celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm at 1600 and above about half the time - as are a lot of people who are now able to shoot in light levels that were difficult in the days of film. Even if you don't use those speeds yourself, folks must recognize the possibilities that the ability to do so creates.
Leica Ms are the prototypical 'available dark' cameras, it's too bad they're being outpaced in that area by Canikosonytax (largely using Sony CMOS sensors, it seems). Which is not to say that the M10 needs native 51,200 - D700-quality 6400 would be all Leica needs to make just about everyone who might possibly buy a M10 happy.
Leica Ms are the prototypical 'available dark' cameras, it's too bad they're being outpaced in that area by Canikosonytax (largely using Sony CMOS sensors, it seems). Which is not to say that the M10 needs native 51,200 - D700-quality 6400 would be all Leica needs to make just about everyone who might possibly buy a M10 happy.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's all very well to bang on about how happy you are never to go above ISO 160 or 400 but that's your requirement and not the way digital photography is heading generally.
One thing I remember vividly about my M8 is how easy it was to focus in very poor gallery light compared to my current DSLR, which is very difficult at times. Give me the same camera as that M8 but without the crippling ISO limitations and my DSLR will seldom make it out of the cupboard.
That's my special need and I don't think I'm alone here!
One thing I remember vividly about my M8 is how easy it was to focus in very poor gallery light compared to my current DSLR, which is very difficult at times. Give me the same camera as that M8 but without the crippling ISO limitations and my DSLR will seldom make it out of the cupboard.
That's my special need and I don't think I'm alone here!
Turtle
Veteran
You are most certainly not alone. My needs mirror yours perfectly.
18MP suits me fine, but the high ISO weaknesses is the only think holding me back from a M9 (tho I may still jump...). the M10 does need to be much better. I think those who claim otherwise are sticking their heads in the sand.
If I hold back on the M9 and the M10 is not significantly better there is a good chance I will cut right back on my Leica film system and pump more into my Canon gear (and still get to bank some).
18MP suits me fine, but the high ISO weaknesses is the only think holding me back from a M9 (tho I may still jump...). the M10 does need to be much better. I think those who claim otherwise are sticking their heads in the sand.
If I hold back on the M9 and the M10 is not significantly better there is a good chance I will cut right back on my Leica film system and pump more into my Canon gear (and still get to bank some).
theno23
Established
Unfortunately no-one I've read about has been able to make CCD sensors work at high ISO. Some of the MF sensors are even worse than the M9 Kodak sensor.
I'm not sure how I feel about giving up the great low ISO performance for better high ISO, but it would be nice to have the choice.
Perhaps Leica could continue making the CCD-based M9, but maybe with a faster processor / better screen / bigger buffer, and make a CMOS based M10, for those who want high ISOs. I'd have one of each then.
And to the guy who said Leica "must" make their camera cheaper than the top of the line Canon/Nikon - rubbish! They're selling all the M9s they can make as it is, why would they make it any cheaper? It's a niche product, and niche products tend to be more expensive, it's not like they've got any serious competition in the DRF market.
I'm not sure how I feel about giving up the great low ISO performance for better high ISO, but it would be nice to have the choice.
Perhaps Leica could continue making the CCD-based M9, but maybe with a faster processor / better screen / bigger buffer, and make a CMOS based M10, for those who want high ISOs. I'd have one of each then.
And to the guy who said Leica "must" make their camera cheaper than the top of the line Canon/Nikon - rubbish! They're selling all the M9s they can make as it is, why would they make it any cheaper? It's a niche product, and niche products tend to be more expensive, it's not like they've got any serious competition in the DRF market.
Turtle
Veteran
That would be interesting - a M10X and M10S!
I'd be happy with the one with better low light capability, because if I want the ultimate in resolution there are plenty of better options than a M9; however, if I want to go photographing in dark places, travel light, inconspicuously etc there are no better choices than a M-whatever (for me anyway).
I'd be happy with the one with better low light capability, because if I want the ultimate in resolution there are plenty of better options than a M9; however, if I want to go photographing in dark places, travel light, inconspicuously etc there are no better choices than a M-whatever (for me anyway).
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I know! And it doesn't have autofocus (let alone predictive) auto-focus, no zoom offerings and no ability to take video. Shame on Leica for not making its rangefinder like an autofocus SLR!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I know your comments are tongue in cheek but surely your tongue and cheek are starting to wear because we've heard it all before.
People seem quite happy to accept the fact that the digital M is never going to be autofocus and lacks zoom and will never shoot video ... what many are asking for though is better high ISO performance and I don't perceive that as an unreasonable expectation!
High ISO allows for more depth of field in low light situations... shallow depth of field doesn't always work.
