Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I could probably just get by with an M9 in the type of light I shoot in generally. Considering that I'm using my D700 at it's practical ISO limit (6400) with an f2 35mm lens almost exclusively, an M9 with a 35mm f1.2 Nokton (which I have) wouldn't be that far off the mark at 1600 ISO. From what I've seen posted here 1600 is about the M9's limit before it starts to get a little ugly in the shadows and the examples I've seen posted here at higher ISO's are OK but they weren't shot in the extremes I'm working in occasionally. Someone posted some images at 2500 the other day that looked ok sort of but there was quite a lot of banding present in the darker areas. Even the D700 can get pretty messy in the shadows at 6400 but I seldom get any banding.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Mere mulling can be costly if the Canadian dollar keeps sinking 
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If that is your -understandable- stumbling block it might be wise to keep mulling until the autumn of 2012....
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If that is your -understandable- stumbling block it might be wise to keep mulling until the autumn of 2012....
I live in hope jaapv that it will happen. My gallery work is much better suited to a rangefinder and if Leica can come up with a camera that works for me at 3200 ISO the way the Nikon does at 6400 that will be enough to make me really consider the switch back from the DSLR to RF.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well, recent statements by Leica imply a CMos M10 which in turn would implicate smoother high ISO performance. My secret hope, but there is not a shred of evidence, is that this would enable a connector for an EVF- like "visoflex IV" to use R lenses. For my use that would streamline the backup situation and save me dragging around quite a bit of gear.
PaulN
Monkey
Given the cost of cameras, the limited market, and the great success of the M9, I wonder how in a hurry Leica is to release the M10. And if they do release it in 2012, will this set the stage for the M10P 2 years later, followed up the M11 a year after that? It seems like an odd pattern to get into; especially given the 30 years between the M3 and the M6 release.
I just don't see people abandoning their M bodies like people upgrade iPhones. I do, however, see people flocking to the lenses.
Jeff S
Well-known
Welcome to the digital world. Cameras are basically computers now; so that's the better place to look for product cycles.
Plus, Leica no doubt recognizes the new market and mentality of the younger generation, which it needs to cultivate. Part of this will come in the form of alternatives to the M, but even the M has to keep up with the times...at least in comparison to the film days.
Jeff
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think they need to change the camera too much but I think a sensor upgrade to CMos is needed now or in the very near future. There's only so many customers out there who want a digital rangefinder and they have to offer some incentive for the faithful to upgrade when viable. They'll never be on the Canikon style mouse wheel but they do have to keep moving IMO.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Be ready to shell out $10,000 for the M10 though...
PaulN
Monkey
Crazy! So we are looking at a new body every 3 years - similar to Canon and their full frame series. One potential benefit of this, beyond the leaps in sensor technology, is that the market will be flooded with M8's and M9s which will inevitably start to drive the price down in the used market. With more used bodies, the more potential newcomers and they can slowly increase their market share.
With all of these bodies comes the increased need for glass though; but they have a new factory opening up either next year or 2013 to start to meet that demand.
I too have been mulling on whether or not to pickup an M9 and I just pulled the trigger. My R-D1 is still going strong but is now my wife's favorite camera, and I want a digital body for my 50 ASPH lux. I'll evaluate the M10 a few years after release and ask myself if it provides anything that would allow me to take a better picture than the M9.
-Paul
rogerzilla
Well-known
One of the reasons wedding photographers (I've done a few weddings myself) used MF was because the big camera on a tripod got people's attention for the group shots and also didn't look like something the guests might have owned themselves, which begs the question, "why are we paying a guy so much to do this?".
The switch to DSLRs, which all look the same, has pretty much killed that as a reason, and a Leica might now be OK, albeit a bit small and unrecognisable as anything special by a lot of the people at the wedding. Technically it has the big advantage of a constant viewfinder image.
The big killer is - what's it like for fill-flash? Anything up to the M7 is hopeless.
