Leica Leica M8/8.2

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
So you like landscapes and clarity, huh? Allow me to throw another spanner in the works: the Leica M9.
:biggrin:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

As for value glass, I'd say that the best for your desired aperture and focal length is the CV 28/2. But as someone else mentioned, the CV 28/1.9 can be fitted with a coded LTM-M adapter, avoiding the need to have holes milled in your lens mount or wearing out sharpies with coding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
I would be interested to hear from the rangefinder users here on their thoughts regarding using a non-ttl viewfinder. I've messed around with older film rangefinders and found them to be a fairly primitive compared to an SLR. The thought of using an optical viewfinder that doesn't show me exactly what the lens is seeing is totally foreign to me, and is also the reason why I am completely non-plussed by the hype surrounding the X100's hybrid viewfinder.
 

BBW

Administrator Emeritus
Jul 7, 2010
betwixt and between
BB
Kal, if you'd like to post a link to David's M8 landscape page that really pushed you over, I know he is AOK with our linking his blog here.

I'm sure you and your M8 will be very happy together once you get together, and I'll be looking forward to hearing about your meet up.:flowers_2:
 

usayit

Veteran
Sep 4, 2010
I would be interested to hear from the rangefinder users here on their thoughts regarding using a non-ttl viewfinder.
This is a topic in of itself!! Its very hard to explain .. In short, its more along the lines of enjoying the whole experience of the camera as an extension of the eye, framing the subject with fluidity, and seeing with the camera. Its quite different from "pulling" a subject within view and "shooting" at it with a lens.

I always recommend people to borrow or rent to figure it out... its not for everyone.
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
I think I would find it quite limiting to not get that instant feedback of seeing the depth-of-field preview in the viewfinder. I am also accustomed to working with the 'tunnel vision' you get from an SLR viewfinder, and only using my left eye occasionally if I want to see outside the frame. It's a moot point anyway since I don't intend to spend the money required to buy a Leica.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Unfortunately my wife has this silly notion that paying bills and the mortgage is more important than me having the M9.
What a fool she is..... It's getting close to ....
Wife Upgrading Procedure.....
Sounds like something that could be a firmware fix... :biggrin:

Hey, this whole discussion brings up another question related to one I asked in a different thread, which had to do with how the focus mechanism knew which lens you had onboard and how well it would match up with different focal length lenses. And that one was answered to my satisfaction, though the idea of having to calibrate the size of the cam with copper tape sounded a little crazy for a camera/lens setup costing in the five figures....

But now i'm wondering how you even begin to FRAME a shot with a lens that's a different length than the one seen by the viewfinder? I mean, the field of view the OVF sees isn't something that can be calibrated with cams and copper tape - its gotta be a set length, right? So how does THAT work?

Not trying to be a devils advocate and DEFINITELY not in the market, but very curious all the same. This should have been a much more obvious question when I thought of the last one, but sometimes I need a 2x4 up the side of my head before I see the obvious stuff.

BTW, if this needs to be moved to a more appropriate thread, feel free...

-Ray
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus
Jul 12, 2010
Philly, Pa
Ray, The M finder sees the widest angle of the lens it's designed for.
Example. The M4 sees 35mm as it's widest lens.
So when you change lenses, new framelines appear in the finder. There is a lever that let's you select framelines to see what a different lens would see without changing lenses. All this is done without a change in perspective.

One of my M4's has been modified and the only frameline in it is the 35.
So all I see looking thru the viewfinder is the 35 frameline & the RF patch.
It's a wonderful way to work as you really only see your image forming. The data people miss is in your brain... Not obstructing your vision.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
OK, so if its designed around a 28, which might be the widest people would tend to use on that camera, that would be pretty close to the full frame and as you went longer, you'd make the adjustment and the framelines would shrink, increasing the 'open' area shown in the frame but outside of the framelines? That makes sense. Although if it was setup for 28 and you were shooting with a 50 or 55 or something, the framing area would be getting pretty small I'd guess?

-Ray
 

Streetshooter

Administrator Emeritus
Jul 12, 2010
Philly, Pa
Ahhhh Haaaa, by jove, I think ya gotz it.... This is the exact reason that many say, that the M is not good for longer lenses. It does kinda ok with the 90 but the 135...well....not so good....
My M 6's have the 28 frame lines and even tho I use the 35 almost always, the frame line is getting rather smaller in the M6. Also, with the M6...ya have those stupid red lights and a battery in the body for the meter...
What the heck ya need a meter for anyway....?

In my Purist daze... I would use a really nice single stroke M3 with a 50mm on it. It provides almost a 1:1 view. I could use that with 2 eyes open and the view was almost the same with both eyes. The M3 has a 50mm frame line and it's the best finder of all the M cameras. That would be next to the M4. 35 & a 50.... it's pure love.
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Well, remind me never to use one then. I can afford a lot of love, but that's some HIGH priced lovin and I'm not in the market. And can't afford to GET in that market without some serious re-arrangement of priorities. There were certain bikes I would never let myself test ride for that very same reason and that approach seemed to work for me.

