The last in the Window Portrait series. The first three may be found here, here, and here.
↑Leica M240 and Zeiss 21mm @ f/2.8.
Related
13 thoughts on “(sort of) Window Portrait, Part 4.”
Very nice composition and the first picture taken with the M240 that I really like.
Thank you sir.
Cher Peter,
Sweet like a nice dream!
Light, just like your composition and framing … your work wonders!
I do not forget your beautiful model (with all due respect) …
Good Sunday!
your friend.
Hugues.
Thank you dear Hugues – and yes, my lovely “model” deserves much credit!
Nice use of angles Peter.
I don’t see any problem with the rendering here whatsoever! What was the ISO? The shadow detail seems nicely preserved…
Anyway, I’ll help you get started:
“Dear. Dr. Kaufman,
My name is Peter, but my friends just call me Prosophos…”
You’re simply *hilarious* my friend. Your wife must laugh, and laugh, and laugh…
Thanks for noticing the angles, as I’m quite pleased with this (tricky) 21mm FOV composition. As Hugues notes above, however, my daughter deserves much of the credit for being so agreeable.
To answer your question, the ISO was 1600. My comfort zone with the M9 was 640.
As for Dr. Kaufman, and anybody else visiting this site, hopefully it is understood that I am passionate about digital rangefinders, as they are my preferred cameras, and that constructive criticism is a healthy thing.
I’ve only had a few days with the M240, but I believe I’ve made some progress in working with its colour signature. Check out tomorrow’s post to see what I mean. The colours are simple, but they have an M8-ish quality about them.
—Peter.
Heh heh…when you put it that way, it doesn’t sound like much of a compliment…
🙂
Nice recovery.
I’m glad the two of you are starting to make peace (…you and the M, that is).
Dr. Kaufman is another matter…
M.
You’ve been reading the tabloids again.
Wonderful photo Peter. Light and composition very nice.
Very happy to hear you are having a good early experience with the 240 and you are making nice progress on the output. I think I mentioned a little while ago I tried one in store and I found it ergonomically very nice to hold and use. Nicer than the MM in my opinion from a straight off the cuff perspective. Shutter was quieter, built in thumb aspect and slightly larger size felt good at the time.
What are your thoughts here overall (there will be other points I did not have time to explore)?
I believe you’ve covered the salient points, and yes, ergonomics have definitely improved.
I will mention that banding is apparent in images at ISO 3200, and maybe even at lower ISO values if you need to push exposure in post. This is not expected in a high-end CMOS sensor in 2013, but was something I was anticipating given the sample images I had played with prior to owning the M240.
The live view feature works well enough, but for some reason many of my images taken via live view look washed out during playback when I’m zooming in at 100%. The original file is okay (i.e., not corrupted), but in-camera playback has this odd “feature”. It’s another example of the electronic gremlins I’ve come to expect from Leica.
All in all, and despite the above, it’s a very nice camera.
Thanks Peter. Appreciate your time and a bit of detail I did not expect! Interesting on the live view front….I guess most importantly the original file is ok.
Disappointing to some degree regarding the banding, though I’m also not surprised. I personally feel the whole high ISO “subject” has run ahead of technology itself (there is an expectation now in the photography community) and in reality it will take more time to really mature that technology and that finer detail. That said there may be other CMOS sensor’s out there that have dealt with this issue better than the M240.
BTW I went to the movies to see Gravity. Oh My Goodness what a movie!
Finally your framed print is now on the wall in our house for all to see!
Might have been mentioned in another blog but…
Did you manually code the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8?
(and it seems that – like me – you also own the Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit – do you find the focal lengths too close to carry/use both lenses?)
Answer to first question: no.
As for the second question, I no longer own the 28/2.8.
Prosophos 
Very nice composition and the first picture taken with the M240 that I really like.
Thank you sir.
Cher Peter,
Sweet like a nice dream!
Light, just like your composition and framing … your work wonders!
I do not forget your beautiful model (with all due respect) …
Good Sunday!
your friend.
Hugues.
Thank you dear Hugues – and yes, my lovely “model” deserves much credit!
Nice use of angles Peter.
I don’t see any problem with the rendering here whatsoever! What was the ISO? The shadow detail seems nicely preserved…
Anyway, I’ll help you get started:
“Dear. Dr. Kaufman,
My name is Peter, but my friends just call me Prosophos…”
You’re simply *hilarious* my friend. Your wife must laugh, and laugh, and laugh…
Thanks for noticing the angles, as I’m quite pleased with this (tricky) 21mm FOV composition. As Hugues notes above, however, my daughter deserves much of the credit for being so agreeable.
To answer your question, the ISO was 1600. My comfort zone with the M9 was 640.
As for Dr. Kaufman, and anybody else visiting this site, hopefully it is understood that I am passionate about digital rangefinders, as they are my preferred cameras, and that constructive criticism is a healthy thing.
I’ve only had a few days with the M240, but I believe I’ve made some progress in working with its colour signature. Check out tomorrow’s post to see what I mean. The colours are simple, but they have an M8-ish quality about them.
—Peter.
Heh heh…when you put it that way, it doesn’t sound like much of a compliment…
🙂
Nice recovery.
I’m glad the two of you are starting to make peace (…you and the M, that is).
Dr. Kaufman is another matter…
M.
You’ve been reading the tabloids again.
Wonderful photo Peter. Light and composition very nice.
Very happy to hear you are having a good early experience with the 240 and you are making nice progress on the output. I think I mentioned a little while ago I tried one in store and I found it ergonomically very nice to hold and use. Nicer than the MM in my opinion from a straight off the cuff perspective. Shutter was quieter, built in thumb aspect and slightly larger size felt good at the time.
What are your thoughts here overall (there will be other points I did not have time to explore)?
I believe you’ve covered the salient points, and yes, ergonomics have definitely improved.
I will mention that banding is apparent in images at ISO 3200, and maybe even at lower ISO values if you need to push exposure in post. This is not expected in a high-end CMOS sensor in 2013, but was something I was anticipating given the sample images I had played with prior to owning the M240.
The live view feature works well enough, but for some reason many of my images taken via live view look washed out during playback when I’m zooming in at 100%. The original file is okay (i.e., not corrupted), but in-camera playback has this odd “feature”. It’s another example of the electronic gremlins I’ve come to expect from Leica.
All in all, and despite the above, it’s a very nice camera.
Thanks Peter. Appreciate your time and a bit of detail I did not expect! Interesting on the live view front….I guess most importantly the original file is ok.
Disappointing to some degree regarding the banding, though I’m also not surprised. I personally feel the whole high ISO “subject” has run ahead of technology itself (there is an expectation now in the photography community) and in reality it will take more time to really mature that technology and that finer detail. That said there may be other CMOS sensor’s out there that have dealt with this issue better than the M240.
BTW I went to the movies to see Gravity. Oh My Goodness what a movie!
Finally your framed print is now on the wall in our house for all to see!
Might have been mentioned in another blog but…
Did you manually code the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8?
(and it seems that – like me – you also own the Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit – do you find the focal lengths too close to carry/use both lenses?)
Answer to first question: no.
As for the second question, I no longer own the 28/2.8.