The 35mm lens rangefinder experience.

An afternoon with the Leica M9 and Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 lens. 

Is m4/3 a "Poor Mans Leica"?

I found that I was getting a lot of visits yesterday from Dpreview via a couple of threads that were discussing the relationship of  m4/3 and Leica. In particular whether m4/3 was a "Poor Mans Leica" and just how close, or otherwise, one was to the other. 


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37725230
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37721509

It coincided with me looking at one of the entertaining videos from Kai at Digital Rev, on using Leica lenses on m4/3 cameras. 





If you do use Leica lenses, as Kai makes the point, its hardly going to be a "poor mans Leica" since some of their lenses cost almost as much as the M9.


I read an article recently on Leica Rangefinders and the writer asked the question as to whether if this was any other camera would we all put up with the difficulties?


In the light of the above I wonder if things are the wrong way round. I don't see m4/3 cameras as an alternative to, or as a cheap form of a Leica. Because I use an M9, and because of the quality of the files that I get from that camera, it is inevitable that I will compare everything else I use with its results. However, I don't use the M9 all the time, because it simply won't do everything I want.





The above image could have taken with a Leica, but would have involved lying on the ground to get accurate focus. A GH2, AF, articulated touch screen and a gorrillapod made it much easier.


Likewise this picture.





There's no doubt that for landscape images that fit within the limits of where the M9 works well it is difficult to beat for sheer quality of image.








Though something like a GF1 with Lumix prime lenses can't produce the same quality as an M9, there's no denying that its easier to use. If you asked me the question "If I didn't shoot pictures to make a living would I use the Leica M9?" my answer would probably be no. I do definitely get more pleasure from using a camera like the GF1 with its AF lenses. However since the situation is that I do shoot pictures to make a living, it is obviously in my interest to shoot with the best quality equipment I can afford, in order to produce the highest quality files. For landscape photography it is expected that images will be of the highest possible quality and also of a suitable size to enable large scale reproduction, or heavy cropping.


That doesn't mean that a m4/3 camera isn't capable of getting close to that. If it wasn't then I wouldn't use it.














The above images were all taken on a GF1. The likelihood is that these will be used as editorial images in newspapers, magazines and brochures or on the web. Probably at small sizes. They would be capable of going to A3 in a magazine for example, though if cropped could be beyond the limit of what a 12MP m4/3 file can do well.


However in the same afternoon I came across a landscape shot that would have really worked better on the Leica.





Since I didn't have it with me, I took the picture on the GF1. Not ideal but for most uses it will be fine.


A situation where AF lenses would have been more appropriate was shortly after taking the landscape image this swan appeared. I had a Zeiss 50mm fitted to the GF1 and I had no time to change the lens or focus properly. Consequently this was the only shot I got that was in focus. A shame since the swan then passed between some reeds lit by the late afternoon sun.





There are also situations when I'm out with the Leica on its own when I take pictures that will probably never take advantage of the quality. Like the two below.








So m4/3 as "poor mans Leica" isn't a phrase I'd use, since a Leica isn't the answer to all my photographic needs. I did have a camera that gave me all the quality and convenience I could ever want. It was a Nikon D3X. However then weight and size issues come into the equation, and the situation occurred that I simply wasn't prepared to carry it for the same distances that I can using either my M9 or m4/3. Of all the cameras that I use the Panasonic GH2 is probably the most versatile. The Pentax K-5 is close, but doesn't quite produce the sharpness the GH2 does at low ISO's, particularly when I use my m-mount lenses on it. 


m4/3 works very well for me at the moment, and I don't see it as inferior to my M9. It doesn't quite have the wonderful look of the Leica files, but its surprisingly close. I live in hope that eventually someone will bring out a camera that has the quality of the M9 and the features of a DSLR in a package with the size and convenience of m4/3. It would save me having to use 3 different systems. The rumour of a Nikon "Pro Mirrorless system" is tantalising and the thought of a Fuji X100 with a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses would probably be ideal, however both of these are just fantasies at the moment.


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Leica with 35mm lens - More Fuji X100 thoughts

In complete contrast to the day before, yesterday was a beautiful sunny day with clear blue skies. After getting somewhat hot and bothered about the Fuji X100, which is now right at the top of my shopping list, I decided to get into the spirit by going out with the Leica M9 and Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Classic. Since the X100 uses this equivalent focal length, it seemed a nice idea to have a day using mainly this.








35mm, or equivalent, is one of those "classic" focal lengths that are more versatile than they seem. Its surprising how often it gives just the right coverage. Ever since my film days it has always been my most used lens. 



