Apo-Summicron 50/2 Asph. Test!

[anerjee]

If you have to ask, you will never understand why.

Originally Posted by Keith

How can a mechanical RF mechanism be more accurate than live view ... please explain jaapv because I'm not convinced here!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by jaapv

As for accuracy of focussing, the RF is not as crude as you make out. Set up properly and used expertly it will outperform any other system, including live view.

I predict that you will be telling us how live view is superior for critical work after Leica releases a camera with live view.

[jaapv]

I rather doubt that, using several cameras with live view already and vastly preferring RF.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Keith

How can a mechanical RF mechanism be more accurate than live view ... please explain jaapv because I'm not convinced here!

Just try focussing an M lens on an XPro...

[LCT]

Suffice it to recall how difficult it may be to focus manual lenses on SLRs with wides or at slow apertures. The wider the DoF the more difficult focussing through the lens proves to be and live view cannot do anything against that. RFs are unbeatable there, nothing new under the sun.

[semilog]

We were talking about critical work. On a tripod. Where one might have some hope of extracting the performance delivered by the 50mm Summicron AA. Which was the topic under discussion in this thread.

Any other issues aside, focusing by RF is not harder than focusing by live view, when the camera is on a tripod.

If the camera is not on a tripod, or supported by a 1/10,000 s strobe, the user is unlikely to extract much of the performance advantage offered by the 50mm Summicron AA. In that setting, live view is superior, because it allows you to directly examine the image falling on the sensor.

So except as an exercise -- and not even a particularly extraordinary one, given the optical design challenges presented by microscope objectives, integrated circuit steppers, aerial surveillance lenses, cell phone cameras, etc. -- what, exactly, is this lens for?

[jaapv]

From my observations, creating extraordinary photographs, also handheld. Things like superior color and contrast transitions, extraordinary shadow detail separation and beautiful OOf rendering are not dependent on tripods. That only carries the lens into fetishist sharpness, which may not be desired anyway.

[Nigel Meaby]

Originally Posted by jaapv

From my observations, creating extraordinary photographs, also handheld. Things like superior color and contrast transitions, extraordinary shadow detail separation and beautiful OOf rendering are not dependent on tripods. That only carries the lens into fetishist sharpness, which may not be desired anyway.

And all those things aren't dependent on using a lens such as the Apo- Summicron, either I think your argument is weak. Are you saying a landscape photographer using a tripod to get the best out of his/her equipment is a fetishist? All that is being said here is you won't benefit from the overall advantages of using this lens by hand holding your camera.

[EdwardKaraa]

Originally Posted by jaapv

I rather doubt that, using several cameras with live view already and vastly preferring RF.

Yep, I can agree with that

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by LCT

Suffice it to recall how difficult it may be to focus manual lenses on SLRs with wides or at slow apertures. The wider the DoF the more difficult focussing through the lens proves to be and live view cannot do anything against that. RFs are unbeatable there, nothing new under the sun.

Even cheap dslr's like the Nikon D3100 have a 100% zoom on live view that allows critical focus with even an 11mm. RF leaves a lot to be desired if you don't have a strong line in the subject to focus on. RF is generally and reasonably accurate but I believe slr and live view are easier to hit a precise focal point in many cases.

[I Love Film]

But "fetishist sharpness" has been throughout practically your whole argument for the superiority of this lens!?

Originally Posted by jaapv

From my observations, creating extraordinary photographs, also handheld. Things like superior color and contrast transitions, extraordinary shadow detail separation and beautiful OOf rendering are not dependent on tripods. That only carries the lens into fetishist sharpness, which may not be desired anyway.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by x-ray

Even cheap dslr's like the Nikon D3100 have a 100% zoom on live view that allows critical focus with even an 11mm. RF leaves a lot to be desired if you don't have a strong line in the subject to focus on. RF is generally and reasonably accurate but I believe slr and live view are easier to hit a precise focal point in many cases.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the Rangefinder concept under the light of today's technological realities.

The mechanical rangefinder began to be regarded as an antique means for focusing. Many consumer class digitals are able to focus & shoot within the duration of shutter lag of the M9 (not joking..) The features like AF-tracking, predictive focusing, multi-frames per second are offered by cameras costing less than $1K while our mechanical rangefinder was sharing almost the same technology as the one on the Linhof Technika... Morgan is a fine car, however Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini are of a totally different class.