-Ray
 

pdh

Legend
Jan 2, 2011
"clarity\" ... is it lens or is it camera? I notice both sets of photographs are with Zeiss lenses ... ?
 

usayit

Veteran
Sep 4, 2010
I think I would find it quite limiting to not get that instant feedback of seeing the depth-of-field preview in the viewfinder.
Yup... there is pre-visualization and simply just knowing your lenses intimately. I'm not going to lie... it takes practice. You can "know" how a 28mm lens will render the subjects as opposed to 50mm. You can become familiar with what f/2.8 looks like as opposed to f/8. etc..

The other side of the DOF is that SLRs always focus wide-open.... DOF is shallow and you can loose touch with what exactly is in the background. RF not so much.. you can see and react to subjects in the background, just outside the frame, and what is coming/going in/out of the frame.

Humans have a relatively narrow FOV as they "see" and examine in detail but with a wide peripheral from which we do process general shapes and motions. Its very much the same way.

Form a square with your fingers with arms extended in front of your face. Start framing subjects you might take photos of. Kinda like that.
 

Brian

Top Veteran
Jul 7, 2010
I would be interested to hear from the rangefinder users here on their thoughts regarding using a non-ttl viewfinder. I've messed around with older film rangefinders and found them to be a fairly primitive compared to an SLR. The thought of using an optical viewfinder that doesn't show me exactly what the lens is seeing is totally foreign to me, and is also the reason why I am completely non-plussed by the hype surrounding the X100's hybrid viewfinder.
I've used Rangefinder cameras since 1969 and SLR's since 1971. For lenses up to 135mm, the RF is more accurate and faster to focus compared with a manual focus SLR. For very fast lenses, the RF is faster than the AF SLR's, which in my experience tend to "Hunt" for a focus under some conditions. As far as framing accuracy: the RF shows what is outside the field of view, allows easier composing. Most SLR's show about 92% of the FOV of the lens. Exceptions include the Nikon F series which show 100%, and Canon F series. Not sure about others.
 

deirdre

Top Veteran
Sep 26, 2010
My frustration with SLRs has always been finding the shot (especially with longer-than-normal lenses), which the added context in the rangefinder gives me. I'm not saying manual focus is the bomb, but I'm just good enough at it not to be discouraged.
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
"clarity\" ... is it lens or is it camera? I notice both sets of photographs are with Zeiss lenses ... ?
It's both. The M9's sensor gives really clear, sharp images with any of my Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. The game goes up when I use some lenses as opposed to others. For example, every Zeiss lens I have is the bomb for sharpness. Same for my Leica lenses. But some of my Voigtlanders, particularly the CV 25/4P and CV 35/1.2, are a bit softer; at the same time you can still see the clarity of the M9's sensor. The 35/1.2 is softest at widest aperture, unsurprisingly, but the 25/4P is still softer than, say, the Zeiss 25/2.8 at the same apertures.

The Zeiss lenses are also sharper towards the edges, whereas the Voigtlanders tend to be softer in the peripheries.Likewise, the CV 35/1.4 is softer at widest aperture, but really sharpens up at about f5.6 onwards, and is quite the equal of the Zeiss and Leica lenses in that department at those apertures. I haven't performed critical comparisons, but that is the sense I get from using all of my lenses extensively.
 

pdh

Legend
Jan 2, 2011
Yes, Zeiss are often noted for their sharpness ... I was noticing that Kal was seeing great "clarity" on the M8, which doesn't share the M9's sensor, also with Zeiss glass ...
 

usayit

Veteran
Sep 4, 2010
It's both. The M9's sensor gives really clear, sharp images with any of my Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. The game goes up when I use some lenses as opposed to others.
Agreed.... its both... Each lens has its own unique character and goes back to simply knowing your glass. Sometimes low contrast, sometimes high contrast... a teeny bit soft... or maybe pin sharp. Long focus throw or short focus throw. Sometimes you need something that focuses close... at times you need something small. Others times you need something fast no matter the weight or size. Maybe its the way the Bokeh looks. Maybe you like a bit of vignette. .. "dreamy" or detailed etc..

Two 50s that have subtle but noticeable characteristics:



Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Oh btw... If you like to photoshop a lot, I find that lower contrast but high resolving lenses work the best. Especially when shooting in high contrast situations like in full bright light. You end up with a file that retains much of the range for photoshop to work its magic on.
 

Brian

Top Veteran
Jul 7, 2010
Right now my M9 has the 1937 Carl Zeiss jena 5cm F1.5 on it and the M8 has a 1955 KMZ Jupiter-3 made from two different lenses on it.

What I like about these cameras: the variety of lenses available.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom