image stabilization for M anytime soon?

[ulrikft]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I admit it, you win! Cosina has made Zero, Zippo, Zilch, yep not a one, ZI DRF with a RF alignment problem.

Now if you want to talk about film on the other hand, go to the RFF forum and check a few threads...heck I'll send you mine for $1000USD and it's as new, except for that little rangefinder issue.

 

Tomorrow I'm sending my M9 case back to Luigi to have him sew the LCD drop down cover shut...

 

Well, I have had numerous friends send back their M5, M6 and M7s for alignment.. Be it understandable "i was driving off road in the mountaints" (though, I would hate to have a camera that renders itself useless on offroad trips..), or more or less "I took it up, it was misaligned"-issues.

 

Of course, I have a far larger amount of leicaphile friends/people that i know using leica cameras, than zeiss. But still.... Trying to imply that the Zeiss rangefinder does not work? well, I disagree.. so do a lot of people I suspect. But I'll head over to rff and ask in the ikon forum about how they manage to use their cameras with useless rfs..

 

mjh points out something important here. IS is not intertwined with DSLR or SLR in any way. It is a technology. Like high iso, lcd-screens or other non-analogue solutions.

[alanball]

Yep, would just love IS in a full frame M, and with a state of the art capture device to boot please, one that would give me sufficiently clean 6400 ISO images.

 

Seriously, among the elements that made the film-based M so compelling, low light performance was always high in the list. In the film days, the M (and other rangefinders/high quality fast lens AF compacts) would offer the equivalent of 1 to 2 stops better handheld performance than any SLR for same aperture and same film sensitivity. Meant shooting Provia 100 when SLRs had to shoot Provia 400 for example.

 

The main reason for that advantage was the absence of mirror slap vibrations.

 

Now, by using IS systems (in camera or in lens) and/or cranking up ISO setting on DSLR, we can securely stay at handheld speeds without paying any substantial price in terms of lower image quality.

 

There are still other reasons to prefer an M (system size, etc), but the low light one has vanished.

 

Before 09/09/09 I was really hoping for a clean 6400 ISO M.

 

One day hopefully that M will appear, and IS will be there as well. And we will all be delighted!

 

Till then, well, would not mind having an M9, but there ain't any anywhere.... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Mauribix]

here are still other reasons to prefer an M (system size, etc), but the low light one has vanished

 

That's your point of view, but I have to disagree, being a DSLR and DRF user too, I'm not aware of any practical set up that may me dislike the digital M's in favor of a DSLR for low light photography. It may just me then.

I mean, if I use the 24-70 2.8 I loose at least 2 stops against almost all of my setup of M lenses (1.4).

Let's leave apart the three stop advantage of the nocti.

That, and it's a common story, will give you a good picture at 2500iso (M9) while you'd have to shoot @ 12.800ISO with the Canon for example... Can you show me the advantage then?

Ok, let's suppose to use some prime lenses with a DSLR kit... I guess the result speaks for itself in this picture... let's not talk about lens quality as well.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/105980-size-comparison-m9-vs-5d-mark.html#post1119199

 

This is part of the old story "RF vs SLR" which still get stuck someone in the middle, while gives senses' peace to all the rest.

I'm in the senses' peace.

[ulrikft]

That's your point of view, but I have to disagree, being a DSLR and DRF user too, I'm not aware of any practical set up that may me dislike the digital M's in favor of a DSLR for low light photography. It may just me then.

I mean, if I use the 24-70 2.8 I loose at least 2 stops against almost all of my setup of M lenses (1.4).

Let's leave apart the three stop advantage of the nocti.

That, and it's a common story, will give you a good picture at 2500iso (M9) while you'd have to shoot @ 12.800ISO with the Canon for example... Can you show me the advantage then?

Ok, let's suppose to use some prime lenses with a DSLR kit... I guess the result speaks for itself in this picture... let's not talk about lens quality as well.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/105980-size-comparison-m9-vs-5d-mark.html#post1119199

 

This is part of the old story "RF vs SLR" which still get stuck someone in the middle, while gives senses' peace to all the rest.

I'm in the senses' peace.

 

Beside the fact that I can use the 58 1.2 on my nikon d700... RF wins on size, but the "you have to use a medium-fast zoom on a dslr"-argument is just not valid. And lens quality? I'm not one of those that think that Leica is some sort of holy lens-design grail either. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Zuiko, Zeiss, Voigtlander etc have all made great glass, even sigma with their recent sigmalux 50..

[Mauribix]

Beside the fact that I can use the 58 1.2 on my nikon d700... RF wins on size, but the "you have to use a medium-fast zoom on a dslr"-argument is just not valid. And lens quality? I'm not one of those that think that Leica is some sort of holy lens-design grail either. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Zuiko, Zeiss, Voigtlander etc have all made great glass, even sigma with their recent sigmalux 50..

 

Stating that a recent DSRL has better signal/noise ratio, has something to do with exposure and WB the most. With the M8/M9 these seem to be the biggest issues.

Anyway, once you shoot DNG the WB is easily corrected, so as with all equipments out there, and as we discussed many many times, if you can't expose properly with an M camera, you'll get noisy pictures, but that's not a camera fault, that's a photographer's fault.

In this respect, metering with a state of the art DSRL (using matrix, zones, etc etc...) is a big help, and specially over the web, people who can't properly expose ends up sayin' "my camera is better than your" or "my nikon performs at 6400iso as your M8 at 320".

