cee
Member
Easy
Easy
Ricoh GR-D.
No other camera on the market "gets out of the way" in a similar fashion, with quick, intuitive manual control.
SLR's are too big, and shouldn't be in the conversation, IMHO.
Easy
Ricoh GR-D.
No other camera on the market "gets out of the way" in a similar fashion, with quick, intuitive manual control.
SLR's are too big, and shouldn't be in the conversation, IMHO.
nobbylon
Veteran
I'm using a D700 with Leica R 35,50,90 lenses.
It's replaced my M film cameras. I tried the M9 route, it's not in the same league as the Nikon for high iso but then it's a well known fact and one that M9 users are aware of. M9 is a great camera if you just use it as a 100,200, 400 and 800 iso M6.
Point is that I never used iso 1600 film and above so why expect a digicam to do the same.
I think the true top end on a D700 is 3200 anyway. Probably 1600 on the M9 and the one stop difference on the Nikon needed for a higher shutter speed because of the mirror vibe.
I have taken some great 6400 with the Nikon but not often.
Peoples expectations of being able to shoot in near darkness have increased so much with digital, much more than was expected of film. As always, there is no one solution camera.
I've always liked the D700 images as to me, they are the most film like of any digital I've used. Some would say that you should expect a digi look with a digicam and film with film.
I like the look of film with the instant results of digi. The D700 is the best I've seen for getting there.
It's replaced my M film cameras. I tried the M9 route, it's not in the same league as the Nikon for high iso but then it's a well known fact and one that M9 users are aware of. M9 is a great camera if you just use it as a 100,200, 400 and 800 iso M6.
Point is that I never used iso 1600 film and above so why expect a digicam to do the same.
I think the true top end on a D700 is 3200 anyway. Probably 1600 on the M9 and the one stop difference on the Nikon needed for a higher shutter speed because of the mirror vibe.
I have taken some great 6400 with the Nikon but not often.
Peoples expectations of being able to shoot in near darkness have increased so much with digital, much more than was expected of film. As always, there is no one solution camera.
I've always liked the D700 images as to me, they are the most film like of any digital I've used. Some would say that you should expect a digi look with a digicam and film with film.
I like the look of film with the instant results of digi. The D700 is the best I've seen for getting there.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Not sure it is a digital equivalent, but the only digital camera I have (to learn about the digital world) is the Leica X1. Optical VF, manual control, now even manual or zone focusing possibility. Wehn I was young, unfortunately many years ago, high iso (really at that time it was high ASA!) it was 1.600. Now that seems just almost normal and if you can't get many thousand iso you cannot work...I'm not sure what to think about, so far in the digital world I'm satisfied of my x1...
robert
PS Yes, I'm sure it is digital, but not so much it is equivalent...
robert
PS Yes, I'm sure it is digital, but not so much it is equivalent...
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
When someone brings out an interchangable lens camera with the ISO capabilities of the new X100 with lenses dedicated to the sensor we could have the answer. I'd be picking Nikon to come up with something ... but it won't be cheap!
Well, it would also have to be the size of the X100, have an optical VF / EVF (non-SLR), and be significantly less cash than a Leica M.
I don't think it'll be Nikon or Canon... I believe they are doing well with their low-end DSLRs.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well, it would also have to be the size of the X100, have an optical VF / EVF (non-SLR), and be significantly less cash than a Leica M.
I don't think it'll be Nikon or Canon... I believe they are doing well with their low-end DSLRs.
Just imagine the X100 type design with a selection of lenses (four maybe) from 24mm through to 85mm all f2 or a little better. Fuji could do it by partnering with Cosina for the optics!
What a camera that could be!
Fuji could do it alone. Fuji optics are just fine.
cee
Member
&!%$@#!
When did this whole "high ISO" monster start rearing its ugly head?
Being a newcomer around these parts I'm willing to listen. Is it the closet joke...kind of like film vs digital?
The original GR-D is grainy as hell at 800 ISO in native B&W and that's why we love it.
Archiver
Veteran
I'm a newcomer to film, only really shooting the stuff as of late 2006. I've never shot a 1600 speed film other than Fuji Natura 1600, and I was not impressed with the grain at all. I far preferred fresh Fuji XTRA 400 for colour work, perhaps XTRA 800 if I really needed it. I shoot my 5D Mark II up to ISO 6400 without much worry, but due to usually shooting film up to ISO 400, I really don't worry about shooting the M9 beyond 800.
