Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had the M-P 240 for a good while. I probably don't stress my cameras as much as others as I never saw any banding at all. As an all raw shooter, whatever color the raw files might have tended to never affected me since I applied my own CCP to the raw files and they came up the colors that I wanted.
But i will say that, having moved to the M10-R and M10-M, I'm much happier with them overall. They just work the way I want, and the M10-M in particular seems to have extremely broad dynamic range and dazzling acutance, amazing ISO capability too.
Photographic equipment-wise, we live in a time of almost miraculous plenty.
G
But i will say that, having moved to the M10-R and M10-M, I'm much happier with them overall. They just work the way I want, and the M10-M in particular seems to have extremely broad dynamic range and dazzling acutance, amazing ISO capability too.
Photographic equipment-wise, we live in a time of almost miraculous plenty.
G
Archiver
Mentor
As an aside, I totally agree. My first digital camera was the Canon S45 in 2002, and while the images were great by those day's standards, they aren't the best today, and the video was execrable even in those days. Cameras from even ten years ago are ample for most needs, certainly the needs of enthusiasts and most professionals. A Nikon D750 with low mileage goes for under a thousand dollars in Australia, and there are many reasonably priced Nikon lenses, for example. We are spoiled for choice.Photographic equipment-wise, we live in a time of almost miraculous plenty.
G
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
My first digital was a Canon A590 so yeah, I get what you mean. Next was a Olympus E-PL1 and that was a hell of a jump ahead.
Funny you should mention the D750, I'm looking at them here in the US - many decent ones are available with less than 50K on the shutter for under USD$600. I hope to get one next month to upgrade from my D7100. The Nikon lenses are silly cheap too.
Archiver
Mentor
When I look back at my S45 images, they were decent in good light but pretty bad in low light. Dynamic range in challenging scenes like late afternoon was terrible, though. Compare that with my Panasonic LX10, which has a 1 inch sensor, f1.4 max aperture, ISO useable up to 3200, not to mention crisp 4k video. The dynamic range of that sensor, especially with raw processing, is worlds apart. A camera like this would never have occurred to me 20 years ago. Has it really been that long?
Even though I have a Panasonic S5, the thought of picking up a D750 and two or three fast primes for less than the cost of a new mirrorless camera tickles my fancy.
Getting back to the M10 - this thread has piqued my interest in the M10 again, although I'd have to think carefully about either unloading some gear or continuing to stockpile for purchase. In the meantime, M9 it is.
Gordon Moat
Established
Just with digital, and modern lenses, there tends to be a more clinical approach, especially an over-emphasis on sharpness. If sharpness is the goal, then the most modern lenses will get you there. If you want images that feel less clinical, and favour human skin better, then you want to look at rendering instead of sharpness. I realize this can be controversial for some people. I do have an incredibly sharp set-up in digital, though I tune that with Pro Mist filters, or adapting older film camera lenses.
In Leica M-mount, I’ve found a 50mm, after tons of looking at images and rendering, of which I find I like the results. This probably will not eliminate my search for the ultimate 50mm, though it’s good for now. That current 50mm is the Voigtländer Nokton f1,5 lens. It’s not the sharpest 50mm, though I find a good balance of detail and defocus rendering.
In 90mm my desire was much more to a lens I find flattering for portraits, and good for detail capture. That lens is the Leica 90mm f2,8 Elmarit-M. It’s a fairly old 1990s version, with the sliding built-on lens hood. It should be very budget friendly.
While I was looking for a 28mm originally, I decided on 35mm in M-mount, because I have several other camera systems that well cover 28mm. However, I would probably go with a Zeiss Biogon design there too. My 35mm is the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2,0 Biogon. This has been chosen for rendering, and evenness towards the edges of the frame. The Zeiss 28mm is very similar in rendering.
In Leica M-mount, I’ve found a 50mm, after tons of looking at images and rendering, of which I find I like the results. This probably will not eliminate my search for the ultimate 50mm, though it’s good for now. That current 50mm is the Voigtländer Nokton f1,5 lens. It’s not the sharpest 50mm, though I find a good balance of detail and defocus rendering.
In 90mm my desire was much more to a lens I find flattering for portraits, and good for detail capture. That lens is the Leica 90mm f2,8 Elmarit-M. It’s a fairly old 1990s version, with the sliding built-on lens hood. It should be very budget friendly.
While I was looking for a 28mm originally, I decided on 35mm in M-mount, because I have several other camera systems that well cover 28mm. However, I would probably go with a Zeiss Biogon design there too. My 35mm is the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2,0 Biogon. This has been chosen for rendering, and evenness towards the edges of the frame. The Zeiss 28mm is very similar in rendering.
35photo
Well-known
M10 and don’t look back!
TL7
Member
When I shoot digital these days..there is always some kind of soft focus filter on the lens. I just like the look.
Digital is way too edgey imo..needs some filtration.
Digital is way too edgey imo..needs some filtration.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I dunno. I don't see my digital photos as being overly sharp. In some cases, I found the default settings that LR comes with for sharpening were too much for a given camera and I backed them down, saved the new settings as a default for that camera.
I use exactly the same lenses with my M4-2 as I do with my M10-M and M10-R, and the results I see on B&W film and out of the other two are very similar.
G
I use exactly the same lenses with my M4-2 as I do with my M10-M and M10-R, and the results I see on B&W film and out of the other two are very similar.
G
Archiver
Mentor
Funny, but I loooove the sharpness that digital can bring, particularly with cameras with no AA filter like the M9, the Ricoh GR and the Sigma DP cameras. At the same time, I've become interested in Glimmerglass filtration, so I'll probably get one to experiment with on my modern lenses like the Sigma 18-35 and 24-105.
f.hayek
Well-known
TL7
Member
I bought a bunch of them in different strengths last year. For my Sigma/Panny/Sony & Leica systems.
Got 67mm for my largest lens filter size and lens step up rings and a universal adapter for the odd size lenses.
I use K&F because they are cheeper. I do ad work for my company and photos and video work w/people and the filters are indispensible.
I recently got the 39mm Urth filters for my Leica M lenses and they are nice and small and worth the cost. They are glued to those lenses. Put em on and forget em. Your wife will thank you for it!
This is a deep rabbit hole to go down and can cost a lot as they all look different. Just go to youtube for reviews and comparisons.
I used to use older lenses at or close to wide open for the softer look but the filters are way better. Esp where skin tones are concerned. And definately under artificial light. Or when lights are in frame.
I even got a couple of SF Lensbaby's in 28/56 and they work good too but are extreme unless stopped down.
To give and example I have a f1.0 noctilux that I used to use to soften everything up...but under artificial lights skin still looks terribly scratchy and even that lens needed a filter.
Last edited: