mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
and the digital bashing continues on RFF... :bang:
damien.murphy
Damien
Maybe I don't understand this fascination and maybe I am completely off target. If so, please educate me, do not look down on me as I use my lowly M3 and R4 with TriX film or whatever digital camera with a similar ISO rating.As I said, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
If iso 400 and less fit your style of shooting, then why change. Some of us shoot indoor and handheld at night, where iso 1600 is closer to the norm and anything higher is appreciated.
newspaperguy
Well-known
I took a page from your book, Bill.
But with the poor-boy approach.
For years I used a CV finder on a pro-sumer PNS:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=127504&ppuser=20714
To keep the RF feel of operation that I was accustomed to.
I prefer film, but continue to be amazed at digital's ability to function in low light, even with modest iso numbers.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=156142&ppuser=20714
Old analog Rick in Sunny Southern Maryland
But with the poor-boy approach.
For years I used a CV finder on a pro-sumer PNS:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=127504&ppuser=20714
To keep the RF feel of operation that I was accustomed to.
I prefer film, but continue to be amazed at digital's ability to function in low light, even with modest iso numbers.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=156142&ppuser=20714
Old analog Rick in Sunny Southern Maryland
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Somehow, I just don't understand the fascination of highest ISO. Really, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to me as I need nothing above 400 and a rare opportunity at 800. Certainly not in the giga million range or whatever people think is the pinnacle of high ISO performance.
To the average photographer on this forum, what percentage of YOUR photos requires anything higher than what is typically attainable with film? And I mean requires as in does it make you money to have it? Can you get by without it? Are you a specialist in high ISO photography? Are you going to be stealthy with a huge, noisy DSLR on the street or at a restaurant? YMMV but high ISO doesn't do anything for me.:angel:
Or is it just the hobbyist thing to have the highest ISO available? The highest number of megapixels? etc.etc.etc. Sometimes I can't figure this gear thing out. All I try to do is make images that people will like and,hopefully, pay for, and today was a great example as on-location, I met with an individual to get her portrait in her shop. Worked great with the M3 + Summarit 1.5 + TriX and she will certainly be printed in the upcoming book. Should I have bought a D700 and met her at night? Hardly. Do I shoot in nightclubs? No. I can't think of a situation in which I, personally, would need anything more than what I have.
Maybe I don't understand this fascination and maybe I am completely off target. If so, please educate me, do not look down on me as I use my lowly M3 and R4 with TriX film or whatever digital camera with a similar ISO rating.
If one in twenty photographers using a particular camera genuinely needs high ISO capability that's the way the camera should be made IMO. The other nineteen can just fudge along with 400 and 800 if they choose but there is absolutely no reason not to have it if the technology is available and it doesn't send the price of the camera through the roof. No one is being forced to use it.
Last edited:
robert blu
quiet photographer
I am a little confused by this thread now. I understand some photographer need to shoot at xx thousand iso, this is clear. Shooting film, for me as pure amateur I went to 1.600 very few times. 100 or 400 are the normal setting, high iso is (was?) for me 800/1600. Now since I own a x1 (i know it is not a very popular camera in this forum, sorry) I use ofter 800 or 1.600 for indoor work, with satisfying results. I still have not an idea of what I should shoot at 6.400 iso ! Now I'm wondering how m9 files are at 800/1600 compared to my x1 files and to the scan of a fuji 1600 (only B&W). I do not think that at Leica they are so masochist to make a camera that deliver files with lower quality compared to DSRL. Probably there are technical or cost problems to have the same result in a smaller body (as the m9 is compared to huge DSRL).
robert, a slightly confused amateur photographer
PS: once there was the megapixel race...
robert, a slightly confused amateur photographer
PS: once there was the megapixel race...
Perhaps action? ... higher shutter speed for indoor stuff with movement so you don;t get motion blur.
bwcolor
Veteran
My digital cameras sit unused at the moment. The X100 utilizes my favorite equivalent focal length, so I hope to use it for color, but nothing replaces B&W, except larger format B&W film.
