Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/12/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ken: I understand how you feel. I had an M2 in the 70s. I sold it during a bout of poverty, then found later that collecting had driven up the price of M cameras beyond my reach. I had to make do with a Retina, a IIIf and an OM-2 for years. If you "get" Leica, then nothing else is quite the same. You'll get it back eventually. You might want to pick up a film M and one of the less pricey 50mm lenses for the interim, if that would keep you in the the groove. In the meantime, the E-M5 is quite nice, and very versatile. The 20/1.7 is a great lens, and the 45/1.8 is even better. I picked up the Oly because it checked all the boxes for stuff I wanted that a rangefinder wasn't so good at, and it seemed the sweet spot for image quality vs. size and weight and realistic cost. So we were thinking along the same lines. Maybe I've got some OM DNA in my bloodstream along with Leica, because I am finding the little E-M5 engaging. It's a different mindset, but one can have a lot of fun with it. It can be a point-and-shoot. It can be a quasi-SLR. It can also be the cutest little miniature view camera that can take any lens on the planet. And you get double your focal length on your long lenses. --Peter > Having given up all of my Leica equipment to a non-photographer ex-wife, I > am taking the majority of photos using my E-M5 with the Panny 20 mm or Zuiko > 45 mm now. > > Not surprisingly, I was doing better with the M8 and 35/1.4 at 640 than I > have been with the E-M5 at 400. > > A part of the difference comes not from the technical attributes of the > cameras and lenses, but I have always found Leicas to be "engaging." I > probably squeeze the shutter release with more determination, with my breath > held and between the heart beats. With the E-M5, I am only slightly more > engaged than I am with the iPhone. Also the Leica is a lot steadier in hand, > too. > > Also, I have a feeling that the in-body stabilization is turned off above > some shutter speed. If I am not careful, I often get blurry pictures with > the E-M5, I've found. > > Still, the E-M5 is not a bad camera: it's probably capable of producing the > finest quality images for the money/size than just about all others cameras > in existence, but it just isn't a Leica, period. > > I am dreaming of the day I can buy a Monochrom and an M, with an > APO-Summicron 50mm and a few other drool-worthy lenses... 21/1.4, 28/2.0... > Then a 50/1.4 and a APO 90/2.0 again... > > Sigh. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 9:13 PM, Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> wrote: > > > thanks > > > > ric > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Peter Klein <pklein at threshinc.com> wrote: > > > >> The following is unscientific, but probably useful. These pictures were > >> shot at the same house, in the same general situation (festive > >> occasions), with much the same lighting, some of the same people, and too > >> much food. The difference is that the first picture of each pair below > >> was taken with a Leica M8 and 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH at ISO 640. The > >> second picture of each pair (Christmas Eve this year) was taken with an > >> OM-D E-M5 and a Panasonic 20/1.7 at ISO 3200. Each pair was taken at > >> roughly the same place, and so has similar lighting unless the bulbs were > >> changed to something different in between the pictures. > >> > >> Both lenses were used somewhere between wide open and closed down one > >> stop. Everything was shot RAW and processed with Capture One, using the > >> defaults, and making the white balance look reasonably good to my eye, > >> but without my trying to go against the basic nature of the camera. > >> > >> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/erevxmas2011/L1008813.jpg.html> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240049-w.jpg.html> > >> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/NewYear2011-12/L1009035.jpg.html> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240053-w.jpg.html> > >> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/erevxmas2011/L1008832.jpg.html> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240067-w.jpg.html> > >> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/friends/ErevXmas09/L1005913.jpg.html> > >> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/xmaseve2012/PC240069-w.jpg.html> > >> > >> Feel free to browse the rest of the folders if you want to see more. > >> > >> Here's what I'm seeing so far: > >> > >> 1. The M8 with 35mm Summilux is clearly sharper when properly focused. > >> But the E-M5 with 20/1.7 is quite usable. Note that the difference in > >> sharpness is less when both cameras are set at ISO 800, but it is still > >> there, and you can see it even in these Web-sized JPGs. > >> 2. Despite the E-M5's wonderful image stabilization, I can get sharper > >> shots at ~1/60 with the M8 than I can with the E-M5. > >> 3. The M8 is biased towards pink/magenta, the E-M5 towards yellow. (Yes, > >> I'm using an IR filter on the M8). > >> 4. The E-M5 at 3200 is a bit noisier than the M8 at 640. From other > >> sessions not shown here, I see that at 800/640 the E-M5 seems a little > >> less noisy than the M8 in the shadows. So 1600 may be the "sweet spot" > >> for the E-M5. I'm going to shoot New Year's Eve at ISO 1600 rather than > >> 3200, and see how that fares. > >> > >> --Peter > >>