For instance, I can not even dream to focus this fast & accurate with any on my M-bodies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE

How I wish of being able to do these with a Leica!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzP...feature=relmfu

Once upon a time Leica was the fastest camera available.. today, most certainly amongst the slowest ones...

[Moriturii]

Anyone who seriously thinks, without being drunk or high on drugs, that any rangefinder focusing mechanism is anywhere NEAR close to SLR/Live-view focusing, seriously needs their heads examined.

Rangefinder focusing (Leicas et al) is an INDIRECT method of focusing, SLR's and Live-view is a DIRECT method of focusing. Literally "what you see is what you get" and that is infinitely more accurate than any rangefinder ever could dream to be.

Anyone who says different ought to be banned for spreading miss-information to be honest, because it's not an opinion, or "a different way of looking at things", it's just WRONG and FALSE.

End of story, end of discussion.

Having said that, Rangefinder focusing is still, in real world practice, obviously, "good enough". Rangefinders has after all existed for, a century? And pictures seems to be in focus and sharp to me, but again, SLR's and Live-View from modern sensors has far surpassed rangefinders in focusing accuracy to the Nth degree.

[LCT]

Originally Posted by x-ray

Even cheap dslr's like the Nikon D3100 have a 100% zoom on live view that allows critical focus with even an 11mm...

Not at real aperture on manual mode. I don't use the AF confirm feature of my 5D with manual lenses any more. Too inaccurate compared to manual focusing with a split image screen. But the latter darkens at f/5.6 and on. RF is unbeatable here again.

[Steve Ash]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

For instance, I can not even dream to focus this fast & accurate with any on my M-bodies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE

How I wish of being able to do these with a Leica!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzP...feature=relmfu

.

I wonder why.

To shoot a subject at quite some distance at F8 as shown in the video is very easy.

I am with Jaap and prefer the rangefinder over liveview. To hold a camera at distance from my eyes is not the way I like to take photos.

Regards,
Steve

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Steve Ash

I wonder why.

To shoot a subject at quite some distance at F8 as shown in the video is very easy.

I am with Jaap and prefer the rangefinder over liveview. To hold a camera at distance from my eyes is not the way I like to take photos.

Regards,
Steve

- How about having to do it, say @f2.8? or in low-light? or at 2m distance? Especially after paying some $7K for a camera, we will take the subject to outside to employ zone focusing @f8 so that we could photograph?? (Try to do the below one with your rangefinder..)

- Have you ever noted some cameras having something called EVF or OVF enabling the user to see through an eyepiece what is seen on the LCD without needing to hold the camera at a distance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfO_JE8EB4

[mfogiel]

I imagine, that as sensor resolution will increase, the distance in test results between lenses like the APO Summicron and Planar will increase as well. It is always nice to have a perfect product for critical work or benchmarking. I am actually much more interested to find out, if Leica or anybody else, can finally make a B&W sensor that could rival the tonality of film. I think that it does not take a "perfect" lens to make an acceptable B&W photograph, but it takes a "perfect" B&W sensor to make an acceptable digital B&W image. This is very evident when you take a look at jaapv B&W photos made with the M8. So, let's see by how much the M9M has improved in this field.

[rdeleskie]

I do find it ironic that we are discussing a lens whose true capabilities apparently will not be revealed until sensor resolution increases dramatically...when Leica seems to have fallen rather far behind in this regard. This is a company whose first full-frame offering wasn't until 2009 and which, except for the M9M, hasn't been updated in over three years. Bleeding-edge resolution has never struck me as a goal of the digital M series. Isn't that what the S2 is supposed to be for?

[LCT]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

...Rangefinder focusing (Leicas et al) is an INDIRECT method of focusing, SLR's and Live-view is a DIRECT method of focusing. Literally "what you see is what you get" and that is infinitely more accurate than any rangefinder ever could dream to be. Anyone who says different ought to be banned for spreading miss-information to be honest, because it's not an opinion, or "a different way of looking at things", it's just WRONG and FALSE. End of story, end of discussion...

Sounds like you're missing DoF in your reasoning. Both SLRs and EVILs focus behind the lens and then struggle to find out the right focus when DoF is wide i.e. with wide angle lenses and at slow apertures. RFs are superior by nature in this respect. RFs do work without the intermediary of the lens and then happen to be the only direct method of focusing from this viewpoint.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by mfogiel

I imagine, that as sensor resolution will increase, the distance in test results between lenses like the APO Summicron and Planar will increase as well. It is always nice to have a perfect product for critical work or benchmarking. I am actually much more interested to find out, if Leica or anybody else, can finally make a B&W sensor that could rival the tonality of film. I think that it does not take a "perfect" lens to make an acceptable B&W photograph, but it takes a "perfect" B&W sensor to make an acceptable digital B&W image. This is very evident when you take a look at jaapv B&W photos made with the M8. So, let's see by how much the M9M has improved in this field.

