jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is valid- if you are not interested in the way your images look. You might lose some noise, but you throw out the drawing of the Summilux (whatever version) and a lot of detail. Much better to improve your postprocessing skills to get the most out of your digital M.
You'll find it runs rings around any P&S at low light.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
But at ISO 6400 that fabled $5000 Summilux's "drawing" ability starts to look like a two-year old's ;-p
LCT
ex-newbie
As a FF and crop cams user i believe that the gain of one stop is more important than anything else in low light photography. Also if money is a concern, I would not spend the big bucks on an end-of-life product like the M9 which is far from being the best one in low light. My best advice would then be to buy a cheaper APS or a fast lens for the M8.2 pending the launch of the M10.
The current Summilux asph 35 is very difficult to find out at reasonable prices. Focus shift is a problem with the previous Summilux asph as well as CV 35/1.4. The framelines of the M8.2 are not accurate enough for 40mm lenses. So i would go for a pre-asph Summilux 35 if you like its glow and don't fear its flare, or the CV 35/1.2 if bulkiness and VF blocking are not a concern. I have zero experience with the latter lens though.
The current Summilux asph 35 is very difficult to find out at reasonable prices. Focus shift is a problem with the previous Summilux asph as well as CV 35/1.4. The framelines of the M8.2 are not accurate enough for 40mm lenses. So i would go for a pre-asph Summilux 35 if you like its glow and don't fear its flare, or the CV 35/1.2 if bulkiness and VF blocking are not a concern. I have zero experience with the latter lens though.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'd buy a full frame camera over a crop sensor camera.
m9 > m8
The m9 is fine at ISO1600, and chuck a nokton f1.2 on it and you've got an amazing low light combo.
m9 > m8
The m9 is fine at ISO1600, and chuck a nokton f1.2 on it and you've got an amazing low light combo.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
But if you need ISO 6400 at 1.4 and 1/4 of a second I doubt that you are taking a decent photograph anyway. I always found black cats in a coal cellar singularly uninteresting.
It is exceedingly rare to need more than ISO 1600 for the type of work an M9 is meant for. If you want to shoot sports with a long lens in a badly lit hall, use a Nikon D3s. Horses for courses.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I would keep using the M8 and supplement it with a Ricoh M mount or a Sony 5n for lowlight.
I'd be loathe to carry such expensive equipment as an M9 and a Summilux FLE into the sort of urban lowlight environments with which I am most familiar.
I'd be loathe to carry such expensive equipment as an M9 and a Summilux FLE into the sort of urban lowlight environments with which I am most familiar.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Yes but the Leica mentality requires you to spend $5000 to gain a stop or two, never mind that you could accomplish the actual photography with anything less expensive and/or, umm, better!
Don't forget that you need a spare for back-up!
dimitris
Established
I would get the lens and worry about camera later.
Roel
Well-known
I'm also using a Gf1 and 20mm 1.7 for lowlight and P&S situations at the moment. Seems to perform better in the lowlight stuff. Altough the lens is really nice I always often have the feeling I should have taken the pictures with my M8 and fast glass.
And after roaming the streets of Amsterdam in dark weather last week I was kind of frustrated with that setup because I couldn't use it quickly enough or the focus was just off.
Want to go fully manual and be able to focus by hand.
So It should be the M (8.2 or M9 or 6ttl)
Faster glass seems the smart thing. M9 will be cheaper soon if the M10 comes. On the other hand if I want to a new digiM I want the warranty and since the prices go up again in january..Investing in a M9 might be a strategy moneywise..
I will have my 40mm 1.4 sc checked tomorrow to see if there is something wrong with it. I have seen some amazing results with this lens. On the M6TTl I had some really nice portraits aswell with that lens. But there seem to be more fans of the VC 35 1.2 around here.
The VC 35 1.2 vs 35 summilux asph. Is it on par with the 35 summilux or is it a financial choice to go with the next best option?
And after roaming the streets of Amsterdam in dark weather last week I was kind of frustrated with that setup because I couldn't use it quickly enough or the focus was just off.
Want to go fully manual and be able to focus by hand.
So It should be the M (8.2 or M9 or 6ttl)
Faster glass seems the smart thing. M9 will be cheaper soon if the M10 comes. On the other hand if I want to a new digiM I want the warranty and since the prices go up again in january..Investing in a M9 might be a strategy moneywise..
