may have finally lost it - selling D700 and M8 just to get an M9

[bugmenot]

Higher ISO than 800 or 1600 is vastly over-rated. The situations when it might matter are extremely small, and for years and years many of us made due in fine fashion without having ISO 3200 or more. Not saying that it isn't the bees knees being able to shoot at ISO 3200, just saying that basing a purchase on something that you'll need rarely at most is foolish. Better not buy anything but a full-size pick-up truck because I mighty have to move sometime in the next five years...

Again, you sound like the spokesperson for all photographers. I agree, you may not have a lot of high ISO photographs. That's fine. However, that doesn't mean that all photographers dismiss high ISO like you do, as you seem to claim.

There are many wedding, sports and other high speed photographers that RELY on the high ISO capabilities of their cameras. If it wasn't so, there wouldn't be a race to see who can offer better ISO performance in their DSLR between manufacturers today. Sure, there are photographs in the same fields who may use low ISO, but they are a minority.

Or how about this: A sensor with a relatively clean ISO 6400 will have excellent ISO 800, and even better ISO 400. So just because somebody has 5% of their photos captured at ISO 6400, it doesn't mean that their camera sensor won't benefit from having better low light performance. It affects the entire ISO range, more or less.

Just don't generalize your photography patterns and habits to every single photographer out there.

 

[sepiareverb]

So now after firing off the insults you offer a rational, sensible and polite point of view!

Clown is an insult? Have you seen my avatar image?
🙄

I was going to say "high ISO fan-boy's" but recalled someone getting no end of flak about that term...

 

[f6andBthere]

Clown is an insult? Have you seen my avatar image?
🙄

Hey ... I'm off to find my curly wig and my false nose.

😀

 

[Godfrey]

Clown is an insult? Have you seen my avatar image?
🙄

I was going to say "high ISO fan-boy's" but recalled someone getting no end of flak about that term...

I thought it was kinda funny comment ...

But then I'm often considered a clown. Clowns are more evil than funny. ];-)

 

[f6andBthere]

Actually Bob ... I think I now have to thank you.

I suddenly realised how much I like that pic as a potential avatar. 😛

 

[yossarian123]

I'd be really happy with a stop or two improvement over the M8. I love the low light capability in the D700 (I've had it since it was released) but I think the real proof is that I simply haven't used it in months.

 

[willie_901]

The ability to produce commercially viable photographs at ISO 800 or 1600 provides me with much more flexibility with my off camera strobes. Every stop counts. Clients appreciate the detail in shadow regions.

Not having to use a third-party noise filtering program with ISO 800 and 1600 reduces the amount of time I spend at post-processing.

Of course I wear my clown mask during photo shoots and back at the office whenever I process images.

I think the OP made the right decision. The M9 will be a great tool for them to achieve their photographic goals. Different goals sometimes require different tools.

 

[sepiareverb]

Please go easy on us high ISO clowns, some of us have to earn a living.

But would you use an M9 for that kind of work? Of course not. Well, maybe with a Visoflex. That 800/6.3 Telyt is reputed to be the cats meow under Sodium Vapor light. But, 6.3? on an M9 at night? Ugh. You've seen high ISO files from an M9 haven't you... Why they didn't pick a CMOS sensor I'll never know... These dead horses take a beatin' like nobodies business! 🙄

Obviously an SLR has a clear advantage for much work, having read many posts by the OP I have no doubt he's well aware of the benefits each system brings to the table. That he's shooting an M8 and a DSLR would bear this out. The endless complaints about high ISO performance of the M8, 9 (and I'm sure soon enough the M) are tiresome. ISO above 800 or 1600 is for specialized work like what you do, or for a particular look with film. As many here know my main complaint with the M9 is that the ISO doesn't go LOW enough for what I do. But the benefits of the M lenses far outweigh that in my work. To each his own, sure. But really how relevant is ISO 3200 for most work? I suppose I'm just out of touch with the current reality where ISO 3200 is a necessary "standard"? Better stock up on 8X and 12XND filters...

I've obviously struck a nerve with the "derogatory" term "clown". If I've offended any professional clowns I apologize.

And Sam, sorry if I've taken this too far off track. I'll gladly delete my posts if you wish. You know where to let me know.
-Bob

 

[RObert Budding]

Higher ISO than 800 or 1600 is vastly over-rated. The situations when it might matter are extremely small, and for years and years many of us made due in fine fashion without having ISO 3200 or more. Not saying that it isn't the bees knees being able to shoot at ISO 3200, just saying that basing a purchase on something that you'll need rarely at most is foolish. Better not buy anything but a full-size pick-up truck because I mighty have to move sometime in the next five years...

