Peter Klein
Regular
- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Peter Klein
Hey Brian (or anyone else whose looked into lens behavior on the various Leica digitals)... Is it just me, or is the Monochrom really finicky? Brian, I notice that you have adjusted lenses specifically for the Monochrom. What gives?
I just got my MM (v.1) back from Leica NJ with the new, hopefully rot-proof sensor. I did a quick 45-degree yardstick test of several of my 50s. What's interesting is two 50 Summicrons (DR and v.4), which both seem dead-on on my M8, behave differently on the MM. In the wide-open to f/4 range, one lens shows most of the DOF in front of the point of focus. Another shows the DOF mostly behind it.
My practical take is that the MM's increased resolution carries with it a penalty. The deeper you can "see" into the pixels, the more you realize that that the real world is dirtier than you thought. What seemed perfect on film is less so on the M8 or M9, and even less so on the Monochrom. Add the compromises needed to get things right at various distances and apertures, and it can be very confusing.
I got similar results right after I bought the MM last summer. I asked DAG about it. His tongue-in-cheek advice was to stop using Leica digital cameras and go back to Leica film cameras! I think his point was that with digital, we are getting beyond what the rangefinder can do "perfectly," and you'll notice differences that are entirely within tolerances. Film had a lot of "forgiveness factor" in our favor, so you didn't notice. Digital is a harsh mistress, and even more so when you eliminate the Bayer filter and interpolation.
Of course, this is pixel peeping. In real life, I've noticed that it may not matter so much unless you care exactly where the DOF is. But it's really interesting. My sense is that I should not be sending a lens to be adjusted unless it really presents an issue in practical photography. Just know that what I focus on will be in focus, but lens X is a more "forward-looking" lens, and lens Y is a more "backward-looking" lens. Since I have the earlier 35 Summilux Asph. without floating elements, I've been dealing with that sort of thing for years.
Mirrorless cameras can mitigate all this, because we can see exactly what we're going to get--if there's time to deal with it, and if we're willing to view the world a significant number of milliseconds behind when things actually happen. When there isn't time, the RF and an optical viewfinder still is a great way to catch the instant.
I just got my MM (v.1) back from Leica NJ with the new, hopefully rot-proof sensor. I did a quick 45-degree yardstick test of several of my 50s. What's interesting is two 50 Summicrons (DR and v.4), which both seem dead-on on my M8, behave differently on the MM. In the wide-open to f/4 range, one lens shows most of the DOF in front of the point of focus. Another shows the DOF mostly behind it.
My practical take is that the MM's increased resolution carries with it a penalty. The deeper you can "see" into the pixels, the more you realize that that the real world is dirtier than you thought. What seemed perfect on film is less so on the M8 or M9, and even less so on the Monochrom. Add the compromises needed to get things right at various distances and apertures, and it can be very confusing.
I got similar results right after I bought the MM last summer. I asked DAG about it. His tongue-in-cheek advice was to stop using Leica digital cameras and go back to Leica film cameras! I think his point was that with digital, we are getting beyond what the rangefinder can do "perfectly," and you'll notice differences that are entirely within tolerances. Film had a lot of "forgiveness factor" in our favor, so you didn't notice. Digital is a harsh mistress, and even more so when you eliminate the Bayer filter and interpolation.
Of course, this is pixel peeping. In real life, I've noticed that it may not matter so much unless you care exactly where the DOF is. But it's really interesting. My sense is that I should not be sending a lens to be adjusted unless it really presents an issue in practical photography. Just know that what I focus on will be in focus, but lens X is a more "forward-looking" lens, and lens Y is a more "backward-looking" lens. Since I have the earlier 35 Summilux Asph. without floating elements, I've been dealing with that sort of thing for years.
Mirrorless cameras can mitigate all this, because we can see exactly what we're going to get--if there's time to deal with it, and if we're willing to view the world a significant number of milliseconds behind when things actually happen. When there isn't time, the RF and an optical viewfinder still is a great way to catch the instant.
