concerned about digi M?

[x-ray]

I do not add grain. If I want grain I shoot film.

I primarily use photoshop CS2 for my raw conversions. Using the sliders and curves you as the photographer have the full control of what the electronic emulsion should look like. You define the characterisitics of that film. When you shoot in camera jpg or tif files the look or emulsion is defined by an engineer in japan. It's the collective look of the folks sitting around the table in a meeting at canon or nikon and not the look that defines you. When you process raw files you start with nothing but undefined O's and 1's from the sensor. Granted there is a look to the elctronics and sensor in the camera but you have incredable control over all perameters of the image. If you've looked at sensitometry curves of film you can start to understand how you can define your own emulsion look in digital. If you start with a linear response from the sensor and build your own curves then you have engineered the look yourself. You can make a warm emulsion, open shadows and contrast in the highlights or anything you want. Change the slope of the curve and flatten the toe, whatever knocks you out. For the most part film is defined by the engineer that designed the emulsion. You do have some control with different developers and process time but basically you take what the manufacturer gives you. With digital raw the look is up to you.

I'll pull some images tomorrow and post them in the gallery. Unfortunately you probably won't see anything spectacular because of low res jpg's and the web.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[x-ray]

One of the things that really attracts me to a digital M or even the DMR is the fully manual focus and non auto features. In my opinion I genrally would rather focus myself and do as much myself rather than the camera making a stab at it. Unfortunately canon had designed their cameras to work as an auto focus camera and the screens are terrible to use for manual focus. Even with the microprism splitwedge RF screen focus is tough manually. I would rather give up some brightness for a camera that can be manually focused. I like the dark VF of my nikon F2 over the super bright hard to focus canon 1DsII. This might be different with some peoples eyes but it's tough for me. I shoot with my digital cameras like I do with MF. I don't happer out five hundred frames at five frames per second and hope I got one that can be fixed in photoshop. I light, structure and execute the shot like I was shooting MF or LF film. It's not the quantity but the quality of the image. I recently shocked myself when I went back in my vintage film archeives. I found that many of my best images were one or two frames of the same image and not a dozen frames that I picked from. Even with my M Leicas I shoot one or two well executed frames of a subject and that's it. I had never noticed this about my shooting habbits untill recently. I shoot digital the same way and this might be because i cut my teeth on a 4x5 camera, one sheet at a time. With a few exceptions the images in my gallery are ones that only a very limited number of frames were shot. I might shoot twenty rolls at a shoot but I shoot only a very limited number of frames of any particular subject. Probably 90% of my gallery is selected from one to five or six frames.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[John Camp]

I really hate to see these arguments about high ISO performance; I read so much of this on Digital Photogaphy Review that I couldn't stand it anymore. That, and the D200 problems that became starkly visible if you shot a lightbulb in a dark room and then enlarged to 300 percent.

People who think that a clean 1600 is critical must not have shot before, oh, about 2003. 400 used to be considered high speed. Did HC-B or Capa even have 400? They did okay, huh? How about Winograd? By the way, a clean 800 on a Leica IS a clean 3200 on a Canon, if you use a Noctilux. And anybody ever hear of Noise Ninja? The number of people in the U.S., in my estimation (this is an unscientific estimate) who REALLY NEED a clean 3200 is, hmm, about...six. Could be eight, at the outside.

I'm desperately interested in the digital M, and I'm already on a list for it; I'll probably get two. I like to read the speculation that floats around, and have started some of it myself. But dire predictions of Leica's failure if the DM doesn't have a clean 1600 or 3200 are strike me as...unsophisticated. IMHO, of course.

JC

 

[J. Borger]

John ..... i could not agree more with every word you said!

 

[sjc]

The possibility of using a rangefinder that is more responsive in low light than has ever been possible, digitally or with film, is very intriguing. Whether or not the DM is that rangefinder does not diminish my interest in it. The ability to use great old glass with 10mp will be enough for the time being.

I love shooting Superia 1600 in a Hexar AF and do not mind the grain a bit. It really can allow for some extraordinary intimacy. Just wish it was 2 stops faster at times.

