ckuang
Established
Hi Dino, with regards to the film scans, yes, we find that the scanning process and operator of the scanner makes such a huge difference that I sometimes wonder if the film plays any part in which the final image looks.
The last 2 weeks, I have been messing around with a Leica M9 on my wedding shoots, and I've posted my thoughts on the camera, which can be seen on my blog at www.39eastvision.com
The last 2 weeks, I have been messing around with a Leica M9 on my wedding shoots, and I've posted my thoughts on the camera, which can be seen on my blog at www.39eastvision.com
fotomeow
name under my name
I dont know much of anything about wedding photography, I just presume 99.9% of weddings are shot on digital these days.... which is why it was so refreshing to see your post and the pics on facebook: they have a nice film texture to them, and your DOF is well done.
It seems I just read so much these days that commercial fotogs might bring one film camera with them, but they always have at least one massively dSLR with them, to "make sure" they get the money shots. Ironically, in this light, it makes you sound so brave to only shoot all film at a wedding. Ironic, of course, b/c before there was digital, there was, *gasp*, "film".
Thanks for sharing, and as an SF resident, I know Baker beach.
It seems I just read so much these days that commercial fotogs might bring one film camera with them, but they always have at least one massively dSLR with them, to "make sure" they get the money shots. Ironically, in this light, it makes you sound so brave to only shoot all film at a wedding. Ironic, of course, b/c before there was digital, there was, *gasp*, "film".
Thanks for sharing, and as an SF resident, I know Baker beach.
ckuang
Established
Hi Gary, thank you for your kind words. Haha, the ironic thing about film is that I'm more comfortable with film that digital. I find the behaviour of film more consistent. If my clients had the budget for film all the time, I'd love to do nothing but just shoot film. 
italy74
Well-known
Ciao CK
I've just read and enjoyed your field review about the M9 and also took note about the differences vs the D700 I have too. I've also gone through your site and I really like the poetic style you have, very similar to what I'd like to achieve too, in a world that - at least here - often contents itself of snapshots taken with p/s and people say "ooohh what a nice picture" then when you show your narrow dof and technique then they say "it's your camera" (not me, they mean, and partly is true). Although I've never liked (better: appreciated) M8 / M9 enough to justify their purchase, for sure I've always liked the RF approach and hope to get one soon (with the Zeiss Ikon on top of the list and any DRF that could come in the future from Zeiss or Leica)
I found a note of yours very spot-on: as you wrote, D700 may shoot at very high iso (and I often do that because I love ambient light and even more often my Metz flash refuses to work as well ) while M9 - being naturally less prone to hand and mirror shake - can shoot at much lower times, thus compensating the lesser iso ability.
What i'd like to know or see from you would be two images side by side where you can evaluate the image quality (graininess is only one aspect) of M9 at 800 iso and D700 at 3200 iso or whatever you like. I think it would be an interesting comparison. In fact I saw too few M9 images to have a clear idea about how good it works.
Congrats again and hoping to see other shots from you here.
I've just read and enjoyed your field review about the M9 and also took note about the differences vs the D700 I have too. I've also gone through your site and I really like the poetic style you have, very similar to what I'd like to achieve too, in a world that - at least here - often contents itself of snapshots taken with p/s and people say "ooohh what a nice picture" then when you show your narrow dof and technique then they say "it's your camera" (not me, they mean, and partly is true). Although I've never liked (better: appreciated) M8 / M9 enough to justify their purchase, for sure I've always liked the RF approach and hope to get one soon (with the Zeiss Ikon on top of the list and any DRF that could come in the future from Zeiss or Leica)
I found a note of yours very spot-on: as you wrote, D700 may shoot at very high iso (and I often do that because I love ambient light and even more often my Metz flash refuses to work as well
) while M9 - being naturally less prone to hand and mirror shake - can shoot at much lower times, thus compensating the lesser iso ability. What i'd like to know or see from you would be two images side by side where you can evaluate the image quality (graininess is only one aspect) of M9 at 800 iso and D700 at 3200 iso or whatever you like. I think it would be an interesting comparison. In fact I saw too few M9 images to have a clear idea about how good it works.
Congrats again and hoping to see other shots from you here.
ckuang
Established
Hi Dino, ha, that's funny, but I too held off from buying an M8 and then an M9 for as long as possible in hopes that Zeiss would release a DRF, but reached the point where I ran out of patience and decided to try the M9.
As far as testing goes, I'd be happy to do a test for you, but could you perhaps let me know what you'd like me to test the camera for exactly? The reason I have to ask is that the more I use the camera the more I am starting to realize that they are such such different animals that comparing the M9 to the D700 is like comparing apples to oranges.
I am starting to think of the M9 as a 35mm version of the Leica S2 than to think of it as a rival to the D700. So when I say I think of the M9 like an S2, it shares all the same benefits as the S2, beautiful realistic color and skin tones, extremely sharp and detailed files, incredible lenses, but also the drawbacks/quirks of the S2, poor high iso performance compared to a D700, slower style of shooting when compared to a D700. I found that when I shifted my mindset and changed my target of comparisons, the appreciation for the M9 really started to grow and so did my understanding of the camera.
