Next M & why I have to wait...

J

jameshays

Member
Local time
4:35 AM
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
38
View My Gallery
When the M8 was announced, I like many was ecstatic. Having an M6 and now an M7 for years had me brimming with excitement over a digital M experience.

Now, after the dust has long settled, I still don't have my M8. Things changed for me professionally right after the M8 was introduced, and photography became my full time occupation. Suddenly every equipment purchase had to be a little more justified than before.
I don't do a lot of weddings, but my style requires fast glass and fast film or digi iso. The problem with technology (at least for me) is once it's out there and you are aware of it, the limitations of other technology become apparent.
Unfortunately with the current crop of high iso DSLR's and their available price points, the current M8 just won't fill my professional needs right now. If you look at the reception photos from this wedding, they were all done with a Canon 5d with a 35/1.4 wide open at 1600-3200 iso, most at 3200. From everything I've seen, this wouldn't be acceptable with the M8.

I would love to carry an M8 with a fast wide lens around my neck at weddings but it currently won't work for me and I can't justify what would basically be a 'favorite toy' right now.

I still think Leica has made a fantastic instrument and am amazed they pulled it off, but sadly...I must wait.

Hope the mkII version is right around the corner!
 
Last edited:
Beautiful wedding shots. I love my Leicas but your Canon is the way to go. I have tried similar reception shots with M6 and Noctilux and they are nowhere near as nice as yours. Instead of waiting for an M9 or whatever, may I suggest an old M2 or M3, a low cost user for your own fun photography. Leicas future is uncertain but their past has been wonderful. Joe
 
Interesting.
Nice photos from the wedding and the reception.
I've used the M8 (sparingly) at 3 weddings so far.
The most I used it was during the last one (July 19) I shot.

I'm much more apt to shoot it @ 640 ISO as that seems to be 'all I need' but, again, even in certain "dark" situations I would never use the 5D @ ISO3200; ISO1600 yes, and many times with associated flash.

If I was shooting the M8 in that situation, again, yes; with flash is how I would go.

Now, all that said, I'm not dependent on my weddings in a full time capacity - luckily I do get to shoot about 10-15 weddings a year - plenty for me - but it's not my full time gig so I respect exactly what you've stated regarding having to justify any tech decisions. I too figured that the M8 just wouldn't be able to fly for me - and I'm still trying to make it work along with the 5Ds - I'm just not ready to write it off just yet though.

Cheers,
Dave

L9990558.jpg


L9990565.jpg


L9990574.jpg
 
If its low light shooting at high ISOs you crave then you owe it to yourself to look at the Nikon D3/D700.

this shot is at ISO 9,000 lit by a couple of tea lights.

2240382601_e5175c9e95_o.jpg
 
Joe Mondello said:
If its low light shooting at high ISOs you crave then you owe it to yourself to look at the Nikon D3/D700.

this shot is at ISO 9,000 lit by a couple of tea lights.
Click to expand...

yep.. the D3/D700 is the current "king" of High ISO shots. No two ways about it.

I think I'm going to start a thread in the Philosophy section though because with the onset of clean High ISO shots, there is, I believe, a loss of "mystique" (for the lack of a better word) in the fact that grain is now looked upon as "bad" for images.

I really think the general public (and some photographers) have forgotten what grain can add to an image (and yes, detract at the same time) so, instead, we chase after High ISO values..... I wonder if Canon's 5D replacement will equal or better Nikon's algorithms...

Dave
 
Joe Mondello said:
If its low light shooting at high ISOs you crave then you owe it to yourself to look at the Nikon D3/D700.


2240382601_e5175c9e95_o.jpg
Click to expand...

That somewhat sums it up. I know the instrument I WANT to use, but with the current run of technology combined with what I need to deliver to the client (and what they expect) I have to opt for the instrument I feel I 'have' to use.
Unfortunately, when the business side is a factor, it becomes somewhat an issue of the end result or final image. In this situation, I have to go with what's best.
I hope Leica changes all that soon.
 
I know the instrument I WANT to use, but with the current run of technology combined with what I need to deliver to the client (and what they expect) I have to opt for the instrument I feel I 'have' to use.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Two film cameras loaded with BW400CN are relatively equal. Two digital cameras whose sensors are some three to four stops apart in useable low light performance are not, no matter how much sentiment you factor into the equation. 🙁
 
Oh.. I have no doubt that the digital "looks better" - but this statement will depend completely on what you're shooting and the intent of your shots.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is, the digital stuff now - for portraits - is almost to the point of being 'too sharp' - I don't want to see every nook and cranny on someone's face. I don't want to see pock marks, stray eyebrow hair or such that seems to just 'show up more' in digital versus film. In the film days, one would (or could) slap on a Zeiss softar I onto their lens and you'd end up with a pleasing result. Today, you have to retouch, I feel, more so, to "soften up" the image. I may not be getting my words out properly today...

