Brought to you by me, and the Leica M9 and 50mm Summilux ASPH f/1.4.
I unhesitatingly concede this, even though my original post about the SL postulated that this camera might actually kill Leica.
I no longer believe this to be the case, though I still have to question who the intended customer for the SL is (hint: it’s not the professional photographer, no matter what the marketing and some review sites may say).
Now, I will admit, I may be wrong about this too, but getting back to the topic of this post…
The more output I’ve seen from this camera, the more I think that Leica is using their (patented?) Tomato-Face™ technology, first quietly introduced on the Leica M (Type 240). It’s a more refined version though, with a more subtle tomato rendering.
What is Tomato-Face™ technology? It’s the high tech advancement in digital imaging processing that converts — on-camera — natural Caucasian skin tones to a red-speckled La Tomatina (Spain’s Tomato Festival) participant’s complexion.
↑image courtesy of LaTomatina.org
You aren’t convinced that this is possible? Have a look at some of the online images and then get back to me.
Once again, Leica, I’m advising you — for your own good: please bring back an updated CCD sensor for your next Leica M camera (see My Open Letter to Leica – over 600 photographers agree).
On an earlier post, Mads asked if I had to test several copies of my recently acquired Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens, before deciding on the one I own.
The answer is: no. The first one I evaluated was perfect.
My camera dealer’s Nikon D810 has been calibrated (by Nikon) and the Sigma 35 I tried was focusing perfectly at near focus, mid-distance, and infinity. On my D810, which is not perfectly calibrated, I need to set the camera to +5 micro-focus adjustment. This is the same adjustment I need to make to my Nikon 85mm 1/4G (which is also functioning perfectly), in order to achieve proper focus on my camera-lens combination.
I additionally tried out a used copy of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, and it was focusing perfectly. My dealer also had a new copy of the same lens, but it was unfortunately front-focusing by about an 3 cm (this shouldn’t dissuade people from buying Sigma lenses… the first few Nikon 58/1.4G lenses I tried were also a little off, and — as already stated above — so is my Nikon D810).
I hope that helps, Mads. By the way, if you ever plan on visiting Toronto, let me know and it will be my pleasure to welcome you to my city.
I’ve always found DPREVIEW‘s studio comparison tool useful when evaluating cameras for resolution.
Here is the entire scene (I’ve added the numbers with red circles):
↑studio comparison tool © DPREVIEW.
Now here is the comparison I ran with four cameras of interest (using RAW files).
I specifically focused on the numbered areas above.
Let me know what you think…
This image was taken at the same time as all of my other recently posted images, before I realized that my 58/1.4 lens was front-focusing.
The intended focus here was the near eye, but the actual focus ended up being on the front of the hat.
Still, I like this image.
(Andreas: the background buildings are the same yellow-ish buildings🙂 )
I fine-tuned the focusing on my 58/1.4 lens this evening.
As I suspected, it was off.
I suppose I could be annoyed that it needed a “+15” adjustment, but I’m mostly relieved that it can be corrected easily.
[Edit (November 21): Upon further testing – in daylight🙂 – it turns out I need to make a +18 adjustment!]
A roll of 120 film on the Mamiya RZ67 allows for exactly 10 photographs.
I used 3 of those frames tonight to photograph Honey — just because I love shooting the RZ67, and I hadn’t for a while, so I was itching… because good things happen when I pick up the RZ67.
(and Honey makes for a willing model)
More to follow.
(currently scanning the images… 9 out of 10 are worth keeping)
Yes, I did it.
I managed to burn a hole in my M3 shutter curtain.
After all of these years… this is a first. I had read about it but never really worried about it.
As far as I can tell, it was caused by not having the lens cap on while I was outside in intense sunlight (at the Blue Jays game). My uncapped lens likely focused the rays of light onto a small area of the shutter cloth and — voila! — a hole was created.
This is what the hole was doing to all of my film images:
(iPhone shot of a scanned image on my computer screen)
Fortunately the curtain can be easily repaired/patched.
Now I have to reconsider my w(hole) modus operandi for shooting. I have been using my lenses with protective hoods and filters but no lens caps.
Sometimes, you just have to hang on.
Technical: 1/30 sec.
Technical #2: My Leica M3 is broken (curtain issue). I thought the (now sold) 50/2 Jahre was flaring badly, but the same bright spot I was seeing in its images appears in the centre of most of my images with 35 Summicron ASPH. Bummer! Thank goodness I took two quick images of this scene and this (second) image was okay. Thank you also to my friend Mark (If Time Stood Still) for help with the diagnosis.
If you have been following along, my last few posts contain photographs created with Undisclosed Lens #3.
So far, I’ve only shot with it on film.
I decided to examine central sharpness, wide open, on the Leica M9.
Here is the original test shot:
And here is the central crop of the above image, at 100%:
(focus was on the “T” of the word “Teas”)
Once again, I’m quite impressed with this lens.
A lot of fungus.
It was described as “mint” by the seller in Japan.
To his credit, he has sent me a replacement lens. It’s not quite as nice cosmetically, but the glass is clean (other than dust, which all of these Mamiya RZ lenses seem to attract in great quantity).
Yet, I wonder if I should keep and pay for the eukaryotic-exotic first lens?
It seems to perform spectacularly.