concerned about digi M?

[Geoff Smith]

Well, I don't want to get anyone's blood up, but I am concerned about the M Digital, and specifically about its high ISO performance. There, I said it. 🙂

 

[celluloidprop]

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that M users are concerned about high ISO performance. It has nothing to do with worrying about which technology is the most advanced or geek-wars or anything, it's because a lot of people buy Leicas with the intent of shooting nothing but TX400 on up.

No, Capa and HCB didn't have the advantages of modern technology - Noctiluxes and 1600-speed film, but what would lead me to believe they wouldn't have used them if available and necessary?

 

[StuartR]

I guess my point is it is ok to be concerned about it, but not based on the DMR. The DMR sensor and software are both different, so you should not base worry on that. For my money, a good ISO 800 would be all I am really concerned about.


And just another point that might slip through the cracks. The DMR is actually about a stop more sensitive than the R9's meter for film. Many (most?) DMR users set the exposure compensation to underexpose a stop, so it actually makes its ISO 400 the equivalent of ISO 800, and its ISO 800 the equivalent of ISO 1600. At least that has been my experience.

 

[John Camp]

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?

I'm not a brand loyalist; I've never owned a Leica, and I just started with Leica lenses on a R-D1. I've shot Nikons and RZs most of my life; I still have an F4, 2 F5s, an N90s and a D2X and just got rid of two N-mount Kodaks and the RZ system. No Leicas. Like everybody else, I would love to shoot full color stop-action photography in the middle of the night. It's just not going to happen (yet.) To say that a camera "sucks" or that "I can't live without clean 3200," which is what I heard A LOT on Digital Photogaphy Review, was, I still say, unsophisticated, and I was unhappy to see a similar argument start show up here.

If the Digital M has a clean 400 and a usable 800, I will be happy. That means Noise Ninja will clean up 1600 pretty well, and I can probably go to 3200 if I don't mind some artifacts and shadow trash.

In my opinion, the only people who really *need* a clean 3200 are security people shooting surveillance. Professional photographers don't need it because the competition doesn't have it either, and nobody expects you to have it. You might *like* it, you might *appreciate* it, but frankly, if your photography job depends on a clean 3200, you're toast. Better get a real estate license.

And I guess that's what I meant by "unsophisticated." Good photographers use what's available; they don't moan about the absence of a fantasy machine. I want the Digital M to be as good as it possibly can be; of course I do, and I'm sure everybody does. But when push comes to shove, if the M is just as good as the DMR (doesn't have to be better) I'll buy one; if it's a half-inch better, I'll buy another.


JC

 

[Patman]

I have been contemplating buying the DMR but it seems to fall short of what a good professional camera should produce. If i'm going to spend 5000 want it all. Would you buy a film camera that could only shoot 100 ASA film, i think not but that's what these DMR users are saying about their cameras, "its great at 100 and i don't shoot anything else" that sounds like an excuse for buying a pig in a poke. I'm a Leica owner and lover and I own an R8 but i will not invest in the DMR.

 

[J. Borger]

Clean high iso performance will always be on the cost of detail and sharpness.
I prefer some noise to waxy files.
Nothing looks more silly and unnatural than a low light Iso 1600 shot with its low contrast and muted colors that is perfectly clean.
I assume nobody intents to use the high iso on the M for sports or wildlife ib bright daylight where it might be handy?

There is no reason to assume the M will not deliver at least very workable iso 800 and probably 1600. The R-D1 is capable to do this.
And you can always post-proces yourself if it's Leica's choice not to immitate Canon's plastic look.

 

[ywenz]

In my opinion, the only people who really *need* a clean 3200 are security people shooting surveillance. Professional photographers don't need it because the competition doesn't have it either, and nobody expects you to have it. You might *like* it, you might *appreciate* it, but frankly, if your photography job depends on a clean 3200, you're toast. Better get a real estate license.

Perhaps you need to re exmaine what I wrote. I nor did anyone else on this thread bitched about not having clean 3200, or the DM is doomed because of that. I was looking at the DMR review and noticed how bad its images looked at 800. I thought I heard from somewhere that the DM will have the DMR sensor, but I guess that was confirmed here not to be true.

Clean high iso performance will always be on the cost of detail and sharpness..

Absolutely wrong. It's amazing what the Canon chips can do at high ISO, such that no one else has been able to match, through all these years and generations.