I guess I just wonder what we did BEFORE the advent of clean High ISO - you would think, based on what we see here, that any images shot on B&W 3200 speed film were "crap" and not worth the paper they were printed on.

Dave
 
I also think digital is too perfect and have actually started to shoot more and more film... I just love the film workflow for weddings (shoot, send to my lab and get proofs and high-res scans in a week... love it!)

Cheers,
 
So, basically, what you're saying is that film is no longer of any use (wrt your particular application)?

I'm not a "film" vs "digital" type of guy (just like I'm not a Canon 5D vs Leica M8 type of guy.. different cameras, different systems, each having their own benefits/drawbacks - I could just as well replace the M8 in that phrase with the M7.. but I hope you get what I mean) but I really want to know if digital is main reason that we now think "pffft.. ISO3200 B&W film is horrible!!" - and by that I mean, are we going to go back and look at old photos shot on film some day and say "Well.. that image is horrible; look at all that grain" now that we have "clean" digital images?

That, to me, would be a concern - just as "sharpness" seems to now mean more to people than composition in an image.

Dave
 
Dave, I think that high iso film shooting generally has an impressionistic quality, while high iso digital looks more "realistic" to most people.

Wedding shooting, in particular, is a trendy business, and if your customers are expecting clean low-light images, then "impressionistic" might not make them happy.
 
Leicasniper, how are you scanning your film and what format were the images recorded in? I have yet to see anything digital that can match my drum scans of 4x5 chrome film (except perhaps the new round of 50MP+ MF backs). Sorry, but that's reality. Now if we are talking 35mm scanned on a pro-sumer flatbed or even a Nikon 5000, then yeah, the hat tips in favor of digital. So I think it's important to qualify your statements when you claim the digital prints were favored over the film images.
 
kevin m said:
Dave, I think that high iso film shooting generally has an impressionistic quality, while high iso digital looks more "realistic" to most people.

Wedding shooting, in particular, is a trendy business, and if your customers are expecting clean low-light images, then "impressionistic" might not make them happy.
Click to expand...

Oh.. most definitely - but I wonder if this "trend" would continue and extend to other forms of photography.

I'm just concerned that we're missing an important part of photography in the quest for clean high ISO images - I'm worried that kids in the next generation will look at classic HCB images (or what have you) and claim "The image sucks because . . . (insert whatever digital benefit here)"

I think we've all seen the thread on Flickr regarding a classic HCB image that got booted from a group because it wasn't "sharp"...that's the thing that's going to concern me moving forward.

Dave
 
dcsang said:
I guess I just wonder what we did BEFORE the advent of clean High ISO - you would think, based on what we see here, that any images shot on B&W 3200 speed film were "crap" and not worth the paper they were printed on.

Dave
Click to expand...

That's what's so frustrating to me. If I was using an M8 for weddings in 1999, it might be hailed as the finest photographic instrument ever. Unfortunately, technology moves forward and people react. Professionals take advantage of these tools, and clients become all too aware of what's available.
 
dcsang said:
Oh.. most definitely - but I wonder if this "trend" would continue and extend to other forms of photography.

I'm just concerned that we're missing an important part of photography in the quest for clean high ISO images - I'm worried that kids in the next generation will look at classic HCB images (or what have you) and claim "The image sucks because . . . (insert whatever digital benefit here)"

I think we've all seen the thread on Flickr regarding a classic HCB image that got booted from a group because it wasn't "sharp"...that's the thing that's going to concern me moving forward.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave:

I wouldn't worry about that. There will always be technical folks that only care about a perfect image (you know what our friend Buissink says about such statement) but a bad shot is a bad shot even if shot at ISO 1,000,000 that is as clean as ISO 25 😀

Cheers,
 
Lately I've been shooting my m8 ONLY on ISO 2500. Mainly it was because I was tired of seeing people complain about the bad noise which turned out is because they simply weren't exposing properly but I also wanted to start pushing the camera to its limits more and see what I could do with that. Now let me also add that the M8's noise is far from what the current crop of Digi cams can offer, it's grittier, moodier, and certainly not perfect for every situation, but I've been making it work for me lately.

l1005400.jpg


l1005408.jpg


edit: I should also mention the first shot was under moonlight and the second, she was light only by the glow of the television and it is a sizable crop from the original.
 
Last edited:
tmfabian, wonderful shoots

I dont hesitate go up iso 25000 with Rd1, and for my preffered grainity, Trix400@1600 is the benchmark for me. So if the sensor improves further, I must have use higher iso etc.
 
Well,

I'm definitely going to start testing the limits of the camera - because, really, I'd love to shoot at 2500 - I tend to "hold back" to the ISO below the top end but hey, if others can do it, why can't I?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom