[jjcha]

That's a lovely casual portrait...is it with a 35mm on the M8?

Yeah, soon after getting the R-D1 I got the 28mm f/1.9 and the 50mm f/1.5. Both were great fun on the camera, but in the end I decided to return them and just get a 35mm. Largely because this is all still new to me, and it seems right to learn with just one lens for a while. Of course I couldn't resist and had to get the 35mm 1.2 Nokton...

it's a monster of a lens, but coming from the DSLR world, it's still a compact kit for me.

I'll admit, a compact M8 with a nice little (relatively) 35mm lux is rather tempting. But I think I've got plenty to learn and play with before I feel the need to upgrade.

Anyhow, I just got the lens yesterday so it's time to take some photos...

Best,

-Jason

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nikon D50 is a good one. Based on what I've read, I would prefer it greatly over the new D40.

Between these two, you win some, you lose some.

The D50 cannot format any SDHC card (which is any SD card larger than 2GB in size) with its currently available firmware version. The D40 supports SDHC cards out of the box.

Second, the D40 has a better histogram (an RGB color histogram, versus the green-channel-only monochrome histogram that's in the D50). However, the D40's metering isn't as accurate as the one in the D50.

Third, if you bought the body/lens kit, you'll find that the D50 kit comes with the older version of the 18-55mm zoom lens (the one that's about 3/4" longer in physical length than the one that's included with the D40 kit). No big deal between these two kit zoom lenses, however, as they're optically identical to one another; however, Nikon is now manufacturing only the newer, shorter verson of the zoom. (The more expensive D80/18-55 kit comes with the older version lens for the time being; eventually, that kit will come with the newer lens.)

And of course, the D40 will not autofocus with a lens which lacks a built-in autofocus motor (the D50 will). However, the D50's built-in autofocus motor (which is needed to autofocus a lens which lacks a built-in motor, such as almost all of the prime AF Nikkor lenses) is much noisier than the integral motor built into any AF-S Nikkor lens. Also, the D50 has five autofocus zones/points versus only three on the D40.

 

[stuartr]

Sorry Dave, the assassins page was just set up for the band and the manager to review, so it is not really integrated into the site very well. I just put it up there when everything was done because I liked some of the images and was too lazy to make a new page. As for 500mm lenses, unless I am shooting wildlife, what's the point? The longest lens I regularly use is a 75mm (100mm on the M8). Who said "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"? Was it Erwitt? Anyway, this is the longest I have used, a 180mm with 2x converter on a 1.37 Leica DSLR, so about 500mm...

or a little closer

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a lovely casual portrait...is it with a 35mm on the M8? Yeah, soon after getting the R-D1 I got the 28mm f/1.9 and the 50mm f/1.5. Both were great fun on the camera, but in the end I decided to return them and just get a 35mm. Largely because this is all still new to me, and it seems right to learn with just one lens for a while. Of course I couldn't resist and had to get the 35mm 1.2 Nokton... it's a monster of a lens, but coming from the DSLR world, it's still a compact kit for me. I'll admit, a compact M8 with a nice little (relatively) 35mm lux is rather tempting. But I think I've got plenty to learn and play with before I feel the need to upgrade. Anyhow, I just got the lens yesterday so it's time to take some photos... Best, -Jason

Thanks Jason. Yes, that's the M8 with 35/1.4 ASPH at f/2.8, ISO 320. It's a great lens. The 35/1.2 is great too though, so I don't think you will be disappointed. I think the performance is supposed to be very similar to the 35/1.4, only as you say it is a lot bigger and a half stop faster. I shot with it in the store when I was living in Japan and though it is big, it was easy to handle with a nice focus throw and great build quality. If you can live with the size I think it is a superb lens.

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who said "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"? Was it Erwitt?

I think I've seen it attributed to Robert Capa... I find his work fascinating and the quote just strikes me as capturing so much about how I want to approach photography...

Best,

-Jason

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry Dave, the assassins page was just set up for the band and the manager to review, so it is not really integrated into the site very well. I just put it up there when everything was done because I liked some of the images and was too lazy to make a new page. As for 500mm lenses, unless I am shooting wildlife, what's the point?

Ah...well there certainly are some good portraits in there, so it's definitely a keeper for your site

That is true that insane telephotos are just limited to wildlife and sports. I guess I'm also used to SLRs, where you get less lens distortion at longer focal lengths: why the 135mm was my first L series EF lens. Its perspective, optics, and bokeh are so awesome.

I'm affraid that if I see more beautiful pictures from you and Jason, I'll have to see what rangefinders are all about

Since I'm not too up on them, do they have less barrel distortion at wider angles then a comparable SLR focal length would be?

 

[stuartr]

Rangefinder wide angles, can be non-retrofocus...or these days just "less" retrofocus. It allows them to have their rear elements closer to the film plane, i.e. closer to their "natural state". This means that less severe corrections are needed to bring them into proper performance. As such, most rangefinder lenses have very little distortions of any type. The problem is that as the rear element grows closer to the film plane, the angle of incidence of the light becomes more acute. This can lead to higher vignetting. This is more severe with digital which does not deal with indirect light very well. With film it is not an issue. This is why you have only recently seen digital rangefinders, and neither of them are full frame.

