nobbylon
Veteran
This whole high iso performance thing is a sign of the times I think. In my own experience I used uprated film and yes, I was getting acceptable and I stress acceptable results at 1250, however even with this, in the situations I was shooting, even with a 1.4 I was still only able at 1/15 of a second. In a roll I was probably getting no more than 5-6 shots I'd be happy with. So with this in mind, an M9 or 8 will do the job at a 1/15. Now take my current low light preferred cam, a D700. I set the iso to auto with a limit at 6400 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/100th. In the situation as described above I will get the shots at 1/60. This gives me a much higher hit rate with shots on moving subjects. For those that may think shots at 1/15 and even an 1/8th on static subjects with a D700 suffer because of mirror or shutter vibration, all I can say is that it's not been my experience.
All that high iso performance has allowed is that our hit rate for low light, in focus shots has increased and it has also allowed for low light shots arresting movement which previously where only succesfull with luck and or skill.
I think basically the M8, 9 series are just doing as close as the previous film M's did with uprated film. No more. If you need higher ISO performance go Nikon or Canon.
I think peoples expectations of the M8 and M9's performance are a little unrealistic when compared to the likes of D700's and 5D's.
All that high iso performance has allowed is that our hit rate for low light, in focus shots has increased and it has also allowed for low light shots arresting movement which previously where only succesfull with luck and or skill.
I think basically the M8, 9 series are just doing as close as the previous film M's did with uprated film. No more. If you need higher ISO performance go Nikon or Canon.
I think peoples expectations of the M8 and M9's performance are a little unrealistic when compared to the likes of D700's and 5D's.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Why is it unrealistic? Leicas forte has always been available light photography. This is how rangefinders basically survived against SLRs with mirror related limitations on their shutter speeds. Now that SLRs can compensate by using high ISO's and VR they are encroaching on leicas traditional terratory. And at half the price! It is not unreasonable to expect the digital m to at least hold its own this is only natural.
Leicas strongest remaining card is then its 'discretion' value, but a D700 with 45mm pancake is not exactly unmanageable.
Richard
blondie1
Member
That's right. But if one judges a camera one does it by comparison to other cameras that are up to date on the market. When there are cameras of 2000 euro with good ISO at 3200, one is not unfair if one demands of a camera of 5500 euro at least the same quality at 2000 ISO.
Leica's good limit ends at 1250.And whatever the reason is, it is Leica's problem. We pay good money for it. But perhaps Leica is blinded by all those snobbish fans who keep writing on the forums how good the ISO permormances are, how wonderful the camera is ( even with the M8) and who talk about the people in Solms as if they are some kind of saints. The best change for a really good camera are critical and demanding customers. That is not unrealistic.
Leica's good limit ends at 1250.And whatever the reason is, it is Leica's problem. We pay good money for it. But perhaps Leica is blinded by all those snobbish fans who keep writing on the forums how good the ISO permormances are, how wonderful the camera is ( even with the M8) and who talk about the people in Solms as if they are some kind of saints. The best change for a really good camera are critical and demanding customers. That is not unrealistic.
The jury is out still. Again, not even an M9 profile yet.
Who is setting this 1250 acceptability limit? The same people that say that 1600 Tri-X is fantastic, or the ones that think 1600 Tri-X stinks?
blondie1
Member
We have four tests, remember? And look, I worked 15 years with Tri X, but you cannot compare it. Grain is something else than noise. We have a new technology. Within that we should compare. ( are you comparing Tri X with the very first films?).
I'm not comparing Tri-X to anything. I'm just pointing out for every person that says 1600 Tri-X is great there is another that thinks it stinks, the same scenario will be applied for ISO xxxx on the M9...it's simply subjective.
Why not use the camera and decide for yourself? Only you can make that call, after all.
Why not use the camera and decide for yourself? Only you can make that call, after all.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
This thread is a hoot. blondie1, the M9 is what it is. It is the Leica DRF you can buy now. All the words in the world aren't going to change the high ISO performance of the M9, good or bad, and neither is Leica going to change it.