I believe the difference between the two will remain the same again as they both will get benefit of the increased sensor resolution.

For a given lens and sensor format, the best way (the most efficient way) to increase resolution is to increase the MP count of the sensor.

Example: The standard Summicron 50/2 (the current version) will deliver good resolution on a 12MP-FF sensor, excellent resolution on an 18MP-FF sensor and stunning resolution on a 36MP-FF sensor. Assuming the next year we will see 54MP-FF sensor (yes, Nex-7 APS-C is 24MP x 2.25 = 54MP; i.e. the technology is readily available.) then on such a sensor our Summicron will deliver OUTSTANDING resolution to make any sharpness freak’s jaw drop. (Note that the samples I have posted above were taken with a zoom lens..)

Here is a comparison test of the D800E against the Leica S2; performed again by Ming Thein who did the Leica Monochrome review as well as the Apochromatic Summicron test. On the D800E a Zeiss lens is mounted, on the S2 one of the lenses Mr. Karbe was claiming of having "above 200 lines/mm resolution". You be the judge:


http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05...vs-leica-s2-p/

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by LCT

Sounds like you're missing DoF in your reasoning. Both SLRs and EVILs focus behind the lens and then struggle to find out the right focus when DoF is wide i.e. with wide angle lenses and at slow apertures. RFs are superior by nature in this respect. RFs do work without the intermediary of the lens and then happen to be the only direct method of focusing from this viewpoint.

Dude come on. Live view is right off the sensor. Live!

I love love love using a RF but it's a mechanical alignment with the film/sensor plane. Live view is off the sensor sans all "middleman".

[LCT]

What's dude? Live view focusses behind the lens. Inferior system at real aperture when DoF is wide as i said above.

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by LCT

What's dude? Live view focusses behind the lens. Inferior system at real aperture when DoF is wide as i said above.

Maybe there is a communication breakdown so please forgive me if what I write next is redundant or already well known to you... .

The Sensor is behind the lens so yes you focus behind the lens.
With live view you focus were you focus. Live view shows you where you have focussed that's all.
Maybe you are referring to an AF system that focusses from the sensor like Contrast detection.
With live view you see what the sensor sees and focus the lens where you want it on your subject (at your chosen distance from the focal plane).
If the lens is stopped down the DOF will be accurate to the actual DOF you will achieve from your chosen focal distance.
It is still manual focus but, direct from the sensor without a mediator that requires alignment (RF in RF camera, Viewing lens in TLR, or, focus screen in SLR).
Nothing can be more accurate.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by rdeleskie

I do find it ironic that we are discussing a lens whose true capabilities apparently will not be revealed until sensor resolution increases dramatically...when Leica seems to have fallen rather far behind in this regard. This is a company whose first full-frame offering wasn't until 2009 and which, except for the M9M, hasn't been updated in over three years. Bleeding-edge resolution has never struck me as a goal of the digital M series. Isn't that what the S2 is supposed to be for?

Huh?? The Monochrom is about 32 Mp equivalent, the M9 is 18 Mp without AA and the M10 will probably be 24 Mp . Strange ideas.... In case you haven't noticed, Mp resolution is not a quality parameter any more for the last five years...

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the Rangefinder concept under the light of today's technological realities.

The mechanical rangefinder began to be regarded as an antique means for focusing. Many consumer class digitals are able to focus & shoot within the duration of shutter lag of the M9 (not joking..) The features like AF-tracking, predictive focusing, multi-frames per second are offered by cameras costing less than $1K while our mechanical rangefinder was sharing almost the same technology as the one on the Linhof Technika... Morgan is a fine car, however Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini are of a totally different class.

For instance, I can not even dream to focus this fast & accurate with any on my M-bodies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WLvEvqMZE

How I wish of being able to do these with a Leica!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlnzP...feature=relmfu

Once upon a time Leica was the fastest camera available.. today, most certainly amongst the slowest ones...

I can - plenty of those football shots on my computer - a matter of focussing technique - practise, practise, practise.