Leica M9 + 0.95 at ISO 640 and ISO 160

That noise does not match the sort of noise i've seen from the M9 before. It looks like post processing artifact. And the images are blurry because the exposures are just long enough so that blur in the wind and trees would show up.
 
One never knows how dense the maker of some flickr image may be. I'm going to give one a try before I decide how awful it is at whatever ISO.
 
I think the fault lies with the guy processing this photo. I've seen much worse come straight out of my 20D at ISO 400, back when I didn't know what the h3ll I was doing with RAW files.

A lot of clueless people out there, and even more taking their cluelessness as evidence.
 
Wow ... so this is what can be done with $17000.00 worth of state of the art photographic equipment if you put your mind to it! :D
 
The light flare pattern indicates that the lens was stopped down quite a way. For street light like that, if you stopped to f22 at ISO 640 and shot at 2/3 sec you might still be a stop or two underexposed. I bet he was trying to get the lightening trails and pushed the exposure up in postprocessing until the sky was glowing purple!
 
These are some of my M9 + Nocti ASPH (quick and dirty EAW conversions) from a recent wedding two weeks ago and I'm very happy with the results...

ISO 1600
L1001062.jpg


ISO 1000
L1000954.jpg


Cheers,
 
Back
Top Bottom