The switch to DSLRs, which all look the same, has pretty much killed that as a reason, and a Leica might now be OK, albeit a bit small and unrecognisable as anything special by a lot of the people at the wedding. Technically it has the big advantage of a constant viewfinder image.
The big killer is - what's it like for fill-flash? Anything up to the M7 is hopeless.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
PaulN
Monkey
I don't shoot weddings, but when I shoot family events, I'll often tuck a couple of flashes or a studio strobe into opposite corners and bounce them off the ceiling. I'll trigger it all off a cybersync radio transmitter. I find that ambient light is often not the greatest and it is better to control the main light and use ambient as fill. The benefit to this approach is that the flash, a consistent light temperature, is the main light source. If I don't like ambient color, I'll just up the power of the flash and/or shutter speed as appropriate.
-Paul
Vincent.G
Well-known
Seems like you prefer film over digital so the choice is easy. Sell what you need to and give that cash to your wife.
PaulN
Monkey
You don't HAVEto buy every new type that comes to the market...
To true. It is funny though, just as most forums (generically speaking) are a place for people to discuss shortfalls of various products, they are also a place that instill the urge to upgrade. Until those that upgrade start posting about the problems they are encountering
jarski
Veteran
also Leica has been releasing new models fast pace, when there was enough progress made to justify it. e.g. M3 came 1954 and M2 1958.
Isca
Established
I have a 5D mk2 and an M9 and even though I justify keeping the Canon for low light I really keep it for landscapes because I enjoy the process of making a landscape image with a dslr. The funny thing is that with an M9, which I only recently bought, or an M8 which I had for almost 4 years I think, I would always lean towards it and away from the dslr for low light but start thinking more black and white if the noise was particularly ugly potentially.
I'm probably of no help to you.
I'm probably of no help to you.
furcafe
Veteran
Agreed. I recently (as in last week) went in the opposite direction of Dave & picked up a D700 & the 28/1.4 AF-D (already had some other manual focus F mount lenses) to take advantage of current dSLRs's high ISO capabilities. Like Keith, I often shoot handheld in places where ISO 1250 only gets me 1/8th sec. @ f/1 or f/1.4, which can be a problem if your subjects aren't stationary. For a longtime RF user, the D700 is a pig to carry around (even w/the teeny CV 40/2 Ultron), but I figured it was better to improve my odds of getting those tough low-light shots now rather wait around for an M10/11 w/a usable ISO 6400 &/or a Leica/Cosina/Zeiss 28/1.4.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Mulling - I think it's over
Mulling - I think it's over
I did a portrait shoot on Sunday - with the D700 and the Leica M7 - I had Superia in the M7 (not necessarily the best portrait film imho but it'll do) - both the ISO in the film and on digital was 400.
I did my best to match the shutter speed / aperture on the M7 to the D700 - I came to realize that even using the D700's centre weighted metering the metering in the M7 is entirely different. That said, the images from the film and digital came out relatively similar:
So, I think I'm going to hold off on the M9 (for now) - There's some things I can't do with an M that I can do with a DSLR and vice versa - I can still consider options since I do have 2 D700 bodies and I've noticed I use my "long" zoom (70-200 VR) less and less - yet this only puts a small dent in the cost of a new M9.
Cheers,
Dave
Mulling - I think it's over
I did a portrait shoot on Sunday - with the D700 and the Leica M7 - I had Superia in the M7 (not necessarily the best portrait film imho but it'll do) - both the ISO in the film and on digital was 400.
I did my best to match the shutter speed / aperture on the M7 to the D700 - I came to realize that even using the D700's centre weighted metering the metering in the M7 is entirely different. That said, the images from the film and digital came out relatively similar:
So, I think I'm going to hold off on the M9 (for now) - There's some things I can't do with an M that I can do with a DSLR and vice versa - I can still consider options since I do have 2 D700 bodies and I've noticed I use my "long" zoom (70-200 VR) less and less - yet this only puts a small dent in the cost of a new M9.
Cheers,
Dave
Last edited: