Leica lens on non Leica digital body - why?

[TBL]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I think what he is trying to say is that the meter doesn't work like the one in a Canon or Nikon SLR.

Without ever having touched a nikon i can almost asure you that it measures the exposure far better indeed. :-) Even the leica digilux 2 does FAR better,

But if you feel comfortable working with it and if you like it this way, be it. Therefore there are different cameras, and therefore (and that was the OP question) some people will enjoying the superb quality of leica lenses on another make of camera. That's all.

[andybarton]

The choice of the exposure should rest in the hands of the photographer, not the camera.

I own a Nikon SLR. I have it set so that it meters like a Leica.

[TBL]

Originally Posted by Sp12

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. The NEX-7 out resolves the M9 assuming you have a lens up to spec over the entire frame, and the NEX-7 has a good 3/2 stop of DR. Plus much better and more accurate color and lower noise.

Well, i just am starting to use the Nex7, and this afternoon i processed some pictures comparing the nex7 with the 24/2.8 and the M9 with the 24/2.8 (of course to get the same image i should have compared the 24 mm on the nex with a 35 on the M9 , but it is a nice test: if you take the part of a picture,made with the FF M9 to see the smaller picture that comes out of the nex7 and you compare them, it is a big surprise... At first i was shocked to see how much worse the details in nex were, to realize somewhat later that i inversed the two on my screen: the more detailed image came out of the nex7....
I will try to upload some images (which might be rather desturbing to some of you...)

TB

[andybarton]

M9 owners are big boys and girls.

They can take it.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here, though.

[-ph-]

Originally Posted by TBL

I understand how it works. It is just my decision that i like another way of measuring.
It is up to leica to decide how to get more data, not by me measuring around the subject.
And you are confirming that (even) you are needing to use the dynamic range to pull the shadows.

Whether I need to pull the shadows or not is independant of the light meter. When there is a bright sky and you don't want to blow the exposure there, you need to expose for it. Matrix light meters might be a little bit less agressive in preserving the highlights, but thats all the influence the light meter has on the shadows.

Peter

[kdriceman]

Originally Posted by TBL

Without ever having touched a nikon i can almost asure you that it measures the exposure far better indeed. :-) Even the leica digilux 2 does FAR better,

But if you feel comfortable working with it and if you like it this way, be it. Therefore there are different cameras, and therefore (and that was the OP question) some people will enjoying the superb quality of leica lenses on another make of camera. That's all.

What really matters in exposure metering is that the photographer understands what the meter does (in each mode) and that it perform accurately and consistently. Arguing that a "Nikon measures exposure far better" is puzzling because it has no context. Are you trying to expose for a face in a high contrast scene? Or are you taking multiple pictures in changing light? Are you photographing a sporting event where one team is wearing white and the other black? Different modes and different approaches by the photographer. But a good photographer can make good exposures in all these conditions with an M9 meter with a little effort.

There are plenty of times that I switch off the evaluative metering on my Canon because I KNOW it is not going to expose a part of the scene the way I want it exposed. I might switch to spot or center weighted and it will absolutely give me different exposure information. But, i know what im getting in each mode. Now, it's true that the M9 has only 1 metering mode, but I know what it measures and how it will respond and i know what I want exposed correctly and that's all that matters.

If you think the M9 should have more metering modes to make your life easier, that's understandable. But it doesn't and a lot of the people take a lot of very good images using nothing more than the M9 internal meter so its clear that it isnt all that necessary for rangefinder photography.

[gyoung]

I use NIKON all the time, and I can assure the gentleman who is so confident of their ability without using them that they are no better, or worse, than my leica meters, they only measure what you aim them at, the rest is up to the photographer.
I long ago gave up using the matrix metering, dosnt do well enough to leave it to its own devices, and you don't know what 'allowances' its making, rather use centre weighting, just like the leica system, and use your mind to interpret the readings

Gerry

[stevelap]

Originally Posted by TBL

.................Therefore there are different cameras, and therefore (and that was the OP question) some people will enjoying the superb quality of leica lenses on another make of camera. That's all.

Yes, my OP did ask for reasons why people choose to use Leica lenses on other cameras, but I also said

"(Please note that this is not intended to be a provocative or flaming thread, nor a critique or discussion of other cameras, I’m just curious)."

So why flame the M9, a move bound to derail the thread, rather than simply saying something like 'some features I require are not found on the M9' or 'I prefer a more technology rich body'? No need for yet another thread to descend into name calling..........

[TBL]

Originally Posted by kdriceman

What really matters in exposure metering is that the photographer understands what the meter does (in each mode) and that it perform accurately and consistently. Arguing that a "Nikon measures exposure far better" is puzzling because it has no context. Are you trying to expose for a face in a high contrast scene? Or are you taking multiple pictures in changing light? Are you photographing a sporting event where one team is wearing white and the other black? Different modes and different approaches by the photographer. But a good photographer can make good exposures in all these conditions with an M9 meter with a little effort.

There are plenty of times that I switch off the evaluative metering on my Canon because I KNOW it is not going to expose a part of the scene the way I want it exposed. I might switch to spot or center weighted and it will absolutely give me different exposure information. But, i know what im getting in each mode. Now, it's true that the M9 has only 1 metering mode, but I know what it measures and how it will respond and i know what I want exposed correctly and that's all that matters.

If you think the M9 should have more metering modes to make your life easier, that's understandable. But it doesn't and a lot of the people take a lot of very good images using nothing more than the M9 internal meter so its clear that it isnt all that necessary for rangefinder photography.

I completely agree with you.

