colonel
Established
They were talking about the new interchangeable lens CSC which will be APS-C
willie_901
Veteran
I suppose M9 users also see no need for the increase in dynamic range that accompanies the high signal-to-noise ratio of cameras like the new Canon.
colonel
Established
what's the point of comments like this ?
all M9 owners would like improved dynamic range, more pixels, better ISo, better LCD screen, electronic bright lines, live view, etc.
like, BTW, every canon and Nikon owner
what we don't want is AF, a new mount, loads more buttons and useless functionality
the M series is unique and fantastic. the size and feel is just right, there is no point making it into an slt/slr
the question whether it's necessary for our photography is something else.
it's unlikely that any new technology can make the m9 more dazzlingly sharp at base ISo.
I shoot at base ISO 90% of the time. I also use wide open apertures more then 50% of the time.
I would like a better sensor or course but I don't feel I am missing out.
I also think the current sensor in the m9 is excellent.
BTW no one has any objection to Leica making a cool new csc (although it should be a cut above the competition).
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
that's a mighty rubbery term you use there!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
This I agree.
But most of the time I see (read, hear, whichever) hand-wringing about high ISO performance while coupled with daylight shots of cats and flowers.
Get over it people, we've been strung (think carrots) by the manufacturers, and we don't even realize it.
Just to be clear, detectives, cave spelunkers, divers, and super high-speed sport photographers among the *minority* who actually have any grounds for caring about this.
This I agree.
But most of the time I see (read, hear, whichever) hand-wringing about high ISO performance while coupled with daylight shots of cats and flowers.
Get over it people, we've been strung (think carrots) by the manufacturers, and we don't even realize it.
Just to be clear, detectives, cave spelunkers, divers, and super high-speed sport photographers among the *minority* who actually have any grounds for caring about this.
Well, I've got very shaky hands, so I like to be at 1/250th a second even in low light. Also, shooting in low light with actual deep depth of field is quite nice too. I routinely use 3200 on my Fuji X100.
Sure, some people do well with f/1.1 at 1/8th of a second, but others would rather be at f/4 at 1/250th of a second for their photos. There is no one way to do things.
Ben Z
Veteran
Higher ISO's are not necessary for me. If there turn out to be other improvements in the M10 which I find advantageous for myself and overall consider worth the princely sum Leica will undoubtedly charge, then I will buy it and do exactly as you say: ignore the high ISO's. OTOH if there aren't any other improvements I find to my advantage, then I will ignore the entire camera.
jcrutcher
Veteran
Good ISO performance at 3200 and usable at 6400 would be all the M10 would need to bring it up to scratch IMO ... if they can do this and keep the price about the same I may bite when the time comes.
There's plenty of fast lenses in M mount out there and no one in their right mind uses a rangefinder for 'serious' sports photography!
I agree completely with Keith!
Jim
furcafe
Veteran
I may be in a minority of Leica shooters, @ least on the RFF, but I would very much like improved high ISO performance in an M10 & am neither a detective, spelunker, diver, or sports photographer. I have also apparently missed those RFF threads where people asking for better high ISO performance posted daylight shots of cats & flowers (are you sure you're not confusing them w/discussions about people using fast lenses?).
The bottom line for me is that interior lighting in many places, whether private homes, restaurants/bars, clubs, performance venues, even museums & galleries (as Keith can attest), is often very dark (EV 5 @ ISO 1600 & below is not unusual) & some of us need to be able to shoot available light in those conditions with shutter speeds above 1/15th sec. & apertures smaller than f/1 or f/1.4 once in a while. If I'm shooting in daylight or other bright conditions, I have plenty of film & film cameras that can handle the job, but digital really shines for low light, especially for color. I don't need the super high ISOs offered by the new 1DX, I just want to shoot what I can see (& manually focus on) & it's a PITA that I have to haul out a fat D700 or similar just to get usable ISO 6400 or even 3200.
The bottom line for me is that interior lighting in many places, whether private homes, restaurants/bars, clubs, performance venues, even museums & galleries (as Keith can attest), is often very dark (EV 5 @ ISO 1600 & below is not unusual) & some of us need to be able to shoot available light in those conditions with shutter speeds above 1/15th sec. & apertures smaller than f/1 or f/1.4 once in a while. If I'm shooting in daylight or other bright conditions, I have plenty of film & film cameras that can handle the job, but digital really shines for low light, especially for color. I don't need the super high ISOs offered by the new 1DX, I just want to shoot what I can see (& manually focus on) & it's a PITA that I have to haul out a fat D700 or similar just to get usable ISO 6400 or even 3200.
. . . most of the time I see (read, hear, whichever) hand-wringing about high ISO performance while coupled with daylight shots of cats and flowers.
Get over it people, we've been strung (think carrots) by the manufacturers, and we don't even realize it.
Just to be clear, detectives, cave spelunkers, divers, and super high-speed sport photographers among the *minority* who actually have any grounds for caring about this.
Turtle
Veteran
furcafe, I am with you. I have not been stung by anyone. I want better high ISO in the M10 too. As it stands the M9's high ISO is marginal and I do not want to be having to change head when switching from my 5 DII because I have to factor in that I get 2-3 stops less low light potential. I'd go as far as saying just one stop of really genuine improvement would satisfy me, but two would be nice. I dont need more than that.
I also do not photograph cats or flowers and it never ceases to amaze me how just because others dont need something, they assume you are some crazy a*sed amateur because you do! One of the issues I have is that digital noise is not nearly as pleasing as real grain and if adding it to a photo, its best to start with a fairly clean file.
I also do not photograph cats or flowers and it never ceases to amaze me how just because others dont need something, they assume you are some crazy a*sed amateur because you do! One of the issues I have is that digital noise is not nearly as pleasing as real grain and if adding it to a photo, its best to start with a fairly clean file.
myM8yogi
Well-known
Bounce Flash
Bounce Flash
/\
l
Somebody had to say it.
Indoors I have the choice of:
I doubt that high ISO and unreliable autofocus in dim light will give you more success than bounced flash and zone focusing. I agree with the earlier post that ultra-high ISO is most valued in sports and wildlife photography. Maybe also hand-held macro shots. None of these genres play to the particular strong points of a rangefinder system anyway.
Bounce Flash
/\
l
Somebody had to say it.
Indoors I have the choice of:
- relatively slow shutter and wide aperture for reatively static shots in low light, or
- zone focusing coupled with bounce flash to freeze action.
I doubt that high ISO and unreliable autofocus in dim light will give you more success than bounced flash and zone focusing. I agree with the earlier post that ultra-high ISO is most valued in sports and wildlife photography. Maybe also hand-held macro shots. None of these genres play to the particular strong points of a rangefinder system anyway.