aizan
Veteran
i think the overall gestalt of the m9 is slower and more brightly lit than its dslr counterparts, even though its performance is the same as a film leica, or better.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dante,
Yes.
I'd also suggest (though I am not a camera designer and don't know) that image stabilization (and possibly higher ISOs, as Brian suggests) might add weight, bulk and power consumption to an extent that is unacceptable to most users. It is the minimalism of a Leica that attracts many people.
Cheers,
R.
furcafe
Veteran
True, though @ some point we're talking about a chicken (or today, turkey) v. egg situation. Even before the advent of digital, heck even before the advent of autofocus, RFs were limited tools in comparison to SLRs. So I think most folks actually buying M9s would be already pretty committed to a particular style of photography (no macro, nothing longer than 135mm, etc.). In Dante's specific low-light situation, I think there is a split between those users who are happy to accept the old, narrow DoF, look & those who want better high ISO performance. Personally, I'm in the 2nd camp, but realize that Leica is under significant economic & engineering constraints & that probably only a small minority of Leica M users are low-light shooters to begin with.
Otherwise I would say that an M9 user's best solution to the high ISO problem is to get a dSLR w/appropriate glass as an auxiliary body.
Otherwise I would say that an M9 user's best solution to the high ISO problem is to get a dSLR w/appropriate glass as an auxiliary body.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I didn't think Leica had sensor technology. I thought Leica used sensors made by a third party.
furcafe
Veteran
They do get their sensors from elsewhere (Kodak, currently), but in the digital era, camera makers are responsible for supplying the consumer w/a permanent supply of "film." So regardless of where they get their sensors, or other electronic components, the sensor is an integral part of the Leica "experience." And, clearly, Leica is not able to offer the latest & greatest in comparison w/the major Japanese camera makers. This isn't solely due to Leica's corporate conservatism, but also due to the fact that they're located in Germany, which isn't exactly a hotbed of consumer electronic innovation; Nikon doesn't make their own sensors, either, but is obviously more able to tap into the larger Japanese electronic industrial supply chains.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Seeing how many more pixelated images make it to mainstream printed media, I think that no matter what is done by the camera companies, we will see the "who cares!" mentality and lack of technological prowess (mainly coerced by bean-counters dictating level of competence at their companies) force their "aesthetics" in a most impacting matter more and more.
Like the frog in the slowly-boiling pan.
Like the frog in the slowly-boiling pan.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, if you do a two page spread with photos stolen from flickr, they are gonna look a little pixelated! 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Leicas are a matter of the heart as much as the mind. Who can argue with that?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not really. Canon/Nikon and Ford/Chevy is more like comparing refrigerators or washing machines. You want something good, but it's hard to get excited about the choice. And to many people, Porsche/Ferrari is a simple question of reliability. I've never owned either but I have a modest number of friends and acquaintances who have had both.
Cheers,
R.
With the Nikon- The Nikon F2 is my SLR of choice. For Nikon RF's, the Nikon SP invokes the same sense of aesthetics as an MP does for Leica fans. The Nikon F3 is a good camera, I use it, just not the same "look and feel".
After the F3- I never bothered with the "pro" line. Bought a D1x for work, an N8008s and N70 for grab shots. Last new Nikon that I bought is the S3-2000. I could pick up a D3-"whatever it is now". If the D1x dies, I will.
After the F3- I never bothered with the "pro" line. Bought a D1x for work, an N8008s and N70 for grab shots. Last new Nikon that I bought is the S3-2000. I could pick up a D3-"whatever it is now". If the D1x dies, I will.
wgerrard
Veteran
Can anyone speak to the impact of software on all this?
Microsoft and Apple buy their chips from the same people. The parts in a Mac are pretty much the same as the parts in a Window machine. Yet the software that controls that hardware certainly provides a different aesthetic for each brand.
Software controls digital cameras. Does it affect what we see from camera to camera?
Microsoft and Apple buy their chips from the same people. The parts in a Mac are pretty much the same as the parts in a Window machine. Yet the software that controls that hardware certainly provides a different aesthetic for each brand.
Software controls digital cameras. Does it affect what we see from camera to camera?
MCTuomey
Veteran
I don't know about Leica-enforced aesthetics, but the decision to design, produce, and market very high-priced very fast glass in a large range of focal lengths for cameras with less than best-in-class ISO performance seems very consistent with a high margin, lower volume operating strategy. The new summarits seem to suggest Leica wants to offer a more modestly priced alternative, via parts commonization and other design features, and participate in the less elite segments of the RF-buying market. They want revenue growth and boutique margins at the same time, I think. Who wouldn't if one were in charge of the Leica organization?