As for compact cameras, I use the GRD III and GXR in low light. The GXR especially holds up very well into ISO 1600, better than the M9, IMO. We can't change sensors in the M9, but at the moment it's the best we've got, and it's as much as I want in the M9. Although, if black and white film pushed to 3200 can do better than the M9, then I would be very interested in that.
As for compact cameras, I use the GRD III and GXR in low light. The GXR especially holds up very well into ISO 1600, better than the M9, IMO. We can't change sensors in the M9, but at the moment it's the best we've got, and it's as much as I want in the M9. Although, if black and white film pushed to 3200 can do better than the M9, then I would be very interested in that.
olleorama
flasher extraordinaire
You should code the post-production noise reduction plug-in for lightroom. Of course in FORTRAN (77).
Turtle
Veteran
What am I doing about it?
I am shooting B&W film with my Ms where I can and shooting with a 5dII where I can't.
I have shot B&W film at up to 6400 and while grainy, there is something tolerable about it that just is not tolerable with poor digital high ISO, as long as the original scene has a low SBR and so able to cop with so much development. Its the organic/inorganic thing of gran vs. noise. With my 5DII, the high ISO is pretty darned good and converted into B&W the result is not at all bad. I am sure D700s and D3s etc do somewhat better on noise, but with less resolution, but all are well ahead of the M9 on noise.
I am waiting and hoping that the M10 will put the emphasis on noise and other aspects of utility, rather than megapixels. 18 is fine, but two more stops of high ISO would be a game changer and what a camera that would be!
While the M9 imperial guard will get all upset at the idea that high ISO on the M9 is 'not good enough', I don't see a whole lot of top notch pros using M9s in very low light and thats not because they would not want to! its undoubtedly a great camera for daylight HCB type shooting - comments often made include the lack of high speed emulsions during his day - but truth be told, everything has moved on since then, and the M9 needs to do the same. The Leica M used to be the best tool for low light work AND discreet street work. Now, the DSLR has well and truly overtaken in the available darkness realm. While DSLRs will keep getting better and the Leica M10 will still be behind, it might be good enough to cross that threshold of 'minimum utility.' Two stops will do it for me. A 5DII-like 1600 opens up all sorts of possibilities and I might not be an oldie, but I cannot make a SLR do what a RF does for street work. I am desperate for the Leica solution because I have eight lenses and four M bodies, all of them film!
I am shooting B&W film with my Ms where I can and shooting with a 5dII where I can't.
I have shot B&W film at up to 6400 and while grainy, there is something tolerable about it that just is not tolerable with poor digital high ISO, as long as the original scene has a low SBR and so able to cop with so much development. Its the organic/inorganic thing of gran vs. noise. With my 5DII, the high ISO is pretty darned good and converted into B&W the result is not at all bad. I am sure D700s and D3s etc do somewhat better on noise, but with less resolution, but all are well ahead of the M9 on noise.
I am waiting and hoping that the M10 will put the emphasis on noise and other aspects of utility, rather than megapixels. 18 is fine, but two more stops of high ISO would be a game changer and what a camera that would be!
While the M9 imperial guard will get all upset at the idea that high ISO on the M9 is 'not good enough', I don't see a whole lot of top notch pros using M9s in very low light and thats not because they would not want to! its undoubtedly a great camera for daylight HCB type shooting - comments often made include the lack of high speed emulsions during his day - but truth be told, everything has moved on since then, and the M9 needs to do the same. The Leica M used to be the best tool for low light work AND discreet street work. Now, the DSLR has well and truly overtaken in the available darkness realm. While DSLRs will keep getting better and the Leica M10 will still be behind, it might be good enough to cross that threshold of 'minimum utility.' Two stops will do it for me. A 5DII-like 1600 opens up all sorts of possibilities and I might not be an oldie, but I cannot make a SLR do what a RF does for street work. I am desperate for the Leica solution because I have eight lenses and four M bodies, all of them film!
