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

[f6andBthere]

So has anyone actually ever photographed a black cat in a coal mine?

And what ISO does it actually require at f2? 😀

 

[kennylovrin]

I think it was before I got the R-D1 I was thinking in the same terms, that the ISO range of the R-D1 would render it completely useless for me kind of. Then I did a search in Aperture through my whole library for shots taken at ISO800 or above, and I think I ended up with a subset of about 5% of all the shots in the library. Now, for me personally, a lot of those shots we're **** anyway, so my conclusion was that I didn't need the ISO range as much as I thought.

But then at the same time, like has been said before here, better ISO performance usually means better quality at any given setting, so just because you don't need a high ISO doesn't mean that you will benefit from it even at lower ISOs. Then how much that is worth for everyone is individual I guess.

anyway, what I wanted to say was that if you use something like Aperture or Lightroom to catalogue your shots, I'm sure it would be fairly easy to do a search and get some sense of how often you use certain ISO ranges.

I might sell my 5D soon for the same reason as you, haven't used it since I got the M6, so I would be better off with another Leica (M8/M9) probably than just having the 5D in a bag.

 

[Teuthida]

I've not shot a single frame with an SLR of any kind since getting my M7 in 2006.

To the high ISO clowns: Get a life. Those of us over 30 were crazed by ISO 3200 when it appeared, then realized that 800, 1000 or (gasp) 1600 really was plenty fast 99.9% of the time. Oh right, not when you need f22 at 2am in some cave somewhere...

It's all part of the dumbing down of photography via technology, which allows newer photographers to mistake technological crutches for necessities.

Let's face it; if your photographic style depends on gimmicks, the digital revolution has leveled the playing field, and any young kid with an iPhone and hipstamatic account laughs at you.

But real photographic vision always trumps gimmickry, and doesn't depend and the features of your camera.

 

[TR3B]

Sold my D700 for $1750 and 1Ds for $650 and bought super low count mint 5D for $750. The 5D and my M8 are perfect for me. 5D iso is doable and the M8 makes a great b/w rangefinder.
Yabba Dabba Doo!
Life is good!

 

[yossarian123]

Well, it's done. I sold the D700 and M8 this weekend. The M9 should be here by Wednesday - here's a salute to simplicity! I'm down to an M9 and RX100 for digital.

 

[j.scooter]

Well, it's done. I sold the D700 and M8 this weekend. The M9 should be here by Wednesday - here's a salute to simplicity! I'm down to an M9 and RX100 for digital.

Congrats.
Be sure to update this thread with your initial thoughts and some pics.

 

[Godfrey]

Congratulations!

I'm headed in the same direction. 🙂

 

[sepiareverb]

Excellent!! Enjoy it. I love what the M9 delivers to the printed page and the screen.

 

[RattyMouse]

I've not shot a single frame with an SLR of any kind since getting my M7 in 2006.

To the high ISO clowns: Get a life. Those of us over 30 were crazed by ISO 3200 when it appeared, then realized that 800, 1000 or (gasp) 1600 really was plenty fast 99.9% of the time. Oh right, not when you need f22 at 2am in some cave somewhere...

Nonsense. I shoot out in the night over half the time I have a camera in hand, usually with an f/2 lens. ISO1600 simply wont cut it in MANY situations. The shutter speeds will not even come close to stopping the night life. Not. Even. Close.

Many times i'm forced to resort to ISO6400, just to get the shot.

ISO800 is virtually useless to me after dark.

 

[RattyMouse]

(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.

R.

Shots that were NOT taken due to inability or unavailable high ISO values cannot be seen, therefore one cannot state that point 3 has any validity at all. Sure good photos were taken without high ISO values. That does nothing to prove that BETTER photos could not have been taken had such ability been available.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shots that were NOT taken due to inability or unavailable high ISO values cannot be seen, therefore one cannot state that point 3 has any validity at all. Sure good photos were taken without high ISO values. That does nothing to prove that BETTER photos could not have been taken had such ability been available.

Very true indeed: the classic 'silent evidence' argument. But contrariwise, how many brilliant pictures HAVE demonstrably been taken thanks solely to very high ISOs?

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

ISO800 is virtually useless to me after dark.

Sorry to hear that. You're very lucky to have been born when you were.🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry to hear that. You're very lucky to have been born when you were.🙂

Well, quite. Clearly I am not alone in hearing a note of hyperbole in this claim.

Sure, fast lenses and long shutter speeds involve compromises that high ISOs don't. On the other hand, it's extremely disputable that "The shutter speeds will not even come close to stopping the night life. Not. Even. Close."

Who else is familiar with Brassai's The Secret Paris of the 30s, Thames and Hudson, 1976?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ronald M]

I never bonded with my M8 until I got my M9P and figured how to change the M8 colors in PS to match. HSL panel in ACR save as preset. The lenses are all filtered and coded to no avail. The M9 is an outstanding camera. That said, my son showed me some M8 prints he made, 11x14 from half the frame, and there is nothing wrong with them.

The D700 is as good as it ever was, does high iso better, auto focuses, take zoom & shift, lenses, and will make a pin sharp 11x14. It does require some extra post p.

I do not think you will see a difference in normal size prints between M8 & 9.