Multi-Image Panoramic Stitch








I must admit to being very excited by the Fuji X100. Its no surprise, I'm sure, to anyone who reads these pieces that I would be! The combination of classic retro styling, and modern technology is totally irresistible to me. I am of course assuming that it does what its supposed to! However the Fuji samples were very encouraging. No high ISO admittedly, but the "leaked" samples showed that is taken care of. I've already started moving some little used items of gear to ebay to raise the money for it. 


Like many people, I'm not immune to its visual charms, and the video of it being used with its leather case and silver lens hood was almost too much. Its called "camera porn" and not without good reason!


If Fuji have got this right, and from the specs. it seems they may have, then this is a step on from the Leica X1. I doubt the Fuji will better the X1's image quality, though from the samples it seems that it will certainly equal it, but from the point of view of actually taking pictures it seems a much more useable camera. The X1 was slow and limited and in the end I became very frustrated with it. Much as I admire Leica for their resolute determination to make image quality the overiding priority, I'm not sure they have the mind set to even conceive of something like the X100. 


It won't happen, but a collaboration with their Panasonic partners to produce the ultimate modern "rangefinder style" camera could give many of us the camera of our dreams. With the M9, I'm sure Leica have many new customers, not all of whom will be content with the limitations of the system. 


If the X100 becomes a surprise hit and a big seller, then maybe we can expect more of the same from other manufacturers. I do think it will be difficult for that to happen. Despite the enthusiasm of many of us, I'm well aware that much of the photographic mainstream wonders what all the fuss is about. I'm sure there will be an initial burst of good sales, though £1000 for what is essentially a fixed lens "super-compact" will deter an awful lot of people, but whether it can sustain healthy long term sales is anybody's guess. However m4/3 proved that a well-designed product can defy the trend and become successful, so here's hoping the Fuji X100 can do well. It would be a shame if it just became a much talked about "collectors item" in years to come.


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Process - Part 1

"The Negative is the score, the print is the performance." - Ansel Adams


Not quite the same in the digital age, but this is very much the idea behind the process I use for creating images. In my case the raw file is the negative and my "print" is the edited, saved and stored file that finds its way onto the websites of picture libraries and hopefully onto the websites and into the magazines and brochures of clients.


Its something we do as photographers these days, combining our instinctive compositional skills "in the field", with our editing and visualisation abilities when we get our digital files home. This is very similar to the way Ansel Adams worked. He developed a system for exposure and development and printed his own work. So in many ways he was working in a similar way to how we work as photographers today. He controlled the whole process from picture taking to print production, so when you see an Ansel Adams picture you know that the end result is almost totally his. Not 100%, as I don't believe he built his own cameras and lenses and manufactured the film, but close enough.


I've put together some photo slideshows to show what my "negatives" are from a typical shoot and then post examples of some of the edited versions that I've created from this raw material. When the images that I decide are worth working with emerge from Photoshop, they can look somewhat different, and though this part of the process is something I enjoy far less than actually taking the pictures, it can be very satisfactory to produce what you have visualised when pressing the shutter. That is still very important to me and I often take a picture and make mental notes of what I want to do with the image. 


Here's the first slideshow of pictures I took a few days ago.





All images shot with a Leica M9 and Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Classic Lens. These are unaltered out of camera jpgs.


Here are some edited images from that batch. 















Images - David and Ann

New Theatre - Leica Paranoia

After years of the centre of Stratford upon Avon being a building site the redevelopment of the Stratford Memorial Theatre, the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company is finally finished.





For something thats such a landmark, and dominates much of the town, its a pretty uninspiring building. The previous theatre was an eyesore and this ones probably worse. A mismatch of old and new, it has no coherent style and looks like it was designed by a committee who all had to get their bits in. There's a tower that makes it look like a fire station, and some of the brickwork is downright shoddy. Its facade to the river is particularly ugly.











It may be state of the art inside but its a typical example of what passes for architecture in this country. While we possess some architects with vision and sensitivity, who can design striking and impressive new buildings and do sensitive restorations, we also have a load of hacks and also-rans who pollute our line of sight with their second-rate designs. Then there are the visually impaired committees who commission these things. Stratford-upon-Avon is one of the most famous and visited towns in the world, and for somewhere so popular its not particularly attractive. The people responsible for re-developing it have however managed to make it even less attractive than before. End of rant!!!


Here's a "des-res" from the 1500's. This is "Mary Ardens House" the home of Shakespeare's mother. 





All of these pictures were taken with a Leica M9 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and Leica 90mm f2.5 lenses. I am planning to use the M9 more this year, if I can only get over my paranoia about carrying it around. I have a real problem using a camera that has taken such a substantial part of my income. Its further compounded by the fact that I did drop my M8, so I'm aware of the sound of a Leica hitting the floor! Since my one-year passport with its accidental damage cover has now finished, I hold on to it even more firmly, since if I drop it I have to pay for it!