I will have my 40mm 1.4 sc checked tomorrow to see if there is something wrong with it. I have seen some amazing results with this lens. On the M6TTl I had some really nice portraits aswell with that lens. But there seem to be more fans of the VC 35 1.2 around here.
The VC 35 1.2 vs 35 summilux asph. Is it on par with the 35 summilux or is it a financial choice to go with the next best option?
furcafe
Veteran
I generally find cats, whether well or poorly lit, to be uninteresting. But that's just my opinion.
And it not exceedingly rare, in my opinion, to need more than ISO 1600 for "the type of work an M9 is meant for" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I've never shot "sports with a long lens in a badly lit hall," but often need to shoot people doing various things in (very) badly lit rooms, which is precisely the type of work I (& plenty of other people) use the M9 for (as we once used film Leicas). Having the option of usable ISOs higher than 1600 would simply mean being able to use shutter speeds higher than 1/15th sec. (people, & cats, occasionally move) &/or apertures smaller than f/1 or f/1.4 (that whole depth of field thing). But you're right that unless/until the sensor in the M10 or M11 is improved in that respect, a modern dSLR is the better horse for that dark course (if you can accept the added bulk & crappy manual focus).
To the OP, I'm in the camp that says invest in the faster glass 1st because improvements in the bodies (even in the Leica world) are more frequent. In the noise department, the M9 is roughly 1 stop better than the M8, but that's because of the bigger sensor (less enlargement = less perceived noise). Also, not that the "old" 35/1.4 ASPH 'lux is cheap, but I never had a problem w/focus shift when I used mine on the M8 (also not a problem currently on the M9).
And it not exceedingly rare, in my opinion, to need more than ISO 1600 for "the type of work an M9 is meant for" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I've never shot "sports with a long lens in a badly lit hall," but often need to shoot people doing various things in (very) badly lit rooms, which is precisely the type of work I (& plenty of other people) use the M9 for (as we once used film Leicas). Having the option of usable ISOs higher than 1600 would simply mean being able to use shutter speeds higher than 1/15th sec. (people, & cats, occasionally move) &/or apertures smaller than f/1 or f/1.4 (that whole depth of field thing). But you're right that unless/until the sensor in the M10 or M11 is improved in that respect, a modern dSLR is the better horse for that dark course (if you can accept the added bulk & crappy manual focus).
To the OP, I'm in the camp that says invest in the faster glass 1st because improvements in the bodies (even in the Leica world) are more frequent. In the noise department, the M9 is roughly 1 stop better than the M8, but that's because of the bigger sensor (less enlargement = less perceived noise). Also, not that the "old" 35/1.4 ASPH 'lux is cheap, but I never had a problem w/focus shift when I used mine on the M8 (also not a problem currently on the M9).
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So what ISO ( or DIN or ASA) did you shoot those marvellous film Leicas at ? 
Roel
Well-known
I had my gear checked and it turns out that the M8.2 was out of alignment and that some of my lenses need some work too. Funny enough the VC 40 1.4 was correct where I thought it was off.
Could be that I have been making pictures for ayear with a camera that was not 100%. The m8.2 did not capture my heart as I hoped it would and perhaps I know why now. Decided that I owe it to myself (and the camera) to have it fixed and shoot with the kit when everything is aligned properly.
In the mean time my M6TTL + 50 cron will get some action. Bought a bunch of Neopan 400 rolls to try out. (Any suggestions for 1600 film? Maybe I can I use Neopan 400 at 1600? but that is another topic ;o)
I'm very interested in what the 40mm 1.4 and the M8.2 can do together at 1.4. Maybe some of you have some good examples. Help me kill the GAS for a 35 1.2 or 1.4..
And I will have to work en test my Lightroom skills as Jaap suggested to get the most out of the 640 (or even 1250 Iso..)
Could be that I have been making pictures for ayear with a camera that was not 100%. The m8.2 did not capture my heart as I hoped it would and perhaps I know why now. Decided that I owe it to myself (and the camera) to have it fixed and shoot with the kit when everything is aligned properly.
In the mean time my M6TTL + 50 cron will get some action. Bought a bunch of Neopan 400 rolls to try out. (Any suggestions for 1600 film? Maybe I can I use Neopan 400 at 1600? but that is another topic ;o)
I'm very interested in what the 40mm 1.4 and the M8.2 can do together at 1.4. Maybe some of you have some good examples. Help me kill the GAS for a 35 1.2 or 1.4..