The other reason I feel like comparing the M9 is d700 on image quality is hard because the German/Leica interpretation of shooting a RAW file is very very different from the Japanese camera makers. Leica's RAw files from the M9 are very literal, it's a raw image straight from the camera, with very little interpretation on aesthetics, no noise reduction. It looks awful out of camera but run it through lightroom and the images cleans up beautifully. The japanese cameras such as canon and nikon on the other hand seems to attach some level of color interpretation/noise reduction even to a RAW image, so it looks really pretty on the LCD and looks good out of camera, however it is still someone else's interpretation of the image.
Sorry if I rambled on too much, but in summation, as I use the M9 more, the more I realize it's a very very different tool from the D700 and serves very different functions.
As far as testing goes, I'd be happy to do a test for you, but could you perhaps let me know what you'd like me to test the camera for exactly? The reason I have to ask is that the more I use the camera the more I am starting to realize that they are such such different animals that comparing the M9 to the D700 is like comparing apples to oranges.
I am starting to think of the M9 as a 35mm version of the Leica S2 than to think of it as a rival to the D700. So when I say I think of the M9 like an S2, it shares all the same benefits as the S2, beautiful realistic color and skin tones, extremely sharp and detailed files, incredible lenses, but also the drawbacks/quirks of the S2, poor high iso performance compared to a D700, slower style of shooting when compared to a D700. I found that when I shifted my mindset and changed my target of comparisons, the appreciation for the M9 really started to grow and so did my understanding of the camera.
The other reason I feel like comparing the M9 is d700 on image quality is hard because the German/Leica interpretation of shooting a RAW file is very very different from the Japanese camera makers. Leica's RAw files from the M9 are very literal, it's a raw image straight from the camera, with very little interpretation on aesthetics, no noise reduction. It looks awful out of camera but run it through lightroom and the images cleans up beautifully. The japanese cameras such as canon and nikon on the other hand seems to attach some level of color interpretation/noise reduction even to a RAW image, so it looks really pretty on the LCD and looks good out of camera, however it is still someone else's interpretation of the image.
Sorry if I rambled on too much, but in summation, as I use the M9 more, the more I realize it's a very very different tool from the D700 and serves very different functions.
italy74
Well-known
Ciao CK
my idea was just this: aside how the image looks on back LCD, maybe you could shoot the same subject at 3200 iso with D700 and at 800 iso with M9 (up to you using a tripod or having steady hands with a 2-stops faster lens) and show images before (straight out of the camera) and after noise cleanup of both. Think of a portrait (no idea which lenses you have, but I guess you have at least a F/2.8 so you can figure to shoot at F/4 - 3200 iso and the M9 at F/2 - 800 iso. Of course dof will be different and also lens fingerprint as well, but we should be able to see if 800 iso on a M9 is up to 3200 iso on a D700 and viceversa. With your test you may show the room for image improvement/enhancement, showing them before and after pp. I'm thinking of an ambiented portrait in dim light made with a 35 or a 50 mm, a very common kind of lenses for both cameras.
Btw, of course I know they are different animals but I've always wondered how differently they both showed the same scene. I told 800 and 3200 iso but that's just a sample, it's you who have a clue about which is the comparable sensitivity on both cameras. Thanks for your time
my idea was just this: aside how the image looks on back LCD, maybe you could shoot the same subject at 3200 iso with D700 and at 800 iso with M9 (up to you using a tripod or having steady hands with a 2-stops faster lens) and show images before (straight out of the camera) and after noise cleanup of both. Think of a portrait (no idea which lenses you have, but I guess you have at least a F/2.8 so you can figure to shoot at F/4 - 3200 iso and the M9 at F/2 - 800 iso. Of course dof will be different and also lens fingerprint as well, but we should be able to see if 800 iso on a M9 is up to 3200 iso on a D700 and viceversa. With your test you may show the room for image improvement/enhancement, showing them before and after pp. I'm thinking of an ambiented portrait in dim light made with a 35 or a 50 mm, a very common kind of lenses for both cameras.
Btw, of course I know they are different animals but I've always wondered how differently they both showed the same scene. I told 800 and 3200 iso but that's just a sample, it's you who have a clue about which is the comparable sensitivity on both cameras. Thanks for your time
italy74
Well-known
However, this is me and my wife a few days ago, D700 - 50mm - 6400 iso - F/2 - 1/125s - SEPIA (unexperienced people taking photos who however managed to get a steady image with the preset camera)
ckuang
Established
Hi Dino, I'll try and pick out some shots next week. Am shooting 2 weddings this weekend so am kinda stacked!
ckuang
Established
Hey Dino, will try and use next weekend's wedding as another test. my voigtlander lens isn't behaving as I expect on the M9 so i have a feeling the result are inaccurate. I'm going to test on a Leica lens to see what's going on.
italy74
Well-known
Thanks, sorry not to have replied you earlier