quadtones
Established
As I sit here reading your post, while copying some M9 files to the hard drive, I have to consider that there is really no replacement in the digital realm, but that my shooting style and method continues to favor the rangefinder camera--in this case an M8 and an M9, with a couple of fast lenses. The files don't look like my old film files shot on any of the films I used for years...Started with KB14 & 21, Kodachrome ASA 10 then 25 in and before high school, and recall trying to push Tri-X in Promicrol in 1961 to get shots of Gene Ammons band in an after hours club that would let me in to shoot. Today I have learned to use emulations of film grain to get digital files to look more "film like," but sometimes this just covers up noise in files--e.g. M8 @ 1250, - 2EV. The M9 is close to where I need it to be, considering that e.i. 1600 is "fast" to me. Borrowing a friend's D3 was a revelation, but I still shoot w/ 2 M [digital] bodies, 2 or three primes (although I recently supplemented them with an M6 loaded with Delta 3200). Besides, they weigh less than the Nikon/Canon beasts.
quadtones
Established
Late to the party...As I sit here reading these posts, while copying some M9 files to the hard drive, I have to consider that there is really no replacement in the digital realm, but that my shooting style and method continues to favor the rangefinder camera--in this case an M8 and an M9, with a couple of fast lenses. The files don't look like my old film files shot on any of the films I used for years...Started with KB14 & 21, Kodachrome ASA 10 then 25 in and before high school, and recall trying to push Tri-X in Promicrol in 1961 to get shots of Gene Ammons band in an after hours club that would let me in to shoot. Today I have learned to use emulations of film grain to get digital files to look more "film like," but sometimes this just covers up noise in files--e.g. M8 @ 1250, - 2EV. The M9 is close to where I need it to be, considering that e.i. 1600 is "fast" to me. Borrowing a friend's D3 was a revelation, but I still shoot w/ 2 M [digital] bodies, 2 or three primes (although I recently supplemented them with an M6 loaded with Delta 3200). Besides, they weigh less than the Nikon/Canon beasts.
dave lackey
Veteran
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. As I said, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
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.
As I said, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Last edited:
presspass
filmshooter
I, too, wish I could find the digital equivalent of a film Leica. I thought it would be the M8, something I could put in the bag with a couple of M7s in case I needed color to go with the B&W film images. It didn't work out that way. Now I take the film Ms and a D1 Canon and four lenses in case I need color and a high ISO and leave the M8 home. I doubt I'll buy an M9 - the high ISO results don't seem as good as Canon's DSLR. Too bad.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I chose the M9 and have not regretted one single minute of it. All of my vintage lenses can be used with ease, and for me it truly feels like a Leica. Took a while to save up for it, admittedly, but it was well worth it. I still do have a few film Leicas (III, IIIf, etc), but they seem to be sitting on the shelf more.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Dear Bill,
why not have the 'flaw' look like a 'feature' and say: 'those hi-end DSLR's all look the same, but a Leica delivers shots that still relate to the classical era of film photography'?
Really, I shoot film only and lately get more and more ohs and ahs for the distinctively-different-from-digital look of my shots.
On the image quality of Canon DSLR's: general public often would not know that quality if it bit them in the rear anyway.
Since Tim Hetherington (God rest his soul) won the World Press award with a shot that was truly good but not sharp, I really think sharpness and IQ etc should not make all that difference anymore.
I'm pretty sure the way one chooses to look at things can make a difference.
why not have the 'flaw' look like a 'feature' and say: 'those hi-end DSLR's all look the same, but a Leica delivers shots that still relate to the classical era of film photography'?
Really, I shoot film only and lately get more and more ohs and ahs for the distinctively-different-from-digital look of my shots.
On the image quality of Canon DSLR's: general public often would not know that quality if it bit them in the rear anyway.
Since Tim Hetherington (God rest his soul) won the World Press award with a shot that was truly good but not sharp, I really think sharpness and IQ etc should not make all that difference anymore.
I'm pretty sure the way one chooses to look at things can make a difference.
PCStudio
Established
Re :
Digital camera's sensor pixel pitch resolution - is a far below 35 mm film power .
Leica is a Film camera - and still are . Digital version of Leica doesn' t exist for me
Digital camera's sensor pixel pitch resolution - is a far below 35 mm film power .
Leica is a Film camera - and still are . Digital version of Leica doesn' t exist for me