But in general, since every rangefinder lens is pretty much a high quality prime (there are no zooms in rangefinders...well, not any that are like what you are used to anyway), it is extremely well optimized. It does not need to accept pincushion distortion at one end for sharpness at another end etc etc. The downside is that you have to either make do with fewer focal lengths or carry several lenses. It is a trade-off that I am happy to make. In general, telephoto lenses give better performance regardless of SLR or rangefinder...that is just optics, but there are spectacular lenses from 15mm and up with rangefinders, and even a really good 12mm.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif But in general, since every rangefinder lens is pretty much a high quality prime (there are no zooms in rangefinders...well, not any that are like what you are used to anyway), it is extremely well optimized. It does not need to accept pincushion distortion at one end for sharpness at another end etc etc. The downside is that you have to either make do with fewer focal lengths or carry several lenses. It is a trade-off that I am happy to make.

DPreview's write up of the M8 is very informative: they say how Leica worked on the angle of incidence problem with a digital sensor. They also review it with Leica's Tri Elmar M 16-18-21. I guess that's as close to a good "zoom" as you can get with a rangefinder. I'm also very oldschool with my camera preferences, and believe in the prime lens sharpness/speed over having zoom lenses with more versatility yet not as refined optics. Though the surprising thing I found when I got my Canon 5D and lenses, was that my setup is a lot bulkier and heavier then my old Canon AE-1 with FD primes!! These EF lenses are so much larger then the old FDs.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/leicam8/

As for the nature of digital, I am amazed at how quickly its matured. One of the reasons I decided to get into digital now was how well they've increased sensor sensitivity. Since the new Canon 1D Mark III will have an ISO of 6400, I wonder if Leica might work on making a sensor that has selective ISO around the edges (to help combat vignetting from the lens). As far as vignetting from FF SLR sensor goes, I'm not sure if my 5D shows more apparent vignetting then my AE-1 did. I'm never in real world situations where vignetting occurs. But we always like to cite whatever phenomenons that exist on paper as faults with the camera

 

[stuartr]

Well, not to diminish the utility of high ISO's in certain situations, but I rarely have need of anything over ISO 800. With film, I shot almost everything at ISO 100 or 400. With a prime lens it is easy to photograph at night outside with ISO 1600. I think the relentless climb in sensitivity is being driven by SLOW SLOW SLOW consumer zooms with their f/4.5-5.6 speeds and massive zoom ranges. I photographed the NYC halloween parade this year with a 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 and ISO 800 and 1600 film, no flash. It turned out great. ISO 6400 might be nice, but I would much rather have better peformance at ISO 100 than having an ISO 3200 or higher.

ISO 1600 film (Neopan)

ISO 800 film

The nice thing about high iso film compared to digital is that the shadows go black, not noisy. Of course, digital has much less grain, even if it is a nastier grain in general (uniform and in color). But the main point is that there are very few situations that absolutely require super high ISO's, particuarly if you have an f/2.8 or faster lens.

 

[GTRacer]

Did you get any problems with your M8 Stuart? I remember seeing some rather disgruntled owners on DPreview complaining. I'd love a M8 (or any rangefinder really) but I'm too poor so I'll have to settle for a Canon G7 (for now).

 

[stuartr]

No, I have not had any problems. I have been using the IR blocking filters though, and I am of the opinion that they are necessary...so that is more a limitation than a problem. In terms of the other documented problems, I got my camera after the recall, so I did not have to deal with any of that. I have not seen any banding, green blobs, strange behavior in the lights etc. I have about 2500 pictures with it by now, and no problems so far.

 

[kin0kin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it depends on the sensor! Compacts traditionally have much smaller sensors, and cramming more pixels into a unit area generally yields images with more noise

Well, I was talking about the part with lens, while you are talking about sensor. lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by akwok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Buy a D40 body for $350, slap on a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and you've got a killer setup for less than $800.

You are still stuck with manual focus with this setup. Nikon should never have written off the D50 and came out with the crappy D40(x)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well generally speaking images taken with lens aperative wide open either have major softness and/or vignetting. The exception to this rule are some of the really good expensive lenses.

Actually, the exception is "good" lenses, it need not be expensive. Even the expensive nikkor 17-55mm has more severe problems than the cheaper tamron 17-50mm.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif The nice thing about high iso film compared to digital is that the shadows go black, not noisy. Of course, digital has much less grain, even if it is a nastier grain in general (uniform and in color). But the main point is that there are very few situations that absolutely require super high ISO's, particuarly if you have an f/2.8 or faster lens.

That's true....and with a shorter focal length on a range finder, you can go for longer exposures. No matter if it's film or digital, a camera is a tool with certain parameters and limitations. A good photographer will just know how to compensate for any limitation so that they don't encounter any problems

But about ISO, I actually am pretty amazed at the quality of ISO 1600 on my 5D: it's not as bad as I had been lead to believe. Though noise is different then film.....film gave you higher contrast, but grainy highlights. Bad noise on digital just gives you weird bugger noise. I also wonder how much of preference of film now is because we grew up with film. In a few more years, there probably will be a film camp vs digital photo camp....just as there is vinyl vs CD camp

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, the exception is "good" lenses, it need not be expensive. Even the expensive nikkor 17-55mm has more severe problems than the cheaper tamron 17-50mm.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too

Lens makers must have a hard time of it....trying to figure out a lens that has optimal speed, lack of vignetting, and good bokeh. I guess you gotta pick your poison sometimes. For example, the Canon EF 50mm 1.2 is supposed to have great bokeh and is fast......but it has noticable vignetting. Wider angles would possibly have even more extremes.

 

[CMasten]

I have several Casio EXS500 and 600s and love em for 200 ea.. they take great pics and good quality video.. super slim too if your looking for something keep in the car etc.

I finally bought my first digital SLR camera and so far its amazing

 

[Mr.PD]

I have a Canon 20D that I like very well.
I had a Nikon Coolpix 8800 that was very good for what it was.

When I am able to upgrade again I will go with another Canon. Maybe the 5D or whatever replaces it in the next couple years.