What is it that you want them to do, kill the M9 because you or others don't like the high ISO performance of the camera? I just don't get the point of all of this. It's a done deal. The M9 is what it is.
What is it that you want them to do, kill the M9 because you or others don't like the high ISO performance of the camera? I just don't get the point of all of this. It's a done deal. The M9 is what it is.
blondie1
Member
Aha, we don't have a standard. And now every manufaturer can say, even if they produce the most ugly ISO performances: It all is subjective.
I am using an M8 now for two years. Yes, 1250 is very bad. The M9 comes out in the four tests as a slightly better. How would you call it?
People who are in love with Leica will ofcourse shut their eyes for it. That is normal. You can call that subjective.
I am using an M8 now for two years. Yes, 1250 is very bad. The M9 comes out in the four tests as a slightly better. How would you call it?
People who are in love with Leica will ofcourse shut their eyes for it. That is normal. You can call that subjective.
blondie1
Member
Thy could try to give us back a M which greatest advantages were on availible light photography. They could begin to develop rapidly a better sensor. But perhaps they are already doing so. And than in a year or a year and a half you have to pay 6000 euro again.
aad
Not so new now.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The ultimate electronic mantra:
smooooooooooooooooth is beaueaueaueaueautifuuuuuuuuuul....
smooooooooooooooooth is beaueaueaueaueautifuuuuuuuuuul....
smooooooooooooooooth is beaueaueaueaueautifuuuuuuuuuul....
smooooooooooooooooth is beaueaueaueaueautifuuuuuuuuuul....
smooooooooooooooooth is beaueaueaueaueautifuuuuuuuuuul....
Your eyes are getting heavy - obey me and go out and buy a DSLR with electronically smooooooooooooooooooothed files, go out and.....
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well I did!
It was only meant to be an interim measure, but 3 months without my M8 and I am not missing DRF's. Time will tell. Why dont you give it an objective try too?
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I was so happy to sell my extensive Canon kit in 2007....
I was bored to death with it.Richard Marks
Rexel
I think the high ISO performance and VR technology has raised the bar considerably since then.I was so happy to sell my extensive Canon kit in 2007....
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Quite - the Canon upgrade cycle is indeed 18 months - I got off that treadmill and I'm not getting onto it again.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well never say never! I thought that too.
You know I still can not belive the R system has been dumped. Any word on the proposed 'solution for R users'? Is it simply to buy an S2?
Richard
nobbylon
Veteran
Well if you are an m8, 8.2 or 9 owner you already are! unless ofcourse you never upgrade firmware, screen, shutter etc.
I've never believed in upgrading for the sake of it and i'm talking digital here. If the cam you buy does the job then there is no need to. I believe that now cameras are as good as they are, even basic consumer slr's then there really is no need to upgrade unless you are after something in particular, ie full frame, DOF, high iso performance etc. I had my D70 for 7 years before I upgraded to a D700 for in my case, the above reasons and providing it keeps clicking see no reason to get anything else. If it hadn't been for the puny finder and crop factor I wouldn't have anyway as the D70 still has plenty of life left and the 6 Mp files where more than enough to get beautifull 20x16's from even at 1600 iso with a touch of dfine in PS. I believe it was the d70 sensor that was used in the Epson DRF and although it had limitations in very darkly lit interiors it did exceptionally well.
Olsen
Well-known
Absolutely. Tungsten light might be 60% of it.
Olsen
Well-known
Absolutely. I will not shell out $ 7,000 without knowing what I buy.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Canon may have the upgrade program that jaapv has stated, I wouldn't know personally!
What I do know is that the Canon 5D seldom has a bad word said about it on this forum ... in fact it's the opposite. People constantly seem to praise the performance and reliability of this camera although it's now been with us for four years ... will the M9 be so highly regarded in four years?
What I do know is that the Canon 5D seldom has a bad word said about it on this forum ... in fact it's the opposite. People constantly seem to praise the performance and reliability of this camera although it's now been with us for four years ... will the M9 be so highly regarded in four years?