 

[djonesii]

great time to be a photographer ...

great time to be a photographer ...

To all on this thread ....

Isn't great that I can choose to shoot like some of the old masters did, NB: Brassi, If I choose, I can shoot with almost identical films/bodies/lens as HBC himself. What fun it is, learning how to make images work with those tools.

At the same time, I can take a full frame DSLR, and shoot at ISO's that have three zeros at the end with VERY fast glass, think F1.2 What a change from demanding exquisite techniques that only a few could really master, but alas the DSLR is a beast.

Oh but wait, my little RX-100 still has a whole bunch of magic in it at ISO 6400 with nothing but the M mode, and if I want to play with the clever twilight modes I can make some real cool images.

so, lets not turn the nice little corner of the internet that our host and mods so kindly provide into DPR,

Go take some photos in low light with your preferred tools!

Dave

 

[Godfrey]

I like to think of it as the rock of enlightenment. 😀 To say I never watch sports is an understatement. Not. Even. Close. Haven't seen any game televised or live in years, a televised one in more than twenty at least. I really can't remember when it would have been, likely the late eighties.

+1

Only sports I ever watch is an occasional motorcycle GP race. The rest are a waste of time.

 

[yossarian123]

I've had the M9 for about a week now. I can say that my initial impression is very underwhelming. As mentioned before, I had an M8. That M8 required no adjustment with any of my lenses - all of them were pretty sharp out of the gate.

That is not the case with my M9. I couldn't focus my 90 cron to save my life. Same for Canon 50/1.4 - turns out both were back focusing pretty badly wide open. (I also didn't mention that the vertical was out of alignment when I received it). Next up, 50 cron v4. Front focusing. 21/4 VC Skopar? Extreme front focusing, almost unusable.

The only lenses that are working for me are the summaron 2.8, 40 cron, and (oddly enough) the 35/1.2 Nokton (surprisingly because I figured the fastest glass I own would have the most problems). Everything else is off by a pretty significant amount. So I think the only remedy left is to send it into Leica - but apparently there was a storm last night...maybe a few of you heard about it. I'm afraid that if I send my M9 to NJ I'll get it back months from now.

I'm worried that with a mix of front and back focusing lenses that Leica won't be able to truly fix my issues. If lens A is front focusing and B is back focusing, then won't a correction for one just exacerbate the problem with the other??

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry to hear you're having some issues. Don't worry, you just need to get it sorted out.

Did you buy your M9 used or new? And from whom?

I would first talk to the vendor you bought it from to see if there's any recourse there, then to folks at Leica USA (once they're back in operation, obviously the storm and such are a huge issue at present). It's weird that it's off one way with one lens and another way with another lens .. if it's a simple mis-calibration (which it ought to be) AND the lenses worked fine on the M8, then whatever is out of whack should be consistent. I suspect something's adrift in the mechanism and is just wiggling all over the place ... My M4-2 was like that when I bought it, I had the rangefinder CLAed and collimated ($120 at my local tech) and it's perfect now.

You might have to go to an independent (DAG or Sherry or ... ) for the non-Leica lenses, but it should certainly work fine with all of them.

For the record, my Leica M9, bought as a factory certified demo last January from Dan Tamarkin (tamarkin.com), focuses right on the money with Color Skopar 21, 28, 35, 50, Ultron 28, Nokton 40, 50, M-Rokkor 40, 90, and Leitz Hektor 135. Never had a lick of trouble with them, and they also focus perfectly on the CL and M4-2 bodies. So the issue is with the M9 rangefinder, particularly if the same lenses focus perfectly with the M8.

G

 

[yossarian123]

Thanks for the encouragement.

I bought it used - another forum, unnamed member. His feedback was very high, so I don't think it was his fault. For all I know, it may have been jolted during shipping.

I've been talking with Tamarkin this week, he said they could take a look at it. I may end up going that route, especially if Leica NJ is down and out for a while.

 

[jaapv]

That is rather atypical, as the FF M9 is rather less critical to focus than the M8...😕 One can only assume that the slightly deeper DOF of the M8 covered a number of sins....

I've had the M9 for about a week now. I can say that my initial impression is very underwhelming. As mentioned before, I had an M8. That M8 required no adjustment with any of my lenses - all of them were pretty sharp out of the gate.

That is not the case with my M9. I couldn't focus my 90 cron to save my life. Same for Canon 50/1.4 - turns out both were back focusing pretty badly wide open. (I also didn't mention that the vertical was out of alignment when I received it). Next up, 50 cron v4. Front focusing. 21/4 VC Skopar? Extreme front focusing, almost unusable.

The only lenses that are working for me are the summaron 2.8, 40 cron, and (oddly enough) the 35/1.2 Nokton (surprisingly because I figured the fastest glass I own would have the most problems). Everything else is off by a pretty significant amount. So I think the only remedy left is to send it into Leica - but apparently there was a storm last night...maybe a few of you heard about it. I'm afraid that if I send my M9 to NJ I'll get it back months from now.

I'm worried that with a mix of front and back focusing lenses that Leica won't be able to truly fix my issues. If lens A is front focusing and B is back focusing, then won't a correction for one just exacerbate the problem with the other??