Gid
Well-known
Back to the OP. Jaap said "pretty good". He didn't say as good as it gets or better than brand X, Y, or Z.
From personal experience I know the M8 isn't a patch on my Canon 5D at high ISOs (or the Epson RD1 for that matter). The M9 may have improved high ISO noise a bit, but it still isn't as good as the competition (does it really have any competition?). However, comparative performance is, sort of, irrelevant if, in absolute terms, it is good enough. So the question should be "Is it good enough for my needs?", not "Is it as good as the best?". If it isn't good enough for your needs then don't buy one.
From personal experience I know the M8 isn't a patch on my Canon 5D at high ISOs (or the Epson RD1 for that matter). The M9 may have improved high ISO noise a bit, but it still isn't as good as the competition (does it really have any competition?). However, comparative performance is, sort of, irrelevant if, in absolute terms, it is good enough. So the question should be "Is it good enough for my needs?", not "Is it as good as the best?". If it isn't good enough for your needs then don't buy one.
Davidin10003
Established
How can you say that?
How can you say that?
Gabriel we all know that beer is great, but Scotch whiskey is the greatest drink ever.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Good point though...for me its enough to say that the M9 is better at high ISO than the M8/8.2 and it will hopefully meet my needs. It's not "better" at high ISO than my 5DII, but everything is a tradeoff.
How can you say that?
Gabriel we all know that beer is great, but Scotch whiskey is the greatest drink ever.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Good point though...for me its enough to say that the M9 is better at high ISO than the M8/8.2 and it will hopefully meet my needs. It's not "better" at high ISO than my 5DII, but everything is a tradeoff.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is right, Gid, it has improved by about two ISO values. That is, for a CCD sensor, about the best we can expect today. With all the low-ISO advantages of a CCD sensor I would say that Leica has struck a good compromise for most uses, but obviously not for all.
We must remember that it is always a compromise. It is logical, with the megapixel race dead in the water and the Full-Frame marketing hype replaced with horses for courses, that High ISO is the main area for marketing leapfrog for Canon and Nikon, which obviously influences the technical choices made. I wonder what the next thing will be in a few years' time...
_mark__
Well-known
**** N**kon
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Brian
I do consider live view quite a considerable recent advance for critical focusing macro lenses. Enlarging the central portion really helps. However as you say you have all you need. no need to look any further job done!
Best wishes
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Roger
What has Sarkozy got to do with Nikon? Surely thats not cultural!
Regards
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, if your queen uses an M6, he is sure to use something BIGGER!
Makten
-
This discussion is a bit ridiculous. The M9 is great at ISO 2500, for what it is; a CCD sensor optimized for low ISO speeds. The Nikon FX sensors are better at 3200, but who cares? I've got the D700, and still I'd rather have an M9 even for high ISO shots. It would be good enough, while also having the ability to focus accurately at very low light. Yes, I can focus more accurately with my M8 than the AF on the D700 can, when light is very low.
The Nikon 12 mpix sensor in a Leica M body would be killer! But it doesn't exist such a camera. So, choose your tool carfully and be happy with it.
The Nikon 12 mpix sensor in a Leica M body would be killer! But it doesn't exist such a camera. So, choose your tool carfully and be happy with it.
250swb
Well-known
Well OK, would you say that if you wanted to make the best night time photo that you could from your Canon 5D you would still use a tripod and a low ISO? If not, what is your point? That the Canon 5D can make second rate images better than a Leica M9? This holds true for a Nikon D700 as well. And the ISO debate is all about which camera can make second rate images better that the others, because the lowest ISO still rules, and as long as you are allowed to use a tripod by the thought police it will always rule. Each camera has its sweet spot for use, but at least the Leica has its sweet spot in a tradition of available light work that doesn't need to look like it was made in bright daylight to be acceptable. As things stand in the 5D and D700 camp it would seem the best thing to do is apologise for all your previous work because its not as good as your current camera, and apologise for your current camera because it isn't as good as the 6D and D800 will be. Steve
once again apologies for all the text running together, I have no idea why para breaks don't appear.
I always regarded SLR's as live view. Never required more for the macro work. If I needed more, I'd use the Microscopes with the Digital camera on them. Nikon, Zeiss, and Olympus. As for "bleeding edge", Zeiss Deep-View. Had to cancel an order for a $130K microscope, they could not meet spec. Software problems.
Gid
Well-known
For clarity. My point is that the performance of any camera should be judged on its usefulness to the owner, not how good it is relative to any other camera - that is, is it good enough. I made no comparison between the Canon 5D and the Leica M9. Also, what is all that crap about second rate images? Clearly you've let the Leica red mist get to you - perhaps read my post a little more slowly or go and have a lie down.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Richard,
Consider the orginal meaning of 'con'.
Words like 'Nikon', 'con' and 'twat' have different weights in different circles and at different times.
As for culture, wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning (I release the safety catch on my pistol). The quote is of course Hanns Johst, not Goering.
Mit freundlich Grueßen,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well I just used my Nikon 5cm f2 lens on the M8 for the first time. Well balanced and first-rate combination. 100% crops, the Nikkor looks good. Will be putting a side-by-side up with a Zeiss Sonnar and Summicron.
I have a 43mm IR cut filter coming in. I'll be using more Nikkors on the Leica.
Right now- M8. Next camera will be an M9. Unless the D1x dies at work. Then I'll spend someone else's money on a D3x.
I have a 43mm IR cut filter coming in. I'll be using more Nikkors on the Leica.
Right now- M8. Next camera will be an M9. Unless the D1x dies at work. Then I'll spend someone else's money on a D3x.
biggambi
Vivere!
Gabriel we all know that beer is great, but Scotch whiskey is the greatest drink ever.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Oh, it had to be said. Now where's the bloody bottle? Because, these are things to argue over.
250swb
Well-known
Gid
Well-known
You said a bit more than that. If all you had said was what is in the quote above I would have had no argument.
Richard Marks
Rexel
I wonder if she is into rangefinder forum?Well, if your queen uses an M6, he is sure to use something BIGGER!
The sponsorship might come in handy
Richard Marks
Rexel
Brian
I cant imagine your D1x is ever likely to pack up. But I can honestly recommend the live view function for macro if you were ever to replace it. If I remeber the playback screen on the D1x is tiny but with a decent size screen and the ability to enlarge portions of the image this actually becomes very useful. Critical focusing is a doddle. maybe one day you might try it!
Regards
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Roger
The original post was really not very polite and I am sorry that you feel the need to run to dubious arguments about cultural context in its defence. However be reassured, I promise never to call you a Nikon.
Cheers
Richard