High ISO is one of the main features that I'm looking for, otherwise I would be shooting Velvia 50 and Ektar 100 and calling it a day.
High ISO is one of the main features that I'm looking for, otherwise I would be shooting Velvia 50 and Ektar 100 and calling it a day.
David_Manning
Well-known
Just to address Dave Lackey, I enjoy the strengths of both film and digital, and get frustrated by the weaknesses of both.
I CAN say, however, that there were many times as a tourist in old, dark Europe, that I wished I had a camera which could shoot color in the available light and look like an actual "photo," and not a moody shadow shot. Yeah, I could push Tri-X for b&w, but for color, I was out of luck.
So, high ISO has it's place for existing-light shots. Of course, if I can improve the shooting situation I will (move to a window, outdoors, etc.). I'm not sure that for everyone there is a fixation on high ISO capabilities...it's just that it's so easy to shoot existing-light pictures now, why not?
I think my fantasy camera is closest realized by a Fuji X100, but I'd like a larger sensor. If someone could make a digital Contax T3...then I'd be happy
I CAN say, however, that there were many times as a tourist in old, dark Europe, that I wished I had a camera which could shoot color in the available light and look like an actual "photo," and not a moody shadow shot. Yeah, I could push Tri-X for b&w, but for color, I was out of luck.
So, high ISO has it's place for existing-light shots. Of course, if I can improve the shooting situation I will (move to a window, outdoors, etc.). I'm not sure that for everyone there is a fixation on high ISO capabilities...it's just that it's so easy to shoot existing-light pictures now, why not?
I think my fantasy camera is closest realized by a Fuji X100, but I'd like a larger sensor. If someone could make a digital Contax T3...then I'd be happy
robert blu
quiet photographer
Yes, it is a possibility. To say the truth I mainly shoot "slow moving subject" ! My friends who shoots theater and dance shows of course really need very high iso because of combination of low light, movement and tele lenses. At the end each one has different need (or tastes...)
robert
froyd
Veteran
...and don't forget the most important segment of amateur photographers, among whose numbers I proudly count myself: the proud parent!
High ISO can freeze those pesky rugrats without blasting any mood out of the image with a flash of blue light.
As far as the original OP question, the identifying positive characteristics of RF cameras in my book are an outstanding viewing and focusing experience, unparalleled in the SLR world and the smaller size of body and lenses. As far as low light capability I see that limited to low shutter speeds that benefit from the lack of mirror-induce vibrations. In practice, that is something more closely approximated by VR functions than high-ISO (though high ISO is more valuable to me, as member of the proud parent club).
For viewing and focusing experience, R D1, M8 and M9 cannot be beat. For size, the m4/3 cameras would be my pick, but they present an IQ compromise from full-frame DSLR, where film RF can even be seen as an IQ improvement from their reflex counterparts, so I'm back to the digital Leica again. I just wish the Digital M's ergonomics borrowed a little more from their film counterparts and the R-D1.
furcafe
Veteran
This earlier thread covered many of the reasons for using high ISOs:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104339
Good for you if you don't need anything over ISO 400, but many of us do either: (1) shoot in nightclubs or similarly dark environments (in fact, the ease of focusing & shooting in available darkness w/RFs was 1 of the main reasons for me preferring them over SLRs in the 1st place); or (2) would like to use the flexibility offered by higher ISOs to do things that weren't possible with film, e.g., handheld shooting in dark environments w/smaller apertures to get more DoF or higher shutter speeds to stop action. And, as Keith wrote, aside from the economic & engineering challenges created for camera designers, it's hard to see how having high ISO capabilities in a camera really hurts photographers who use lower ISOs.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104339
Good for you if you don't need anything over ISO 400, but many of us do either: (1) shoot in nightclubs or similarly dark environments (in fact, the ease of focusing & shooting in available darkness w/RFs was 1 of the main reasons for me preferring them over SLRs in the 1st place); or (2) would like to use the flexibility offered by higher ISOs to do things that weren't possible with film, e.g., handheld shooting in dark environments w/smaller apertures to get more DoF or higher shutter speeds to stop action. And, as Keith wrote, aside from the economic & engineering challenges created for camera designers, it's hard to see how having high ISO capabilities in a camera really hurts photographers who use lower ISOs.
