Bill Pierce
Well-known
With FILM Leicas you can change the “sensor.”
In the late ‘60’s my main film was probably Kodachrome II, ASA 25. But I shot the nighttime demonstrations supporting Father Phil Berrigan outside his jail with a Kodak Recording film at EI 2000. (I opted for it rather the 5000 speed film for quality’s sake.)
While folks seem aware that there has always been slow 35MM film, truth is the fast stuff has been around a long while, too. I was using Agfa Isopan Record in the late ‘50’s. Diafine did a pretty good job of turning Tri-X into a high speed champ while we were still decades away from Kodak P 3200.
The Leica and its brethren were the natural light, high ASA champs of the film world. If you needed portability and a range of focal lengths combined with high quality images, you might choose to use a low speed 35-mm film. Journalists certainly did. But many folks simply went to a larger format camera. Useful as they were, amazing as they were, the little guys’ image quality could still be beaten by someone using large sheet film. The rangefinder was a versatile camera, but it really shined in the world of available light.
That’s why it is so strange, and a little bit sad, to see the digital Leica fail as an available light champ. Most digital cameras can produce good images in bright light. Now, in the dim-light digital world, I put smaller, single focal-length lenses on my DSLRs. I slip old Leica bright-line finders into the DSLR’s accessory shoe to make them more Leica-like. And even though nature photographers have a lot of good reasons for wanting to keep weight down, it’s still weird for me to see the digital Leica used for landscapes.
The rangefinder world I came from has turned upside down. The digital Leica is a good camera, just not the Leica I grew up with. So, here’s the question for the seniors, the elderly, perhaps even the more retrospective of a younger year - what the hell are you using in the digital world to replace your film Leicas? Is there a digital equivalent?
In the late ‘60’s my main film was probably Kodachrome II, ASA 25. But I shot the nighttime demonstrations supporting Father Phil Berrigan outside his jail with a Kodak Recording film at EI 2000. (I opted for it rather the 5000 speed film for quality’s sake.)
While folks seem aware that there has always been slow 35MM film, truth is the fast stuff has been around a long while, too. I was using Agfa Isopan Record in the late ‘50’s. Diafine did a pretty good job of turning Tri-X into a high speed champ while we were still decades away from Kodak P 3200.
The Leica and its brethren were the natural light, high ASA champs of the film world. If you needed portability and a range of focal lengths combined with high quality images, you might choose to use a low speed 35-mm film. Journalists certainly did. But many folks simply went to a larger format camera. Useful as they were, amazing as they were, the little guys’ image quality could still be beaten by someone using large sheet film. The rangefinder was a versatile camera, but it really shined in the world of available light.
That’s why it is so strange, and a little bit sad, to see the digital Leica fail as an available light champ. Most digital cameras can produce good images in bright light. Now, in the dim-light digital world, I put smaller, single focal-length lenses on my DSLRs. I slip old Leica bright-line finders into the DSLR’s accessory shoe to make them more Leica-like. And even though nature photographers have a lot of good reasons for wanting to keep weight down, it’s still weird for me to see the digital Leica used for landscapes.
The rangefinder world I came from has turned upside down. The digital Leica is a good camera, just not the Leica I grew up with. So, here’s the question for the seniors, the elderly, perhaps even the more retrospective of a younger year - what the hell are you using in the digital world to replace your film Leicas? Is there a digital equivalent?
I have been getting very good results with the M9 at ISO 2500, enough so to wonder why Leica did not add a 5000 and 10000 setting on it. The latter settings could be matched with some custom post-processing noise reduction software, perhaps integrated into Lightroom.
In another year I qualify for Senior Discount at the Museums that I visited last week with the M9. I could handhold shots with the 35/1.2 Nokton in dimly lit, "No Flash Photography" exhibits. One of the Museum volunteers told me "I have to ask you to turn off the flash on your camera." When I told her it did not have one, she asked "how do you take pictures with it?"
In another year I qualify for Senior Discount at the Museums that I visited last week with the M9. I could handhold shots with the 35/1.2 Nokton in dimly lit, "No Flash Photography" exhibits. One of the Museum volunteers told me "I have to ask you to turn off the flash on your camera." When I told her it did not have one, she asked "how do you take pictures with it?"
I used this shot as an example: ISO 2500, 1/6s, F1.2.
(Stars in the Planetarium projection, not noise)
As an engineer that worked on Digital Imagers in the 1980s, I see enough dynamic range left in this straight-out-of-the-camera image to squeeze another 2 stops out of it. Apply some noise reduction on the ISO 10000 equivalent, some non-uniformity correction, done. We're talking applying some 1980s signal processing here, nothing unique.
If I get a chance, I'll set the M9 to ISO2500 and -3EV, record raw, post-process to boost the signal. Of course, it was nicer when I got paid to do such things.
The manufacturers of the sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLR's do not publish "Long Sheets" to show sensor signal to noise, basically how many electrons to saturate a pixel compared with dark current. You need this number to compare how much of the High ISO performance is due to the sensor, and how much is due to signal processing. Signal processing can easily be done outside of the camera.
(Stars in the Planetarium projection, not noise)
As an engineer that worked on Digital Imagers in the 1980s, I see enough dynamic range left in this straight-out-of-the-camera image to squeeze another 2 stops out of it. Apply some noise reduction on the ISO 10000 equivalent, some non-uniformity correction, done. We're talking applying some 1980s signal processing here, nothing unique.
If I get a chance, I'll set the M9 to ISO2500 and -3EV, record raw, post-process to boost the signal. Of course, it was nicer when I got paid to do such things.
The manufacturers of the sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLR's do not publish "Long Sheets" to show sensor signal to noise, basically how many electrons to saturate a pixel compared with dark current. You need this number to compare how much of the High ISO performance is due to the sensor, and how much is due to signal processing. Signal processing can easily be done outside of the camera.
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I went with the Nikon D7000 because of its dynamic range capabilities. I wanted a sensor that could approach the dynamic range of film. Ergonomically the D7000 is DEFINITELY NOT a Leica replacement. But for everything other than street photography (too big.. too obvious), its a great camera.
Thardy
Veteran
Last year I used a Panasonic GF1 on a trip to Europe. I got great (sharp) photos in dark museums with the VR zoom lens, letting the camera pick ISO. The VR lens (f/ 3.5 -5.6) seemed to give better shake free images than the 20mm / 1.7 in dark venues.
I imagine a camera with built in VR would be even better cause you can use any lens.
I imagine a camera with built in VR would be even better cause you can use any lens.
I also own an Olympus EP2 with in-camera VR. It can work, but I have seen it get fooled when panning with motion. You have to know when to over-ride it. I love using the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 in LTM on the EP2. But- the M9 has it beat on high-ISO performance.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I used this shot as an example: ISO 2500, 1/6s, F1.2.
(Stars in the Planetarium projection, not noise)
As an engineer that worked on Digital Imagers in the 1980s, I see enough dynamic range left in this straight-out-of-the-camera image to squeeze another 2 stops out of it. Apply some noise reduction on the ISO 10000 equivalent, some non-uniformity correction, done. We're talking applying some 1980s signal processing here, nothing unique.
If I get a chance, I'll set the M9 to ISO2500 and -3EV, record raw, post-process to boost the signal. Of course, it was nicer when I got paid to do such things.
The manufacturers of the sensors used in the Nikon and Canon DSLR's do not publish "Long Sheets" to show sensor signal to noise, basically how many electrons to saturate a pixel compared with dark current. You need this number to compare how much of the High ISO performance is due to the sensor, and how much is due to signal processing. Signal processing can easily be done outside of the camera.
I appreciate your point Brian but you have skills and understanding that a lot of others don't possess. Obviously the M9 is capable of bridging this low light gap successfully but not everyone can achieve an ideal result.
