Huh, I'm not having the same problem at all.
Mcary
Well-known
Slight different point of view here; after spending the past four plus years shooting FF 5D then 35mm film M4-2, M6 plus some medium fomrat 6x6 thrown in for fun, I took me about 2 minutes to adjust to shooting with the M8 and find switching back and forth between the M8 and M6 rather easy.
kzphoto
Well-known
Frank,
If you're used to the M experience, stick with it. From your site however, it looks like you use a menagerie of cameras.
My only experience is with the M8: It takes a bevvy of lenses, but it'll cost more than most of your other options here. You'll also find more fast wide angle lenses on the M8.
My 2 cents.
If you're used to the M experience, stick with it. From your site however, it looks like you use a menagerie of cameras.
My only experience is with the M8: It takes a bevvy of lenses, but it'll cost more than most of your other options here. You'll also find more fast wide angle lenses on the M8.
My 2 cents.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Yeah one the amusing things about all the M-users insisting on full-frame is why? It's a rangefinder, it's not like the finder is smaller or worse because it is independent of sensor size. Compared to the SLR-users, the only thing pushing for full-frame on the RF was that a larger sensor usually means higher image quality. But I don't need ultimate image quality (or I'd be using 8x10 or a 60mp MFDB).
Granted, focal lengths are different but that's not too hard an adaptation when I don't have thousands tied up in existing lenses. If I get a 28mm, then I get my ~40mm equivalent.
Still, yes, a D700 with Nikon prime would be something to consider too, but I really do prefer rangefinders and the Leica build quality and menu system (I've used an M8 briefly).
Granted, focal lengths are different but that's not too hard an adaptation when I don't have thousands tied up in existing lenses. If I get a 28mm, then I get my ~40mm equivalent.
Still, yes, a D700 with Nikon prime would be something to consider too, but I really do prefer rangefinders and the Leica build quality and menu system (I've used an M8 briefly).
MCTuomey
Veteran
M8 + CV 35/1.2
or
5D/D700 + Zeiss 35/1.4 (wait until the zeiss arrives)
or
5D/D700 + Zeiss 35/1.4 (wait until the zeiss arrives)
bensyverson
Well-known
M8 + Voigtländer Ultron 28mm f/2
???
???
hteasley
Pupil
Say "ultimate image resolution". You have an excess of image quality as it is.
I think, although I don't know, that folks complain about the crop on the M8 when they have a film M as well, and switch lenses between them. The inconsistency is an issue, as well as the strong need for the UV cut filter when they're on the M8, but not needing them when they're on a different M. I'm just guessing, of course.
I love my M8, but I do regret losing some shots to ghosting because of the UV cut filter. That's the only real problem I have with it: it likely has bigger problems with me.
The X1 manual focusing is not good, and the AF is very slow, and will be even slower in the low-light you want to shoot. And with the X100 coming out, with a faster lens and half the price, I certainly wouldn't buy one now, in any case. There's a firmware update for it coming soon, I hear, but who knows how much that fixes things.
I'd wait for the X100, and would expect the choice to be between that and the M8.
Last edited:
bigeye
Well-known
I thought this fellow is doing some impressive outdoor night work with just a Nex5: Tom Paiva's blog.
But, you need an M9; everything else digital (RF/VF) is half-assed.
But, you need an M9; everything else digital (RF/VF) is half-assed.
Last edited:
Lss
Well-known
This is a big part of the issue for me. Another aspect is lens choice when you need fast lenses. There are affordable options for full frame at around 35mm, there are none for crop bodies. There are no really fast 28mm lenses, while the 24mm Summilux is very expensive. It's not the end of the world, but it is a serious issue for many photographers. The crop factor either does not do much for you (some may even view it as an advantage), or it is a clear disadvantage. It really depends on your style, needs, other gear, and budget.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
In the low light domain, a D700 is hard to beat right now, though. You'll really have to figure out what is important to you - from your published work you obviously can make any camera work for you and have/had enough of them, so getting another one is either for fun (and then get the funniest, whatever way you feel
) or because all others constrain you at some particular task (and then whatever can deal best with that will be he right choice...).
andy_v
Established
Being a big fan of Hexar AF I voted for x100.
Of course I love my m8.2 with zeiss lenses. It's a versatile tool. And as for me, two things were a little bit frustrating. First - sometimes disappointing iso 1250, second - 25 mm on m8 crop is not the same as 35 mm on FF. It seems to be closer to 28 mm.
I'd like to have such a tool as x100. More compact and light than m8 it would be great in conjunction with hexar loaded with b&w film.
BTW, Frank, I like your portfolio in one of the last issues of russian Photo & Video magazine very much
Of course I love my m8.2 with zeiss lenses. It's a versatile tool. And as for me, two things were a little bit frustrating. First - sometimes disappointing iso 1250, second - 25 mm on m8 crop is not the same as 35 mm on FF. It seems to be closer to 28 mm.
I'd like to have such a tool as x100. More compact and light than m8 it would be great in conjunction with hexar loaded with b&w film.
BTW, Frank, I like your portfolio in one of the last issues of russian Photo & Video magazine very much
usayit
Well-known
I'm trying to figure out why another m4/3rds camera isn't an option. The G1 was one of the first versions of this format and things have improved since. My E-PL1 is a bit better than my G1 (which I still use). IBIS in the pens would also help in low light in static situations.
Still... some have suggested Nikon/Canon body with fast prime. If low light / high iso is the primary motive, then I'm all for full frame DSLRs or even a used Canon 5d. The latest bodies are becoming really impressive.
Still... some have suggested Nikon/Canon body with fast prime. If low light / high iso is the primary motive, then I'm all for full frame DSLRs or even a used Canon 5d. The latest bodies are becoming really impressive.
250swb
Well-known
I'm baffled, the Fuji F100 is a crappy little P&S that seems to have no place in the requirements. So I'm going to vote for the F100 assuming the poster meant to say X100. Wouldn't it be a laugh if he meant F100 and it wins (which would be bad, but funny).
Steve
Steve
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Frank,
if you liked the Hexar, why not stick to it? It takes any Nikon flash, has IR focusing that only misses through glass, is small and pocketable (big hands = big pockets, right?)
if you liked the Hexar, why not stick to it? It takes any Nikon flash, has IR focusing that only misses through glass, is small and pocketable (big hands = big pockets, right?
)ruslan
Established
x100 will be good choice.
mto'brien
Well-known
Frank,
M8. Because I don't have any experience with the other 2 in the poll.
But, i have to agree with f16, that a pic shot with a 28 looks like a 28 with the distortion. 1.3x crops out a lot of it, but it is there. want a 40 look, i find that a 35 and a small step back gives me that, not the 28. not that i don't dig my 28 on my M8, because i do.
i will be in rochester for a week starting 12/22 and i'll have an M8 and 28/1.9, 35/1.2 and 40/1.4 with me. if you want you can check it all out and see what you like... just shoot me a pm.
M8. Because I don't have any experience with the other 2 in the poll.
But, i have to agree with f16, that a pic shot with a 28 looks like a 28 with the distortion. 1.3x crops out a lot of it, but it is there. want a 40 look, i find that a 35 and a small step back gives me that, not the 28. not that i don't dig my 28 on my M8, because i do.
i will be in rochester for a week starting 12/22 and i'll have an M8 and 28/1.9, 35/1.2 and 40/1.4 with me. if you want you can check it all out and see what you like... just shoot me a pm.
Last edited:
aad
Not so new now.
Funny, Frank asking us what camera to use.
Whichever one you like, I'd imagine comfort and speed of handling would be the only thing that really mattered.
Whichever one you like, I'd imagine comfort and speed of handling would be the only thing that really mattered.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'd usually say 5d or d700 with 35mm prime or voigtlander 40mm f2....
BUT..
I'm going a different way and saying why not a GH2 and use your current 20mm f1.7? The gh2 seems to be a MASSIVE improvement over the G1 in terms of noise control - shots at iso 1600 are clean and noise free, plus it should have a dynamic range boost with the new sensor...
Edit: noise test on other forum: http://www.omuser.com/viewthread.php?tid=138034&extra=&page=1
BUT..
I'm going a different way and saying why not a GH2 and use your current 20mm f1.7? The gh2 seems to be a MASSIVE improvement over the G1 in terms of noise control - shots at iso 1600 are clean and noise free, plus it should have a dynamic range boost with the new sensor...
Edit: noise test on other forum: http://www.omuser.com/viewthread.php?tid=138034&extra=&page=1
Last edited:
1ScrewLoose
Member
Kind of like Yo Yo Ma going onto The Cello Forum to ask what kind of cello to buy.
If Yo Yo Ma liked playing chamber music with an ensemble of naked ladies.
I can't speak to the other options under discussion here. The M8 handles like... well, a Leica. Which is nice. Though I do find the high ISO performance a bit limiting. And I'm not someone who is capable of asking the most from his gear by any stretch.
filmfan
Well-known
Frank, why digital? I love the large format borders in your shots. It is part of your signature.