Practically, I shoot my dSLRs and M8 the same way in low light, assuming no flash is going to be used. Fastest glass I own coupled with the highest iso setting the camera can manage. I do this to be able to shoot with the highest shutter speed possible. IS is interesting, but shooting subjects that may and do move at 1/8 or 1/15 sec will still result in a blurry photo. IS is really only worthwhile for subjects that are motion-free. Subject stabilization, anyone?
Practically, I shoot my dSLRs and M8 the same way in low light, assuming no flash is going to be used. Fastest glass I own coupled with the highest iso setting the camera can manage. I do this to be able to shoot with the highest shutter speed possible. IS is interesting, but shooting subjects that may and do move at 1/8 or 1/15 sec will still result in a blurry photo. IS is really only worthwhile for subjects that are motion-free. Subject stabilization, anyone?
Merkin
For the Weekend
Bill Pierce
Well-known
First off, thanks to Dante for starting this thread. I hope this answers his original question.
I'm a working stiff. I use a lot of tools. I used to use Leicas for a variety of photographic tasks, but they surely stood out when you were shooting in dim light. In most situations you could use any number of different camera types. But when it came to manual focus with wide angles and normal lenses used wide open in dim light, the rangefinder was simply better.
That's simply not true any more. Between high speed primes that throw a lot of light into the camera and great improvements in autofocus technology and high ISO performance, modern DSLR's do very well in dim light.
Leica has chosen a sensor system that gives outstanding results at low ISO's. But it doesn't do very well at high ISO's. So, in the digital world, one of my big uses of the Leica doesn't exist. It's no longer the "available darkness" camera. A DSLR with f/1.2 and 1.4 primes (and a few f/2 lenses in longer focal lengths) does a better job.
The Leica is an incredibly good camera for daylight "street" shooting. The problem in that arena is that there are other cameras that do it well that are smaller, quieter and cheaper. As to image quality, the Leica is better. But when I show prints on 17x22 inch paper to folks they don't notice the relatively small difference. Sometimes, even I have trouble seeing the difference. And as these little cameras keep rapidly improving, there's soon going to come a time when I don't see the difference in shots made in good light.
Sadly, and I truly mean sadly, I am using my Leicas less and less. For the most part it's most often a couple of DSLR's with fast primes in the available darkness and the same DSLR's with slow zooms or a little pocket digital in the good light.
I'm a working stiff. I use a lot of tools. I used to use Leicas for a variety of photographic tasks, but they surely stood out when you were shooting in dim light. In most situations you could use any number of different camera types. But when it came to manual focus with wide angles and normal lenses used wide open in dim light, the rangefinder was simply better.
That's simply not true any more. Between high speed primes that throw a lot of light into the camera and great improvements in autofocus technology and high ISO performance, modern DSLR's do very well in dim light.
Leica has chosen a sensor system that gives outstanding results at low ISO's. But it doesn't do very well at high ISO's. So, in the digital world, one of my big uses of the Leica doesn't exist. It's no longer the "available darkness" camera. A DSLR with f/1.2 and 1.4 primes (and a few f/2 lenses in longer focal lengths) does a better job.
The Leica is an incredibly good camera for daylight "street" shooting. The problem in that arena is that there are other cameras that do it well that are smaller, quieter and cheaper. As to image quality, the Leica is better. But when I show prints on 17x22 inch paper to folks they don't notice the relatively small difference. Sometimes, even I have trouble seeing the difference. And as these little cameras keep rapidly improving, there's soon going to come a time when I don't see the difference in shots made in good light.
Sadly, and I truly mean sadly, I am using my Leicas less and less. For the most part it's most often a couple of DSLR's with fast primes in the available darkness and the same DSLR's with slow zooms or a little pocket digital in the good light.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Bill
From my POV you just hit the nail on the head and like you I was just a little saddened when that realization dawned on me.
Bob
From my POV you just hit the nail on the head and like you I was just a little saddened when that realization dawned on me.
Bob
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I believe the aesthetics of Leica M photography are dependent on two things. How we focus (scale focusing vs AF) and ISO.
Given the iso performance of the M9, it does force you to still shoot a lot like we did (do) with the film bodies. Wide open and with slow shutter speeds in low light. Therefore I do not see the aesthetics changing radically.