Conversely ... any idiot (myself included) can pick up one of the low light champ DSLR's, set the ISO to 3200 or 6400 and blaze away knowing the results will be more than acceptable.
I used my M8 successfully in some extremely gloomy environments without exceeding ISO 640 ... but it required an f1.2 lens and even then it created unwanted movement blur occasionally and some post processing headaches. From what I read on this forum most people aren't taking their M9's past ISO 1600 unless they really know how to deal with the associated noise in post but everyone who owns a D700 or similar seems to regularly be shooting them at 3200 or higher.
Bill's right ... Leica have dropped the ball!
Are you saying that this combination would work better than a M9 at 2500 converted to B&W? or that Leica hasn't kept up with the times?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Here's what I have often wondered. I'm under the impression that Leica provides only one stop increments in ISO; e.g.,160, 320, 640,1250, 2500. Is that right? But my digital cameras go in 1/3 stop increments. So if I need a little more speed than, say, 2500, I can try 3200 or 4000, and get a little more image quality than if I had to use 5000 next. So if Leica couldn't see its way clear to allow 5000 or 10,000, why not 3200 and 4000? And what about all the other 1/3 stop steps, so one could trade off IQ for speed to the extent desired, even at 640 vs. 800 or 1000?
Thardy
Veteran
Absolutely, the M9 is better at high ISO than MFT cameras. In fact it is the BEST camera which actually fits the criteria for this discussion.
sparrow6224
Well-known
The D7000 was the first camera I thought of because it is remarkably small given its powers; and probably at this moment it has better low light capacities than any camera in its size or price range. Put a 50/1.8 or 35/1.8 or 24/2.8 on it and it's a small camera in my opinion. With the big zooms, not so much.
The GF series from Panasonic can't match an APS C sensor for image quality blown up large but for most purposes those cameras are superb. The original zoom lens with the G1/GF1 was an amazing lens so of course they've killed it in favor of a vastly inferior one. The original, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, as Mr. Thomas Hardy mentioned above, is really outstanding, in low light if need be, the VC allowing one to shoot at very slow shutter speeds. With the G1/GF1 you ouldn't want to take the camera up to EI 1600 because of visible noise but at 800 the lens's stability could compensate for two stops easily, which puts you at a 3200 equivalent. I had the G1. The second generation (G2, GF2) are supposedly much superior so probably look fine at 1600 or even higher, but I haven't used one yet.
The GF series from Panasonic can't match an APS C sensor for image quality blown up large but for most purposes those cameras are superb. The original zoom lens with the G1/GF1 was an amazing lens so of course they've killed it in favor of a vastly inferior one. The original, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, as Mr. Thomas Hardy mentioned above, is really outstanding, in low light if need be, the VC allowing one to shoot at very slow shutter speeds. With the G1/GF1 you ouldn't want to take the camera up to EI 1600 because of visible noise but at 800 the lens's stability could compensate for two stops easily, which puts you at a 3200 equivalent. I had the G1. The second generation (G2, GF2) are supposedly much superior so probably look fine at 1600 or even higher, but I haven't used one yet.
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
I'd have to say the D700 makes up for loss in latitude with insane iso sensitivity. Remember how stunned you were when you saw how good trix can look pushed to 1600, nay, 3200? thats how i felt when i picked it up for the first time. There has been no other consumer level digital camera I've considered parting with film for (anything else I would just rent). And with the 14-24mm zoom and 24mm pc-e, it's replaced my MF for architectural photography. For the price of an M9 body you can have a d700 with a fast normal prime and the legendary 14-24 fx zoom.
Last edited:
Out to Lunch
Ventor
My two cents: the Epson r-d1 produces a signature look unlike any other camera. 'Epson glow'?
