We don't need no high ISO's

[kevin m]

The world's gone all topsy-turvy. It used to be the Leica M that had technological advantages over film SRLs for available light shooting. But now, of course, the reverse is true in the digital age. Clean high-iso capture (not to mention excellent Image Stabilization in bodies and lenses) is today what Tri-X and a Noctiliux were in the golden age of film. In the low-light situations that used to be its forte, the M8 and M9 have no technological advantages over a DSLR.

 

[dseelig]

M9

M9

I do love the m9 at iso 1250 it just cannot do what I need it to in no light situaitions. Mind you I would rather use my leica, then my canon system. The canons I own are because of sports and concert work, that i have to use them for street work pisses me off t no end as they attract an attention i would rather not get at times. To say well we are comparing with film get over it film is we last century technology and I have an investment in leica glass that is way out of proportion to my income. It should be comparable to a canon at iso 6400 and the next camera had better. The m9 is a major step up from the m8 we need to keep bitching and moaning so we get what we want. If Leica kept one camera at ccd technology and made a cmos camera as well for low light I would probably own one of each. Make no apologies the m9 is an excellent camera but not a no light camera. And PS the canon mk 1v does not make night look like daylight but the nikon d3 s does.

 

[Brian Legge]

My Nikon D70 made me realize how much I loved high iso performance. Less of an issue with b&w than color, but I dont like going about 400-640 with it.

Definitely a problem as I like shooting hand held in low light. Going back to film and Neopan 1600 made me happy. Briefly. I'm still struggling with a good solution on the film side. Need to give Portra a shot I suppose.

Thats the main thing that will eventually drive me back to digital.