 

[StuartR]

You should ask someone who shoots it at higher apertures to give you samples. The ISO 400 and 800 images I have seen from Marc Williams are superb. I mostly shoot it at ISO 100 because I shoot pretty much all my cameras at ISO 100. The ISO issue is overblown in my opinion. It is very slightly noisier than the 1DsMkII at ISO 400 and at ISO 800 and higher it is well behind. Most of the noise is chrominance noise at 400 and 800, which can be filtered out fairly easily without great loss to the image. ISO "push" aka 1600 is not very good and was only added by Leica as an emergency function. In any case, the DMR sensor has more in common with MF digital backs than with the CMOS sensor in the Canon. The MF backs are much slower, but tend to have better color and dynamic range. These appear to be the same advantages that the DMR offers over the 1DsMkII. The Canon offers higher absolute resolution, better noise performance and auto focus. In any case, I am not sure what a pig in a poke is, but pretty much anyone who has used the DMR will admit that it is a superb camera that offers great results. You might consider subscribing to Sean Reid's website, as he has a very long and informative article on the DMR, which he compares to the 1DsMkII.

 

[ywenz]

StuarR: funny you should bring up Reid's review. It is precisely his DMR review, where I saw the horrible, lacking of detail iso 800 image. It is a good thing that the DM will not be using the same sensor technology. Whatever they use, I'm really hoping that the DM will perform at least, or better thant he RD-1 in the high iso department.

 

[StuartR]

Well if you read it you might also remember that he said not to pay attention to the focus and detail in the ISO comparisons because his daughter was moving around and in and out of the plane of focus. The noise is the only thing that should be commented upon from those particular images. And yes, the ISO 800 has a lot of noise when taken straight from the camera. Part of this is that it simply has higher native noise than the 1DsMkII, another part of it is that it has no AA filter so anything coming straight from the camera is going to be sharper and more apparent, noise included.

 

[StuartR]

But anyway, there is no real point arguing about this. If you are mostly going to shoot the camera above ISO 400, then clearly the Canon is the way to go. But just because the Canon is better at higher ISO's does not mean the DMR is a piece of crap, nor that the DMR is unusable at ISO 400 or 800. It's a totally different beast. I would say the same for the Digital M. The highest ISO I regularly use my M's at is ISO 400, but ISO 400 with a f/1.4 lens at 1/15th or 1/8th is pretty darn dark. Having the ability to push to 800 or 1600 with a minor loss in quality would be great. In any case a usable ISO 800 on a rangefinder will get you pretty far into the shadows...certainly further than ISO 800 would on an SLR.

 

[ywenz]

There was no argument. I was just hoping the DM will not use the DMR sensor, and that was confirmed by some people here.. I'm happy.

 

[Patman]

You say usable like that should be a criteria. It shouldn't. Would you accept usable on an M7 or on a ZI, i doubt it and at $5000 a pop nothing should be usable just great!

 

[StuartR]

And yet you use a DCS Pro 14n? I don't get it... Why the double standard? By usable I mean something that can be used, not something which is bad but you can get away with.

 

[Patman]

What double standard. I find the Dcs a great camera that takes outstanding images and i shoot from 80-400 with no problems. You'll notice in sister forum pictures taken with the DCS and i don't just limit myself to only shooting landscapes. I like to shoot all sorts of things and most all of my shots are hand held. Look at the cropped image of a pulley from a fishing boat, that image is about 14/4/ sqaure off of the entire frame, no sharpening. The DCS ran me about 3500 and at the time it was the only the highest MP around and i needed that for 30 x 40 images. It did the job, paid for itself the 1st week i got it.

 

[StuartR]

"I find the Dcs a great camera that takes outstanding images and i shoot from 80-400 with no problems."

I agree. And I also find the DMR to be exactly the same in that respect. I get great shots with no problems from ISO 100 to 400, mostly handheld. Regardless of how much you got it for, the 14n was a 5000 dollar list price camera, exactly the same as the DMR. Eventually I am sure that DMR's price will go down as other cameras from Leica and others improve on it. The 10mp in the DMR are great and it can print very large. I have not tried 30x40, but I don't think I would print anything under 6x7 that large. I am not trying to be ascerbic, but it strikes me that the 14n and the DMR are pretty similar cameras in their goals, and to blast one and praise the other seems strange to me.

 

[Patman]

Don't missunderstand me I'm not knocking the DMR I just cant see investing in a digital back that is limited. The DMR cost 5000 above the initial cost of the camera.
The R8 and R9 are great film cameras with no limitations this addition to me seems to add limitations. What would the benefits to me be above my DCS?

 

[StuartR]

I don't know. From looking at the comparison between the 1DsMkII and the 14n at luminous landscape, I would imagine the DMR would give you somewhat sharper images with better color fidelity, but that could be as much the lenses as the camera. Overall, if you already have a high MP digital SLR I don't think there is a reason for you to buy the DMR.

 

[Ergo]

In 55 years of shooting i have never used higher than 100 iso,film or digital. Maybe im missing something?

 

[ywenz]

In 55 years of shooting i have never used higher than 100 iso,film or digital. Maybe im missing something?

Yesum, I'd say you are missing something.