Avotius
Some guy
Are we really having this conversation?
eleskin
Well-known
M8 vs M9: M9 not much of an improvement I agree
M8 vs M9: M9 not much of an improvement I agree
JSU:
I agree with your statement that the M9 is not that much an improvement over the M8.2 . I tested the M9 3 times with my best lenses (35mm v4 Summicron, Noctilux f1.0 and 35mm Nokton f1.2) and I came to the same conclusion you did. In fact, I made actual prints from the M9 files on my Epson 3800 on 17"x22" Epson Exhibition Fiber and there was no difference in the print in the final product. In fact, the M9 prints looked a ltiile more mushy and the M8 had more bite (perceived sharpness) to my eyes. I shoot for the print not pixel peeping and for me the M9 is not worth it. I bought a second M8 on Ebay instead of an M9 and used tyhe savings for more lenses.
I also agree with your assessment on the 35mm Nokton f1.2 v 35mm Summicron. I have exactly the same lenses you do and I feel at smaller f stops, the Summicron has better resolution, but slightly. The 35mm Nokton wins in flare resistance which is a big deal for me in that I shoot alot of low light. For large 17'x22" prints, I do feel the Nokton holds its own and is a fine lens. Actually, the Nokton is on my M8 80% of the time.
The other 20% I use my Noctilux and 15mm Super Wide Heliar (these 3 lenses are my street shoting kit).
Back to high ISO. I really believe Leica should at least better the performance of the Fuji X100 at 6400 if they are smart because next year, it looks like Fuji may be coming out with a APS C (1.3 crop) sensor X series with interchangable lenses and I am sure there will be a solution to mount M lenses. Fuji may indeed beat Leica at its own game in terms of image quality and form factor. Leica may use mechanical rangefinders and thicker metal which is nice, but not thousands of dollars more nice. The Fuji will likely be $2,400 or so which is much more reasonable than the M9 and will drive M8 prices down.
M8 vs M9: M9 not much of an improvement I agree
JSU:
I agree with your statement that the M9 is not that much an improvement over the M8.2 . I tested the M9 3 times with my best lenses (35mm v4 Summicron, Noctilux f1.0 and 35mm Nokton f1.2) and I came to the same conclusion you did. In fact, I made actual prints from the M9 files on my Epson 3800 on 17"x22" Epson Exhibition Fiber and there was no difference in the print in the final product. In fact, the M9 prints looked a ltiile more mushy and the M8 had more bite (perceived sharpness) to my eyes. I shoot for the print not pixel peeping and for me the M9 is not worth it. I bought a second M8 on Ebay instead of an M9 and used tyhe savings for more lenses.
I also agree with your assessment on the 35mm Nokton f1.2 v 35mm Summicron. I have exactly the same lenses you do and I feel at smaller f stops, the Summicron has better resolution, but slightly. The 35mm Nokton wins in flare resistance which is a big deal for me in that I shoot alot of low light. For large 17'x22" prints, I do feel the Nokton holds its own and is a fine lens. Actually, the Nokton is on my M8 80% of the time.
The other 20% I use my Noctilux and 15mm Super Wide Heliar (these 3 lenses are my street shoting kit).
Back to high ISO. I really believe Leica should at least better the performance of the Fuji X100 at 6400 if they are smart because next year, it looks like Fuji may be coming out with a APS C (1.3 crop) sensor X series with interchangable lenses and I am sure there will be a solution to mount M lenses. Fuji may indeed beat Leica at its own game in terms of image quality and form factor. Leica may use mechanical rangefinders and thicker metal which is nice, but not thousands of dollars more nice. The Fuji will likely be $2,400 or so which is much more reasonable than the M9 and will drive M8 prices down.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I know your comments are tongue in cheek but surely your tongue and cheek are starting to wear because we've heard it all before.
Oh, so ditto
Not an unreasonable expectation to make comments which highlight how worn a certain set of comments are. Simply comparing apples to watermelons is not going to make the watermelon yield apple juice, and people should really begin to understand that just because they're fruits the comparisons are not reasonable.
One thing is to plead and another is to incessantly bash. Eleskin, like Dave Lackey, have a particular way of drilling the same point over and over. It just follows that somebody with an equally "tongue in cheek" point be used as a counterargument.
Pointing me out as the only one "wearing out" the point is missing the point.
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
Amen. I would be ecstatic to have the option of a useable (D700 equivalent) ISO 3200 or 6400 in an M body.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Some like Blondes others prefer Redheads.
Some like Blondes others prefer Redheads.