Steven

 

[Trius]

Ray & JC: Right on. High ISO "performance" is primarily a crock trotted out by shooters (not photographers, sorry) who can't/don't think through the whole process. I know precious little about digital processing, but my limited experience tells me that the devil is in the details, and TIFF does not equal RAW, and JPG in camera is a sham for a photographer. For a shooter, it's OK, though.

Ray: Process to look like film. I think a lot of people don't get this. film has a what, 100 year? heritage of evolution to provide artistically appropriate interpretation (NOT representation!) of images. Show me some digital imaging engineers who understand this fact and I'll show you good imaging.

Rant off.

Earl

 

[x-ray]

John Camp I agee totally. There's a new generation of camera owner that likes to whine and find fault with their equipment as an excuse for why they can't make decent images. Notice I said camera owner not photographer. There I said it. I don't understand why digital discussions bring this out in people. As john said so well we have better equipment than any other photographers in history. If we can't make the shot with what we have now chances are that the shot can't be made. I stopped reading the digital forums for the reason John stated. I got absolutely sick of the whining and moaning from a bunch of spoiled rich guys that have more money than tallent. Please don't let this happen on RFF. It's been such a breath of fresh air here with the great folks that want to make excellent pictures and look to each other for help. Photography didn't get where it is over night. Let's use the tools we have and enjoy the new technology without the whining and moaning if we don't have a perfect camera on the firt try. Anyway perfect is in the eye of the shooter. I use B&W film because i think digital is too clean, too pretty abd without personality. Some would say digital isn't clean enough.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[richard_l]

Neither concerned about nor interested in.

Same here!

 

[VinceC]

>>There's a new generation of camera owner that likes to whine and find fault with their equipment as an excuse for why they can't make decent images. Notice I said camera owner not photographer.<<

It seems to me this is actually a fairly old phenomenon. Before digital, the people wtih money to shovel use to heap it into top-end SLRs and Leicas and medium format, assuming that buying the very best would make their pictures better. There's nothing wrong with owning the very best ... and if you can afford it, there's no reason not to get the best. But it won't improve what's on the user-side of the viewfinder.

 

[ywenz]

People who think that a clean 1600 is critical must not have shot before, oh, about 2003. 400 used to be considered high speed. Did HC-B or Capa even have 400? They did okay, huh? How about Winograd? By the way, a clean 800 on a Leica IS a clean 3200 on a Canon,

My baseline is 800, 1600 iso film... if the digi M doesn't even match the high iso film in image quality, then I'd say it has definitely missed its mark. The DMR sensor to me, has missed the mark in that department.

I'm very interested in the Ricoh GRD, and I understand it has poor high ISO performance. However, the extra post-processing I'll need to do is acceptable to me for the mere $700 asking price. The DM, being at least, $5000, I would expect it to perform at least at an industry level...

 

[Guy Bennett]

"concerned about digi M?"

Nope.

Personally I'm unconcerned and uninterested, primarily because:

1. I'm indifferent to taking images with a digital camera, whatever brand, model, or features.

2. I can't imagine spending what a digital M will probably cost ($3-4,000.?) for a camera with a 2 or 3 year life span.

3. I'm waiting for all those cheap, second hand MPs to flood the market. 😉

 

[StuartR]

Well, I think the Digital M needs to be evaluated separately from the DMR. I love the DMR and think it produces superb results, but its performance at higher ISO's does not equal the Canon DSLR's. I don't really use it much past 400, so I don't think this is a deal breaker for me. In any case, the sensor in the Digital M will be different, and the company designing and implementing the software will also be different, so the performance of higher ISO's will have to be evaluated on its own merit.

By the way, the totally unsubstantiated gossip of the grapevine is that Carl Zeiss Jena (yes, Jena, the eastern european branch is still in operation) is the unnamed German company doing the software.

 

[Trius]

>>There's a new generation of camera owner that likes to whine and find fault with their equipment as an excuse for why they can't make decent images. Notice I said camera owner not photographer.<<

It seems to me this is actually a fairly old phenomenon. Before digital, the people wtih money to shovel use to heap it into top-end SLRs and Leicas and medium format, assuming that buying the very best would make their pictures better. There's nothing wrong with owning the very best ... and if you can afford it, there's no reason not to get the best. But it won't improve what's on the user-side of the viewfinder.