[Sp12]

Originally Posted by kdriceman

What really matters in exposure metering is that the photographer understands what the meter does (in each mode) and that it perform accurately and consistently. Arguing that a "Nikon measures exposure far better" is puzzling because it has no context.

I agree to some extent. I use spot meter exclusively when available. You never want your sky/important highlight more than 3 stops overexposed from 18% gray (2 stops on the M9 and other older sensors), and want your 18% gray to be a 1/3rd to 1/2 over for your ETTR.

On the other hand, I recognize the very impressive metering Canikon offer in their more modern bodies that absolutely does things the M9 cannot, some of them convenient and some of them technically better than I can with spot meter and manual exposure. There's good reason AF took over MF -- it's more consistent and performs better in tough situations. The D4's face tracking autoexposure sounds exactly like what I need for subjects moving through quickly shifting dappled light, lucky for me I can afford both an M and a more modern DSLR system (and a CSC system), and use them appropriately. I don't take my M out to shoot sports, macro, with teles/wides, for paid work, or in moderate/low light, and I don't take a giant DSLR with me on a day trip.

[TBL]

Originally Posted by andybarton

M9 owners are big boys and girls.

They can take it.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here, though.

Well, i am not so sure they can take it..so i posted it in the nex forum of DPR.

And as what to prove? i reacted a bit strongly because as so often if someone is commenting the problems they find - their opinion - in a M9, there is someone standing up and telling you that if you do not like it, you must be an inferior being, incapable, not knowing how to handle it.

I just wanted to prove that there are good technical and practical reasons to use Leica glass on another camera.

[kdriceman]

Originally Posted by Sp12

I agree to some extent. I use spot meter exclusively when available. You never want your sky/important highlight more than 3 stops overexposed from 18% gray (2 stops on the M9 and other older sensors), and want your 18% gray to be a 1/3rd to 1/2 over for your ETTR.

On the other hand, I recognize the very impressive metering Canikon offer in their more modern bodies that absolutely does things the M9 cannot, some of them convenient and some of them technically better than I can with spot meter and manual exposure. There's good reason AF took over MF -- it's more consistent and performs better in tough situations. The D4's face tracking autoexposure sounds exactly like what I need for subjects moving through quickly shifting dappled light, lucky for me I can afford both an M and a more modern DSLR system (and a CSC system), and use them appropriately. I don't take my M out to shoot sports, macro, with teles/wides, for paid work, or in moderate/low light, and I don't take a giant DSLR with me on a day trip.

I have switched from exclusive spot metering on my Canon because it's evaluative metering is so good -for some things - but the M9 metering is just fine for what I use it for.

[kanzlr]

while the fact that there is no true spot meter in the M8 annoyed me quite a bit, it does work as intended and very reliably so. I cannot imagine the M9 being different (but the spot is smaller, relative to the frame, correct?).

My D700 was always set to Spot meter...everything else is...well...more...what's the point?

[algrove]

Hate to jump in here, but it seems to me Leica must be doing something right when recent digital camera sales have gone up 4% for all brands while during the same time period Leica's sales have jumped 200% paraphrasing Overgaard.

Thanks gosh everyone does not buy an M9 as we would have to wait 20 years or more for that special lens we are hoping our dealer will get this year.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

while the fact that there is no true spot meter in the M8 annoyed me quite a bit, it does work as intended and very reliably so. I cannot imagine the M9 being different (but the spot is smaller, relative to the frame, correct?).

My D700 was always set to Spot meter...everything else is...well...more...what's the point?

No-about the same but a bit more round than ellepsoid, due to the gray shutterblades.

[colinet]

I've seen a review recently comparing the M9 with the NEX-7 - the conclusion was that the Leica lenses produced greater detail than the M9 sensor is capable of taking full advantage of whereas the 24mp sensor in the NEX-7 can get more detail from them. There were photos which proved it. So to answer the thread title - that's why.

I have an M9 which I love. Having sold all my Canon gear (5DMkII+several lenses) I much prefer the whole feel and philosophy of the M9 system. Admittedly it takes some practise to get the best from Leica stuff, but it's nice practise and not that difficult. The whole system feels so much more personal than the computerised Canon/Nikon stuff.

I have my 3 perfect lenses now - 28mm f2 - 50mm f1.4 and tomorrow the postman is bringing the 90mm f2 I've had on order for a while. I also have a NEX-7 body on order not so much as a backup (I've just got a mint M7 for that!) but to have access to longer telephotos than 135mm and to use the Sony 40mm macro. Yes I know they won't be in the same class as the Leica lenses, but I've also got a Voigtlander adapter to use the M lenses on the NEX-7. Who would have though there was a longer waiting list for a Sony body than a Leica lens!!!

[stevelap]

This thread might be about the review you're referring to

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...view-here.html

The long order queues for the Sony are as a result of production delays due to the recent natural disasters (Canon and Nikon were similarly affected).

[sfage]

I have a question. I am shooting a 5d2 with an Elmarit 60 macro. In this image, are you seeing the moiré that I am seeing? I have a secondary "movie watching" samsung monitor that doesn't show the moiré... but the apple monitor sure does.

Second question: I am using a fotodiox chipped adapter. I just put it on yesterday and while reviewing some images, an Error 70 message came up and now the screen on the camera is fried. Would the chipped adapter do this?

[jan_kappetijn]

No, no moire.
Interesting picture!
Jan

[lct]

The right hip looks smeared. Did you try to remove moiré already? I'm using the Fotodiox adapter on my 5D1 with no problem so far. Hard to imagine how it could provoke an error 70 which is related to battery and/or memory card if i'm not wrong.