Somehow, I just don't understand the fascination of highest ISO. Really, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to me as I need nothing above 400 and a rare opportunity at 800. Certainly not in the giga million range or whatever people think is the pinnacle of high ISO performance.
To the average photographer on this forum, what percentage of YOUR photos requires anything higher than what is typically attainable with film? And I mean requires as in does it make you money to have it? Can you get by without it? Are you a specialist in high ISO photography? Are you going to be stealthy with a huge, noisy DSLR on the street or at a restaurant? YMMV but high ISO doesn't do anything for me.:angel:
Or is it just the hobbyist thing to have the highest ISO available? The highest number of megapixels? etc.etc.etc. Sometimes I can't figure this gear thing out. All I try to do is make images that people will like and,hopefully, pay for, and today was a great example as on-location, I met with an individual to get her portrait in her shop. Worked great with the M3 + Summarit 1.5 + TriX and she will certainly be printed in the upcoming book. Should I have bought a D700 and met her at night? Hardly. Do I shoot in nightclubs? No. I can't think of a situation in which I, personally, would need anything more than what I have.
Maybe I don't understand this fascination and maybe I am completely off target. If so, please educate me, do not look down on me as I use my lowly M3 and R4 with TriX film or whatever digital camera with a similar ISO rating.
Last edited:
cfritze
Established
Brian
This has been rattling around my brain since I read this. How does this square with my experience that when shooting high ISO on the M9, it's safer to overexpose than under - in terms of reducing noise? I assume the approach you're describing is fundamentally different than underexposing at high iso and then doing a simple levels or curve adjustment to the resulting image? (I am clearly hopelessly under-educated re signal processing!)
When shooting high-ISO, you are safest to overexpose if not using a lot of post-processing software- but not by much. You will preserve the Shadow detail, but need to avoid saturating the image. Once saturated, the highlights are gone.
Post-processing software is better at removing noise from an image. "Way back When", we computed the difference between neighboring pixels, compared the difference with the local average, and set a threshold to declare "noise". Once declared, run a spline smoothing function over it locally. Some modern software sounds like it performs scene segmentation and shape recognition, essentially substitute an object in place of the noisy image. Computers got fast, and have lots of memory.
I need to try the -2EV on the M9. Been playing with the Telephoto lenses on it lately.
Post-processing software is better at removing noise from an image. "Way back When", we computed the difference between neighboring pixels, compared the difference with the local average, and set a threshold to declare "noise". Once declared, run a spline smoothing function over it locally. Some modern software sounds like it performs scene segmentation and shape recognition, essentially substitute an object in place of the noisy image. Computers got fast, and have lots of memory.
I need to try the -2EV on the M9. Been playing with the Telephoto lenses on it lately.
The resolution of the KAF 18500 used in the M9 and KAF-10500 used in the M8 is 72LP/mm absolute, and 36LP/mm worst case if you get an object with a color that only shows up in all-blue or all-red. In absolute terms, the resolution is below several films. The resolution of the M9 and M8 sensors is about the same as Tri-X.
Look at page 10:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf
In reality, the resolution of the image with the M9 is higher resolution than what you get with most film cameras. Other factors such as flatness at the image plane is important, film flexes, sensors do not.
As an example: yesterday I used Two Summarit 5cm f1.5 lenses on my M9. I could clearly see the focus shift from F1.5 through F4, and that the two Summarits were optimized for F2.8. I could not see this effect with my film cameras: the image was just not as sharp as it was with the M9. The M9 is in perfect agreement with a multitude of other lenses used on it, including my 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor. DOF on that lens allows very little margin for errors.
Look at page 10:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf
In reality, the resolution of the image with the M9 is higher resolution than what you get with most film cameras. Other factors such as flatness at the image plane is important, film flexes, sensors do not.