I'm not sure if I'm ever going to get over this fear of damaging it, or loosing it. I have considered selling it because of this. I used a D3X which was almost as expensive, but I never had the same fears about it. Its something to do with the Leica's size I think. Also the fact that it is both quite difficult to hold securely and changing lenses isn't the easiest thing in the world. I've tried to get a handgrip, but they seem impossible to get hold of. There are leather cases that have a built in grip and I am considering getting on of those, if Luigi at Leicatime ever answers my emails!! 

Something like this may give me more reassurance, we'll see.


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Images with Leica M9 plus Summarit-M 90mm f/2.5

My 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M lens was returned from Leica yesterday after being repaired. The aperture ring had worked loose and they had fixed it under the passport warranty scheme. It was a quick repair for Leica. Only a few weeks and that included the Christmas and New Year break.


I checked it out with some indoors shots of a few camera lens combinations (camera porn!!) and in a brief burst of sun a few outdoor shots.














The camera pictures were taken at f/16, which is the minimum aperture. Unlike other lenses, the minimum aperture on this lens is extraordinarily sharp. For distance shots at wide apertures, the rangefinder focusing is quite difficult, which is a problem I find with telephoto lenses on the Leica. I had an excellent old 135mm f/4 lens, but sold it as I was getting a lot of mis-focusing. The focusing area on the rangefinder is very small, and while subjects near the camera are fine, the further away they are the more difficult it is. 


There's a couple of interesting articles on the differences between SLR's and Rangefinders in the following links:-
http://www.photozone.de/slr-vs-rangefinder - from Photozone
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm - from Ken Rockwell

Leicas by Panasonic

Shot with a Panasonic GH1 fitted with my Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2 macro. One of the problems of a pin-sharp macro lens is that it shows all the dust!. 

Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton Classic on GH1

Using the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton Classic on a Panasonic GH1, the first thing you notice is how small it is, even with the Leica M > m4/3 adapter. Because this is such a small lens it can sometimes be a little tricky to focus. I find that I sometimes have trouble locating the focusing ring. However once you can cope with this, focusing is easier on m4/3 than on the Leica when the lens is wide open. On the M9 it can be difficult to locate a suitable focusing point to enable the rangefinder focusing, and even the slightest error can result in a mis-focused shot. The GH1, with its magnification aid, can make this easier. 


I've included three shots at f/1.4. Clicking the images will link you to the Soundimageplus flickr page where there are full-size jpgs available to view. N.B. they are heavily jpg compressed.











Its a very nice lens for m4/3 with the proviso that it doesn't focus particularly closely. Its 70cm which is 2.3 feet, which is not very close at all. This is a problem with m-mount lenses in general, and is something to be borne in mind if you are considering using them. The 25mm f0.95 apparently focuses to 17cm which is just over 6 inches which is very useful indeed.





Because of the 2x crop factor of m4/3, the lens becomes a 70mm (35mm / Full frame) equivalent, and becomes a slightly longer standard lens or a short telephoto. 70mm lenses used to very popular with Hollywood movie makers for head shots. Many actors and actresses used to believe that they were very flattering & would often insist on them for their close ups. So it can be a useful lens for portraits - though remember the Voigtlander requires you to be over 2' away.


Like its performance on the Leica it produces sharp results and at some point in the future I'll do a longer review of it "in the field". It is a lens that many use on m4/3, as well as the 40mm f1.4. Because of their small size and relatively low cost, these are often peoples first venture into M-Mount. Indeed the 40mm was my first lens of this type. 


If you want a lens of this focal length plus the speed its a good solution, and you wouldn't be disappointed with the results. Both Panasonic and Olympus seem reluctant to produce a fast "portrait" lens, so this lens could serve that purpose though it is a little on the short side. 35mm f1.4 lenses are usually very expensive. The Leica version is £3,300, and the Nikon is £1600 so this is a reasonably priced lens. It is also beautifully made and apart from the small size making focusing a little difficult (for me at least) nice to work with.





CONCLUSION.


A very useful little lens for m4/3. I had some reservations about the Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 on m4/3 because of the focusing problems hand held. The 35mm f1.4 is somewhat easier to use in this regard and could be a very handy low light lens. Its small, light and produces good quality images. Its not as sharp wide open as the 20mm f1.7 lumix, but thats a different focal length. It is however very acceptable at f1.4 and being the equivalent of a 70mm lens and having the depth of field of a 35mm gives a little more latitude in focusing which is always useful in low light. People often talk about the disadvantages of the 4/3 sensor size in terms of depth of field. Personally I've always seen it as an advantage.


D