I also think it is a good thing to keep Leica's current approach to RAW in mind.
Obviously they do not have access to a sensor with the high ISO performance that Canon/Nikon do, so were getting images that are simply noisier.
But I also think that Leica's approach is to RAW is exactly what it means; RAW. I think Leica tries to output a RAW file that is as virgin off the sensor as they dare to. From what I understand Leica doesn't perform nearly as much in camera noise reduction and voodoo as Canon or Nikon do. A RAW file from most other camera makers isn't all that untouched.
I prefer Leica's approach, because you get to work with a clean slate. You as the photographer can decided how much noise (detail) you want to sacrifice etc in post processing etc.
That said I am willing to predict that this will be a non issue in a few years, when high performance FF sensors become a commodity item.
Given the iso performance of the M9, it does force you to still shoot a lot like we did (do) with the film bodies. Wide open and with slow shutter speeds in low light. Therefore I do not see the aesthetics changing radically.
I also think it is a good thing to keep Leica's current approach to RAW in mind.
Obviously they do not have access to a sensor with the high ISO performance that Canon/Nikon do, so were getting images that are simply noisier.
But I also think that Leica's approach is to RAW is exactly what it means; RAW. I think Leica tries to output a RAW file that is as virgin off the sensor as they dare to. From what I understand Leica doesn't perform nearly as much in camera noise reduction and voodoo as Canon or Nikon do. A RAW file from most other camera makers isn't all that untouched.
I prefer Leica's approach, because you get to work with a clean slate. You as the photographer can decided how much noise (detail) you want to sacrifice etc in post processing etc.
That said I am willing to predict that this will be a non issue in a few years, when high performance FF sensors become a commodity item.
Last edited:
The choice of the CCD in the M9 had a lot to do with time to market. I don't recall who was quoted, but a Leica exec stated if they had gone with CMOS it would have been significantly longer development time. He should have been asked if the development times had been the same, would they had chosen CMOS with its higher ISO capabilities.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Oh for Pete's sake - this sort of attitude shows up here all the time whenever anyone suggests any thing slightly different from what the M3/M2 was.
Sensor IS doesn't hurt anything. You still keep the camera the same size - they've got in everything from tiny point and shoots to full frame DSLRs (the Sonys), it lets you get a couple of extra stops. It is absolutely brilliant.
There are enough and more older posters on the Oly DPreview forum who tell you how much of a benefit it is to them. One I know has Parkinsons. It wasn't great but IS along with better high ISO let him start shooting again. It doesn't drain that much battery life. Doesn't add much to the cost (well for everyone else at least - I'd imagine it would on a Leica but c'est la vie). It is completely passive. And its a heck of a lot smaller than a tripod. Yes, its absolutely not as good as stable tripod. But it works! I've got a very nice Manfrotto. That sits at home all the damn time.
Sure you might argue that its a slippery slope because oh dear what will Leica do next - autofocus! Heaven forbid! But its a slippery slope that is easily avoided. Define the things than make the M - the size and design and build, the rangefinder experience, the lenses and then add things that don't affect that. Like IS. Part of the essence of the M system is small and light. Not carrying a tripod around is very much in line with that.
Yes, you didn't need it when you were 20 and you were a real man and shot with film and developed yourself, pushing ISO 400 to 1600 and made wet prints and it's bloody wonderful that you know your D76 from your HC10. The world moved on. Leica ought to as well. Particularly given what they charge for the damn thing. Now, I'm pretty sure that Leica will survive anyway as a niche manufacturer. But I cannot think of a single reason not to demand that they do what they do well better and give *you* better value for your money.
There is a real danger if a company gets to the point, where it can't actually think of anything new to add to an existing product. I'd dearly love to mail them a snippet of one of my favourite songs, buts its just as applicable to the total traditionalists here -
"You better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'."
Cheers,
-Gautham
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Gautham
Very well said.
Bob
Very well said.
Bob
sig
Well-known
Based on the assumption lower ISO forces you to take better pictures I guess the M8 is a better camera than M9?
Anyways if the low ISO and no IS limitations forces you to take different/better pictures, it is not unique to Leica. You can turn off IS and set ISO on many if not most digital cameras.
Anyways if the low ISO and no IS limitations forces you to take different/better pictures, it is not unique to Leica. You can turn off IS and set ISO on many if not most digital cameras.