Well said, Vince. I remember years ago when I had a plumber visit my home, and he fancied himself a photographer as well. I knew this guy previously, so also knew what a blowhard he was. Of course, he rattled off his list of equipment (Nikon) and somehow the conversation turned to Polaroid materials. That started a rant from him about how awful all Polaroid materials were, that he'd never taken a good shot with it, nobody could, yadda, yadda.

I pulled out a photo I'd made on Type 55 and he sputtered along but couldn't recover.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Did HC-B or Capa even have 400? They did okay, huh? How about Winograd?
JC

Winogrand routinely shot at ISO 1000 (uprated Tri-X) ... see Bystander: Street Photography.

 

[Toby]

>>There's a new generation of camera owner that likes to whine and find fault with their equipment as an excuse for why they can't make decent images. Notice I said camera owner not photographer.<<

It seems to me this is actually a fairly old phenomenon. Before digital, the people wtih money to shovel use to heap it into top-end SLRs and Leicas and medium format, assuming that buying the very best would make their pictures better. There's nothing wrong with owning the very best ... and if you can afford it, there's no reason not to get the best. But it won't improve what's on the user-side of the viewfinder.

I've always found that buying a new camera makes my pictures worse for a short period of time while I adjusted. It took me months to really make the most of medium format when I got my first MF camera. I just got a Eos 20D and am doing the same all over again with digital. There are dissappointments but on the whole I like the challenge digital gives me because I like learning new things and digital is a new thing it's not a replacement for film rather a new way of creating images that sits alongside film.

 

[Ben Z]

High ISO "performance" is primarily a crock trotted out by shooters (not photographers, sorry) who can't/don't think through the whole process.l

Sorry but that kind of snarky, egomaniacal if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-not-a-photographer stuff is part what makes that "other" forum such a hostile and inhospitable place. I'd really hate to see it start to infuse this one. The quest for higher-iso digital performance is not unlike the quest for higher speed film performance and the quest for higher performance ultra-fast lenses, which has been going on since the dawn of photography. It's about getting better image quality in lower levels of light. Since the technology obviously exists for clean ISO 3200 digital, why would it be unreasonable to expect Leica not to address it especially with the digital-M since they themselves have agressively marketed the M on the basis of its capabilities as a low-light available-light camera?

 

[ywenz]

Sorry but that kind of snarky, egomaniacal if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-not-a-photographer stuff is part what makes that "other" forum such a hostile and inhospitable place. I'd really hate to see it start to infuse this one. The quest for higher-iso digital performance is not unlike the quest for higher speed film performance and the quest for higher performance ultra-fast lenses, which has been going on since the dawn of photography. It's about getting better image quality in lower levels of light. Since the technology obviously exists for clean ISO 3200 digital, why would it be unreasonable to expect Leica not to address it especially with the digital-M since they themselves have agressively marketed the M on the basis of its capabilities as a low-light available-light camera?

Amen! I really get irritated by this "putting ones own belief up on the pedestal" sentiment that is all too common - even more so in this forum because of all the "well-seasoned shooters" that comes with the RF territory.

But dire predictions of Leica's failure if the DM doesn't have a clean 1600 or 3200 are strike me as...unsophisticated. IMHO, of course.

Oh heck no... Leica's brilliant marketing coupled with brand loyalists such as yourself will guarantee the sale of a bunch of DMs I'm sure. I guess I'm simply not sophisticated enough to appreciate the DM by its other merits alone. Ironically, this culture of acceptance of the status-quo is probably what doomed Leica in the first place. If the target audience doesn't care of the change, why should Leica initiate it?

 

[x-ray]

What is it about digital that turn things hostile? Film doesn't seem to create this hostile attitude but digital does. This is why I quit reading the digital forums. No more digital threads for me.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[ywenz]

Please post your digital pics still.

 

[summilux]

can they make a digital back for M, instead of for R?