images by HCB, I don't need him to make any artists statement.

That isn't how gallerists make their decisions amongst the floods of submissions and recommendations they work through.
And many visitors to a show appreciate additional information.

 

[Saganich]

Writing to your advantage about your work may be more important for the life of your work.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, @cliveh added his reference to HCB after I started quoting his post.
An artist statement would be much less important for HCB than it would be for someone not well known.