And anyone trying to use an M9 to shoot sports is not going to be very happy most of the time.

I'm in the group that needs high ISO. About 90% of my digital photography is shot at ISO 3200 and above.

It's funny that Leicaphiles used to rave about the low light capabilities of their film cameras. But now it doesn't matter because Nikon has surpassed Leica in that area. Either way, buy the camera that makes you happy.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm in the group that needs high ISO. About 90% of my digital photography is shot at ISO 3200 and above.

It's funny that Leicaphiles used to rave about the low light capabilities of their film cameras. But now it doesn't matter because Nikon has surpassed Leica in that area. Either way, buy the camera that makes you happy.

Honestly, this thread is becoming absurd.

Leica RF cameras have excellent low light capabilities NOT because of absurd sensitivity capabilities OR because of ultra ultra high speed lenses. They have excellent low light capabilities because without a moving mirror and with a lightly sprung and well damped shutter, they don't tend to move as much as an SLR when you release the shutter, which makes them easier to hold still. That hasn't changed ... It is only cameras like the M9, the Rolleiflex TLR, etc that I can hold still at extended exposure times down into the 1/4 second range and get sharp results even without image stabilization.

High sensitivity sensors make it easier to hold a camera still because you don't have to use such a long exposure. Image stabilization helps too. BUT in doing so, they cannot take the same kind of photograph ... subject motion was always a part of low light photography in the past. Now, with all the hyper sensitive stabilized cameras, the photos hardly look any different from shooting in broad daylight.

There is certainly a place for high sensitivity, and optical reflex viewfinders, and rat-tat-tat sequence capture like a machine gun, etc etc. There is a diverse range of cameras on the market with have all of these, and more, capabilities. One thing is certain, however: a Leica is not a Nikon, is not a Hasselblad, is not a Bessa, etc. They're different cameras, useful for different things and appealing to different people. Vive la difference!

Having worked with SLRs and RFs, 35mm, and medium format, side by side since 1969, I'm happy to say I like them all for their respective strengths. Right now, the M9 and the Bessa III are my choice for the work I want to do. And if they're not as flexible or as sensitive as the best of current DSLRs, well, eh? who cares? They suit me just fine and they make the photographs I'm interested in making. For other needs, I have and have had other equipment.

G

 

[f6andBthere]

Honestly, this thread is becoming absurd.

Leica RF cameras have excellent low light capabilities NOT because of absurd sensitivity capabilities OR because of ultra ultra high speed lenses. They have excellent low light capabilities because without a moving mirror and with a lightly sprung and well damped shutter, they don't tend to move as much as an SLR when you release the shutter, which makes them easier to hold still. That hasn't changed ... It is only cameras like the M9, the Rolleiflex TLR, etc that I can hold still at extended exposure times down into the 1/4 second range and get sharp results even without image stabilization.

High sensitivity sensors make it easier to hold a camera still because you don't have to use such a long exposure. Image stabilization helps too. BUT in doing so, they cannot take the same kind of photograph ... subject motion was always a part of low light photography in the past. Now, with all the hyper sensitive stabilized cameras, the photos hardly look any different from shooting in broad daylight.

There is certainly a place for high sensitivity, and optical reflex viewfinders, and rat-tat-tat sequence capture like a machine gun, etc etc. There is a diverse range of cameras on the market with have all of these, and more, capabilities. One thing is certain, however: a Leica is not a Nikon, is not a Hasselblad, is not a Bessa, etc. They're different cameras, useful for different things and appealing to different people. Vive la difference!

Having worked with SLRs and RFs, 35mm, and medium format, side by side since 1969, I'm happy to say I like them all for their respective strengths. Right now, the M9 and the Bessa III are my choice for the work I want to do. And if they're not as flexible or as sensitive as the best of current DSLRs, well, eh? who cares? They suit me just fine and they make the photographs I'm interested in making. For other needs, I have and have had other equipment.

G

Resepectfully Godfrey what is absurd is telling the 'high ISO clowns to get a life' and it's that approach that has derailed this thread somewhat.

No one is disputing that the rangefinder has its own advantages in low light situations and your point about lack of camera/shutter reaction is very valid.

Any group when jabbed with a sharp stick will retaliate though ... especially when it wasn't really necessary.

 

[Lss]

It's funny that Leicaphiles used to rave about the low light capabilities of their film cameras. But now it doesn't matter because Nikon has surpassed Leica in that area. Either way, buy the camera that makes you happy.

I guess such a take on the discussion misses the concept of good enough. It may be that for a number of users, film Leicas reached that level or came the closest while Nikon (SLR) cameras didn't. When you are below any such threshold, you have a bit of a problem. When you reach it, further improvements often become less interesting.

My M8 is the first and only Leica camera I have owned, so I am not making a claim either way.

 

[mfogiel]

I think, that selling the 105/2 DC is silly... this is one of the best SLR lenses ever made, and sooner or later you will regret it. I have just bought one myself, as a companion to the 135/2 DC. The digital contraptions will come and go, the lenses will remain.

 

[maitani]

Imo it depends on the lenses you have or plan to have

If you Earn money out of it, keep the D700 (or sell all towards an M-ilesrone)

If you don't,... go for that M9

Although what i d would do is selling the nikon kit and get some really nice glass for the M8 instead an M9 will cross your road cheaper than they are right now sooner or later. Leica M glass won't

 

[Godfrey]

Resepectfully Godfrey what is absurd is telling the 'high ISO clowns to get a life' and it's that approach that has derailed this thread somewhat.

No one is disputing that the rangefinder has its own advantages in low light situations and your point about lack of camera/shutter reaction is very valid.

Any group when jabbed with a sharp stick will retaliate though ... especially when it wasn't really necessary.

LOL ... I thought it was funny (hah hah), and I think all the offended egos in response are funny (peculiar) too. Come on, get real. It was a bit of a josh, a hyperbole for humor's sake. They're just frickin' cameras after all. Nothing truly important.

---
And to return to the OP's question: If you want to go for an M9, sure. Sell the D700 and everything else and go for it whole hog. Use it a lot and see if it's right for you. If it isn't, sell it and move on to the next camera. It's no big deal, they're all just cameras.

G

 

[flyalf]

Hi,

I switched from a D700 to an RD-1, and then to M9 2-3 years ago. No regrets. But then again Im only in it for the fun, not to have a multipurpose photo tool (as the D700 is, and the M9 less so).

 

[denizg7]

Hi,

I switched from a D700 to an RD-1, and then to M9 2-3 years ago. No regrets. But then again Im only in it for the fun, not to have a multipurpose photo tool (as the D700 is, and the M9 less so).

Believe it or not NY times is one of the few news organizations that gets their news by their own bases and journalists around the world..

One of the photo journalists there , a very famous one uses an m9

 

[thegman]

If you're not using the D700, get it sold, it's not like it's going up in value. The M9's high ISO performance would be easily enough for me, but may not be for you, maybe ask to try one in a shop.

 

[fti]

I moved from a D700 to the M9. Best thing I ever did. I went about it in a round about way, but ended up where I wanted to be. Went from D700 to M8.2, back to D700, then to 5D Markii and now finally to M9. Don't judge me too hard on this. Prior to the D700 I shot a D70 for about 7 years! The great thing is that I haven't really lost any money in this process because I bought and traded them all used. What I have gained is a tonne of experience 🙂

I used the D700 with G-lenses and Zeiss. Despite the D700 being very good at high ISOs; I really don't miss it at all. You just learn to work with the M9 and what it has to offer. It is definitely a step up from the M8 ISO capability.

I don't think you lost it. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Surely the high-ISO thing comes down to

(1) It's nice to have, in case you need it

(2) It's much more useful for some people than others

(3) It can't be essential because an awful lot of good pics were taken with fast lenses and (relatively) slow films, or with ordinary lenses and fast films.

The 'clowns', surely, are the ones who don't actually have any need for high ISO, but drool about it anyway; who buy, in short, on specs, and then photograph picket fences and cats. High ISO settings are especially useful for the latter, because they can now photograph black cats in coal cellars at midnight.

To return to the original question, my M9 is my main miniature camera, but I also have a cheap'n'cheerful DSLR, a Nikon D70, which is perfectly adequate for step-by-steps, pack shots and soft focus. When it dies, I'll probably buy a D800, which will rule out an M Type 240. But I might just buy the Type 240 and use my F lenses on that with an adapter. I'd not want to be without something digital with through-lens viewing, even if it meant using a ground glass, and I can't afford a digital back for my Alpa.

Cheers,

R.