The TrekEarth Forums

The TrekEarth Forums (
-   Tips-Techniques (
-   -   Leica M8 Digital SLR (

Luko 10-04-2006 11:47 AM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
the Hyperfocal distances in the same way on a lens as it was written, or does it make a difference?

I would say it does not (make a difference)... though I haven't sought for mathematical evidence of that...

Hyperfocal distance is correlated with once you state that DOF remains similar, hyperfocal shouldn't change.

At first thought, you remember that the sensors crop factor increases DOF, on the other hand the longer the lens, the less DOF you get. What these are only symptoms, not the explanation.

I would suspect that the DOF decrease due to a longer lens equivalent (31 instead of 24) should be neutralized by the DOF increase due to smaller sensor. In fact both are the same..And what I'm saying is redundant, it just tends to prove that the digital crop factor is simply a zoom on a virtual full frame.. hence why the Hyperfocal would change?

Of course, like I said, don't trust me when it comes to optical calculatio... this was just my two cents.


nerve 10-04-2006 12:22 PM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
yes, neutralization is very logical conclusion i guess..
Thanks Luko! gave me the idea now.. :)

nerve 10-04-2006 12:31 PM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
sure you are right, but this is not a question for a night time quiz, ;o))!

(a leica lense wide open never puts you down Emile btw, -more or less! :) people dont take loans from the banks for vignetting and flare thank you very much, LOL!)


Furachan 10-04-2006 02:12 PM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
Oh...I don't know about THAT! have you ever tried?;o)

nerve 10-04-2006 02:22 PM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
nope, but maybe i will have to! ;o)

AdrianW 10-31-2006 10:54 PM

Re: Leica M8 Digital SLR
Michael Reichmann seems to like it, here's his <a href="">M8 review @ luminous-landscape</a> for those who haven't seen it yet.

Furachan 11-01-2006 12:47 AM

Re: m6
Yes, and Luko, Maciej, I think there is also a different "look" to Leica M shots - perhasp not as claustrophbically composed as with an SLR but more precise in terms of the "moment" captured, not tomention the bloody luminosity of both BW neagtives and color chromes.
We only have to look at Arnau's MP shots from Vietnam as well as Luko's two recent upload (this entry dates Novemebr 1) to se exactly what I mean. Moe than grain, more than just "bokeh", it's a combination, a cacophony of graphical elements that make up that "look". Oh and yu see it in Animes's output too, of curse.

kinginexile 11-01-2006 05:14 AM

Re: m6
can you explain, Francis, or anyone where the camera is layering its cacophony on top of Luko's compositional choices? Understanding of course, that Luko has not done any digital editing (save scanning) from the B&W bath processing, so as to keep the M effect pure. Is it a result of how the light and shadows respond to each other within the same emulsion? If this was a shot from a DSLR, what would the differences at the outcome, that could never be made up, thru PS editing, and will instantly say: Leica M. On that very shot, I mean. wouldn't we have to see a print directly from the negative to really get the specific trademark results of those cameras?


Luko 11-01-2006 02:12 PM

Re: m6

I dont think the "cacophony" francis is talking about, and as I understand it, is a result of film difference. Rangefinders cameras, like the Leica M, make it more possible because of its 200% viewfinder, while a SLR provides a usual 93% view (% of the picture you'll get by clicking : the figures mean that in a slr viewfinder you see less than what you get, hence there'll be a hand poking in you've not seen at the moment you click, whereas you see in a rangefinder the surrounidngs of your frame, you're then sure of what is into your frame and WHAT WILL BE if you wait for a 1/10th sec more.).

Therefore the rangefinder camera is a tool that allows more complicated composition than a SLR. Some photogs, like Maciek, who inspires from rangefinder photogs (like Webb) can get as complicated composition but I guess they must sweat some tears and blood before they get it spot on.

On the lens quality, there is really something about Leitz lenses. On a benchmark, Canon lenses are sharper, but Leitz lenses have a special edge that is very difficult to define until you've seen a Leica print. I mean Canon is absolutely tack sharp, while Leitz is reasonnably sharp ALL OVER, specially on the edges and with great middle range transition, i's like a diffence between 8bits and 16bits. It seems from Michael Reichmann luminous landscape review of the M8 that the digital Leica can still retain that special twist of the Leitz lenses (you should red it to get some explanation about the Leica feel.

Also, Leitz lenses are very good in finding details in dark areas, while Nikon or Canon gives you back a solid black. I'd believe the way they are built and the rare minerals they're built from increase the exposure array that can be packed into a photo.


kinginexile 11-01-2006 07:01 PM

Re: m6
thanks, Luko. This would bring another question. This means that you never crop your leica shots, having decided excatly at the time of shooting what will be in and out, and is it something you would more likely do with your DSLR. The M8, will it be the 200% WF?

And in terms of having used a non-Lieca DSLR, what would be the adjustments one would need to make, and features one would have to do without, if going M8?


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.