It seems the only way to get better high ISO would be for Leica to move to a CMOS. Would we not then see a camp that would demand the more Organic look of the current CCD sensor? I just don't see how Leica could win all hearts. Maybe the best solution is for Leica to deliver a pair of Cameras. One for the CCD richness crowd. The other who don't mind a bit more of a plastic looking image (not a bad thing but different) from a CMOS that can deliver higher ISO.
I agree with Gabriel about this issue constantly being beaten about but, it is a real issue clearly.
Eleskin and others, if you could choose from the 2 cameras I described..Which would you take ?
An M9 that gives M9 IQ and character with Mediocre high ISO performance or an M9 that Gives a CaNikonSony CMOS IQ and Character with Great high iso performance?
Some like Blondes others prefer Redheads.
It seems the only way to get better high ISO would be for Leica to move to a CMOS. Would we not then see a camp that would demand the more Organic look of the current CCD sensor? I just don't see how Leica could win all hearts. Maybe the best solution is for Leica to deliver a pair of Cameras. One for the CCD richness crowd. The other who don't mind a bit more of a plastic looking image (not a bad thing but different) from a CMOS that can deliver higher ISO.
I agree with Gabriel about this issue constantly being beaten about but, it is a real issue clearly.
Eleskin and others, if you could choose from the 2 cameras I described..Which would you take ?
An M9 that gives M9 IQ and character with Mediocre high ISO performance or an M9 that Gives a CaNikonSony CMOS IQ and Character with Great high iso performance?
luuca
Well-known
M10 should have an iso range from 50 ("expandable" to 25) to a very clean 3200. stop.
manual focusing with available light @ f1.4 iso3200 and maybe 1/15 I think it could be the limit for my eyes
good dynamic range iso 25 please and I can sell my b+w nd filters
manual focusing with available light @ f1.4 iso3200 and maybe 1/15 I think it could be the limit for my eyes
good dynamic range iso 25 please and I can sell my b+w nd filters
mmradman
Newbie
"It's the lenses, stupid."
If you want Leica to provide two cameras one good at low and other at high ISO first one is already here. Second is yet to be seen. Film analogy does not work in digital world.
The great thing about high ISO is that you don't have to HOPE with slow shutter speeds.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Actually, I don't want anything from Leica. I'm happy with what I have. If you don't understand my post please ask a question. What do you mean by "Film analogy does not work in a digital world". Clearly the word organic did not come from the film world nor the word plastic. So what are you referring to?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
At ISO 1200, how are you going to take ta shot 5 .6 in sunshine, let alone a shallow focus one at 1.4 ???
colonel
Established
Hilarious, the same thread has been posted in the Leica forum and has pretty much the same posts with many of the same people participating
:bang:
Shall I post what I posted there and contributon to net bandwidth ? oh, go on then:
:bang:
Shall I post what I posted there and contributon to net bandwidth ? oh, go on then:
I probably won't upgrade to the M10.
It'll probably have more pixels, an extra stop of Iso, a better LCD, possibly electronic bright lines and maybe live view ?
I upgraded to the m9 to achieve thinner dof and gain an ISO button
At base ISO, which I use 90% of the time, the m9 is blisteringly sharp.
I am more interested in lenses and shoot wide open or very small apertures outside.
I'm not a Luddite. I'll get an M10/M11/M12 if it has > 30mp and is as good at 6400 that the M9 is at 640.
Otherwise I'd much rather spend the money on lenses.
__________________
It'll probably have more pixels, an extra stop of Iso, a better LCD, possibly electronic bright lines and maybe live view ?
I upgraded to the m9 to achieve thinner dof and gain an ISO button
At base ISO, which I use 90% of the time, the m9 is blisteringly sharp.
I am more interested in lenses and shoot wide open or very small apertures outside.
I'm not a Luddite. I'll get an M10/M11/M12 if it has > 30mp and is as good at 6400 that the M9 is at 640.
Otherwise I'd much rather spend the money on lenses.
__________________
HenningW
Well-known
Leica said a year ago at the Wetzlar lisa meeting that they would be going to a CMOS sensor for the next camera. Kodak is also not going to develop any CCD sensor for Leica.
These things go hand in hand of course, and Leica and Kodak could well change their minds, but it seems that this will be the direction. Leica is of course extremely aware of the desire of many of their users to have higher useable ISO's.
As for those that say it isn't necessary to have higher ISO's, please ignore both the higher ISO's and any discussions of such. It's not that hard.
Henning
These things go hand in hand of course, and Leica and Kodak could well change their minds, but it seems that this will be the direction. Leica is of course extremely aware of the desire of many of their users to have higher useable ISO's.
As for those that say it isn't necessary to have higher ISO's, please ignore both the higher ISO's and any discussions of such. It's not that hard.
Henning