As an example: yesterday I used Two Summarit 5cm f1.5 lenses on my M9. I could clearly see the focus shift from F1.5 through F4, and that the two Summarits were optimized for F2.8. I could not see this effect with my film cameras: the image was just not as sharp as it was with the M9. The M9 is in perfect agreement with a multitude of other lenses used on it, including my 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor. DOF on that lens allows very little margin for errors.
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
Nikon FX if I can transport the weight, 105 2.8 G, 60 2.8, 50 1.4G are the lenses so far not counting the old Nikkors, some single coated like 35 2.8 and 105 2.5 P.
D7000 for lighter weight, smaller size. Bought it with 35 1.8 60 2.8N, & 18/105 VR.
For really small and decent quality, D40 with 35 1.8.
A lot depend on it I am going to "dangerous" neighborhood, alone or with friends.
Nothing really replaces a Leica, so I carry one when the urge strikes.
D7000 for lighter weight, smaller size. Bought it with 35 1.8 60 2.8N, & 18/105 VR.
For really small and decent quality, D40 with 35 1.8.
A lot depend on it I am going to "dangerous" neighborhood, alone or with friends.
Nothing really replaces a Leica, so I carry one when the urge strikes.
And the Nikon D3 and D700 are full-frame, and 12 MPixels. The Olympus EP2 uses 5micron pixels, gives 100LP/mm resolution, but is not as good at high ISO as the M9.
At some point you are into diminishing returns with more pixels vs area of the individual pixels. Bigger pixels, more light gathering power and less noise. More pixels, more disk storage required. At this point, the Leica M9 has better High-ISO performance than any film that I have used, and has enough resolution to readily show the focus shift between F1.4 and F2. So, to answer the OP's original question, for me the Leica M9 is a good digital equivalent to a film Leica. It uses the same lenses, offers resolution at least as good as the films I use, and has better High-ISO performance.
At some point you are into diminishing returns with more pixels vs area of the individual pixels. Bigger pixels, more light gathering power and less noise. More pixels, more disk storage required. At this point, the Leica M9 has better High-ISO performance than any film that I have used, and has enough resolution to readily show the focus shift between F1.4 and F2. So, to answer the OP's original question, for me the Leica M9 is a good digital equivalent to a film Leica. It uses the same lenses, offers resolution at least as good as the films I use, and has better High-ISO performance.
Last edited:
PCStudio
Established
Olympus does 100 lpp/mm
baloney
****
baloney
****
Last edited:
Well- if they took the AA filter off of it, it would. It uses 5micron pixels.
Same is true of the Canon, Nikon, and most other DSLR's. They use AA filters that reduces actual resolution to something below what the Color mosaic filter can handle. So- the Leica M9 without an Anti-Aliasing filter, also known as a low-pass filter, has better resolution than the Canon.
My DCS200ir uses 9micron pixels, but does not have a Mosaic filter. It is a true monochrome sensor. I would still like to see an M9m.
Same is true of the Canon, Nikon, and most other DSLR's. They use AA filters that reduces actual resolution to something below what the Color mosaic filter can handle. So- the Leica M9 without an Anti-Aliasing filter, also known as a low-pass filter, has better resolution than the Canon.
My DCS200ir uses 9micron pixels, but does not have a Mosaic filter. It is a true monochrome sensor. I would still like to see an M9m.
The Foveon sensor is great for color images.
If you want the best for all-out resolution and dynamic range, one that competes with Black and White film, go with a Monochrome sensor. The Phase I Monochrome camera is the best that you can buy commercially. You can always put a filter wheel in front of it and shoot technicolor. But it is not a Leica, more like a medium format camera.
If you want the best for all-out resolution and dynamic range, one that competes with Black and White film, go with a Monochrome sensor. The Phase I Monochrome camera is the best that you can buy commercially. You can always put a filter wheel in front of it and shoot technicolor. But it is not a Leica, more like a medium format camera.