And I will have to work en test my Lightroom skills as Jaap suggested to get the most out of the 640 (or even 1250 Iso..)
Turtle
Veteran
For 1600, unless you want a strongly pushed look, use D3200 or Tmax 3200. The former is a touch faster, the latter has higher resolution and finer grain. These films are about 1000 and 800 respectively, or poss 1250 and 1000 in fast developers at a squeeze. They have quite different looks and I personally love them both but find the Tmax more usable for every day work.
furcafe
Veteran
Who cares? When I only shot film I was (& remain) generally limited to ISO 640 in color & 1250 in B&W 35mm (2500 in medium format), but isn't the whole point of new technology to be able to do things that you couldn't before? As I wrote, when I use my M9, it would be nice to not have to shoot like I'm using my film bodies. In addition to being able to shoot in environments where I can't right now, I would love to have the option of stopping down to f/2.8 or using shutter speeds above 1/30th sec. It's irrelevant that HCB, et al. could work their magic w/ISO 50 or whatever; I'm sure they would have welcomed Neopan 1600, etc. for similar reasons if that film technology had been available back when they were working.
For daylight shooting I still mostly use film, & only switch to digital if I'm on a tight deadline or want to shoot color in low light. For me, convenience & high ISO are the only 2 technical areas where digital is indisputably better than film. The M9 delivers on the 1st, but lags the competition in the 2nd. While I understand why the M9 is what it is, I don't dismiss the fact that there are many Leica/RF shooters like myself who could easily put ISO 6400 & above to good use (if there was ISO 6400 film that looked like Agfa APX 100, I'd buy that, too). Simply put: If I can see it (& focus), I want to be able to shoot it. And, yes, the resulting photograph will be "decent" (or indecent).
For daylight shooting I still mostly use film, & only switch to digital if I'm on a tight deadline or want to shoot color in low light. For me, convenience & high ISO are the only 2 technical areas where digital is indisputably better than film. The M9 delivers on the 1st, but lags the competition in the 2nd. While I understand why the M9 is what it is, I don't dismiss the fact that there are many Leica/RF shooters like myself who could easily put ISO 6400 & above to good use (if there was ISO 6400 film that looked like Agfa APX 100, I'd buy that, too). Simply put: If I can see it (& focus), I want to be able to shoot it. And, yes, the resulting photograph will be "decent" (or indecent).
So what ISO ( or DIN or ASA) did you shoot those marvellous film Leicas at ?
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I know the question is lenses vs camera but I find the M9 and 35 Summicron IV to be a wonderful combo. This camera and lens is giving me totally different photos than it did on my M8. Its not just the angle of view, its something more difficult to express. It is just natural, like this is how a digital Leica should be.
The 35 Summicron IV lens lives on my M9 with my 50 Summicron or 90 Elmarit M only coming out of the bag if I absolutely need them to get a shot. Personally, I could never give up this lens for an extra stop or stop and a half.
And yes, the M9 will give you the freedom to go from ISO 640 to 2500 without any serious loss of quality.
The 35 Summicron IV lens lives on my M9 with my 50 Summicron or 90 Elmarit M only coming out of the bag if I absolutely need them to get a shot. Personally, I could never give up this lens for an extra stop or stop and a half.
And yes, the M9 will give you the freedom to go from ISO 640 to 2500 without any serious loss of quality.
Roel
Well-known
Hi Tom,
Just when i thought i found peace with my set up..
)Could you perhaps show an example of an image with that 'je ne sais quoi?' of the combo?
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I tried but even though I've cleared all my attachments, the system will not accept my uploads. I'll try again later or drop me a email at printmaker@hawaiilink.net
and I'll send them directly.
Tom
and I'll send them directly.
Tom
Can you explain further?
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I'm finding the noise in my ISO 1250 and 2500 shots with the M9 to be useable where I had to stop at ISO 640 with my M8. 1250 in black and white with the M8 was useable and has the late '60s look of TriX pushed 2 stops in Acufine but that is where it ended. Color at 1250 on the M8 looked a bit gritty. But 1250 is smoother on the M9 and 2500, while far from perfect, is useable. Better software (LR3) helps.
Keep in mind that these days, I rarely shoot high ISO and when I do I am more apt to go with a longer exposure. I only go 1250 or 2500 after sunset or indoors. More often, I'll pull out the flash. So I'm more than happy with the ISO range of the M9.