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
The digital Leica (M9) is certainly not the available light champ, but it is not bad. The credit for this, I think, goes as much to Adobe as to Leica or Kodak. Adobe overhauled their noise reduction in 2010 with the introduction of Lightroom 3.2 (and Adobe Camera Raw 6.2). It's as if they created a new developer. The improvement was very substantial, almost revolutionary, although I'm not sure many photographers noticed. You have to use Process: "2010 (Current)" and view files at 1:1 to see the improvement on screen. Of course, Adobe advanced the available light performance of all cameras at the same time. The bottom line for the digital Leica is that Lightroom 3.2 (and later) makes ISO 1250 to 2500 much more useable than before.
Last edited:
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
The Pentax K5 is smaller than the D7000 in every dimension and weighs less to boot. Throw a DA40 on it and you've got a pretty formidable package. Still a DSLR, though, so not as "Leica-like" as it could be. From a "rendering" perspective the Ricoh GXR is producing some very nice results so it may be that when the M mount module is available it will do a nice job with Leica glass...
shimokita
白黒
there is so much light these days... a few years ago I drove from Heidelberg to Praha arriving about 1:00 AM. The sky was fantastic and I had forgotten what it was like without all the city lights. About the only place that looks dark at night from a satellite image is North Korea ;-). I think we have gained a couple of stops just thru industrialization...
I believe my F3HP does a better job of judging exposure at night than my Canon 5DII so in one sense both film and digital are covered. And as you mentioned, the question is for the seniors, the elderly, and perhaps even the more retrospective of a younger year. Well at least the first two groups go to bed earlier than they use to... ;-). I prefer the morning (pre dawn) light anyway.
Casey
I believe my F3HP does a better job of judging exposure at night than my Canon 5DII so in one sense both film and digital are covered. And as you mentioned, the question is for the seniors, the elderly, and perhaps even the more retrospective of a younger year. Well at least the first two groups go to bed earlier than they use to... ;-). I prefer the morning (pre dawn) light anyway.
Casey
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rob,
No. the M8 did. the M9 is in 1/3 stop rests. Can't remember about the M8.2 but I think it was 1/3 stop too.
Cheers,
R.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I considered the K5, with its extraordinary range of small primes, to be Leica of the DSLR world. And its high-ISO performance is spectacular.
I had another RFF member ask me what my Workflow is for High ISO. I set the camera to uncompressed DNG, shoot full 16-bit. Set camera to Automatic White balance. Use LR 3.3 to import the file, and then export it to JPEG. I did not do anything else to the image.
I would like to find software that adds the 4 pixels in each Bayer site for Monochrome. That would act as noise reduction and increase sensitivity. You would end up with a 4.6MPixel monochrome image. I'm guessing that you could shoot ISO 2500 with -2EV. Kind of like shooting Tri-X at ASA 1600. Underexpose the film and overdevelop in the darkroom.
I suspect that each ISO setting on the M9 and M8 corresponds to a gain setting on the pre-amp of the sensor, before it hits the A/D. So ISO2500 is a physical limitation of the camera. You are left with underexposing the image and then pulling the signal up with post-processing to get an equivalent of 5000, 10000, etc.
damien.murphy
Damien
No replacement for my film M's in my world at the moment, or rather I'm unable to afford them at the moment. I could live with an M8/8.2, and an M9 would be perfect. In the absence of those though, I can only see the Fuji X100 coming close.
There do seem to be a lot of interesting cameras out there, from the Panasonic GF's to Olympus EP's, Sigma DP's and the Ricoh GRD's. Unfortunately viewfinders have fallen out of fashion, and the alternative of an attachable viewfinder which I will lose/ break, does not appeal to me.
Not sure how hard it is for a camera manufacturer to make the equivalent of a film M or even an old style film slr, with a digital sensor. Most camera manufacturers seem to think we all want bulky cameras with unlimited gimmicks built-in as standard, whereas from where I'm standing the only worthwhile developments can be counted on one hand.
I am still waiting for a camera manufacturer to show the same sort of insight Nikon showed when they released the FM3A. I shall follow the thread with interest though, as I have been seeking a small digital M-equivalent for some time now.