I say BS (with all due respect).

 

The nikon D700 is a winner for what that concerns low noise ISO, but it's a 12mpx camera, (1.4 vs 2.1 MP/cm²) and with a lot of in-camera noise reduction, i.e. a complete different beast compared to the M9.

Then, even in that case, the ISO (noise/signal) advantage of the Nikon had been measured in 1stop maximum, you can find those tests here on the forum too.

Anyway, let me know how could it be easier it focus in low light with the 58 1.2 rather than with you RF lens?

Apples vs Oranges here still.

 

I'm not one of those that think of Leica to be the Holy Lens Designer as well, I'm realist, and I simply know, based on my personal experiences, sharings and equipments, that Leica is quite often one-two steps ahead its "competitors" when it's up to optics (see "often", not always).

Some manufacturers offer stunning lenses, that's sure as I use both Zeiss and Voigtlander's, maybe the Leica price difference may not be justifiable for some, but that is, Leica offers great lenses all around from 16 to 135mm, and as in all the modern lenses setup offered by Leica, these lenses are optimized at full aperture too, i.e. in my opinion, for low light photography too.

 

As to state something, being able to get a higher ISO range, doesn't necessary mean to be able to make low light photography.

Two many factors are involved, IMHO, they are the combination of size/weight/shutter repercussion(steadiness)/ISO/lens and... photographer the most.

[ulrikft]

Stating that a recent DSRL has better signal/noise ratio, has something to do with exposure and WB the most. With the M8/M9 these seem to be the biggest issues.

Anyway, once you shoot DNG the WB is easily corrected, so as with all equipments out there, and as we discussed many many times, if you can't expose properly with an M camera, you'll get noisy pictures, but that's not a camera fault, that's a photographer's fault.

In this respect, metering with a state of the art DSRL (using matrix, zones, etc etc...) is a big help, and specially over the web, people who can't properly expose ends up sayin' "my camera is better than your" or "my nikon performs at 6400iso as your M8 at 320".

I say BS (with all due respect).

 

The nikon D700 is a winner for what that concerns low noise ISO, but it's a 12mpx camera, (1.4 vs 2.1 MP/cm²) and with a lot of in-camera noise reduction, i.e. a complete different beast compared to the M9.

Then, even in that case, the ISO (noise/signal) advantage of the Nikon had been measured in 1stop maximum, you can find those tests here on the forum too.

Anyway, let me know how could it be easier it focus in low light with the 58 1.2 rather than with you RF lens?

Apples vs Oranges here still.

 

I'm not one of those that think of Leica to be the Holy Lens Designer as well, I'm realist, and I simply know, based on my personal experiences, sharings and equipments, that Leica is quite often one-two steps ahead its "competitors" when it's up to optics (see "often", not always).

Some manufacturers offer stunning lenses, that's sure as I use both Zeiss and Voigtlander's, maybe the Leica price difference may not be justifiable for some, but that is, Leica offers great lenses all around from 16 to 135mm, and as in all the modern lenses setup offered by Leica, these lenses are optimized at full aperture too, i.e. in my opinion, for low light photography too.

 

As to state something, being able to get a higher ISO range, doesn't necessary mean to be able to make low light photography.

Two many factors are involved, IMHO, they are the combination of size/weight/shutter repercussion(steadiness)/ISO/lens and... photographer the most.

 

 

1) Implying that I don't know how to meter with either my d700 or the M9 I've been testing does not really make this discussion any more mature or good. I know perfectly well how to meter, and when I did my controlled tests of iso capacity between the d700 and m9, i used the same settings in manual to avoid any metering-issues. The M9 ends up at about 0.5-1 stop worse noise (especially in the shadows) regardelss of WB (i used a grey card in the comparison shots). Wether or not this is important for you as a user, I can't decide. But for me, that makes the d700, d3x, d3, 5d mkII, the low light kings. Especially beacause you can put on 1.0 or 1.2 mf/af glass.

 

 

2) With a split prism (as i have on my d700) and a good screen, I can focus reasonably well in low light, AND i can focus off the center, which may or may not be an advantage, dpeending on your shooting style. I do however feel that using a rf is better in low light, which is the ironic paradox. The best low-light sensor is harder to focus, the not-so good low-light sensor is easier to focus... Annoying.. The M9 sensor do retain more detail than the d700 sensor up to and above iso 2500, but it takes a lot of work to remove the shadow detail, even with good profiling and software.

 

 

I've still not decided wether or not to get a M9 as a sole system, or a M8 and a 35 1.4 as a walkaround-camera for when I don't want to bring the d700. The size, the rf and a few other things makes it very tempting, all the weird technical design choices and the slow electronics makes it less tempting.

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've still not decided wether or not to get a M9 as a sole system, or a M8 and a 35 1.4 as a walkaround-camera for when I don't want to bring the d700. The size, the rf and a few other things makes it very tempting, all the weird technical design choices and the slow electronics makes it less tempting.

 

So, you're criticizing the Digital M system, describing it as not any longer suitable the best system for low light photography, without using it?

That's why this discussion is no longer mature. We're here to share experiences, if you don't need, please, just don't post.

I'm glad that someone borrowed his M9 to you to make those tests (metering, WB and all the stuffs) and I'd like to see those shots if you can post. I wish I could see the "not-so-good sensor".

I'll try to make those tests too with a Nikon D700 and a summicron 50 if you need.

I have (fortunately) the use of both.

 

Anyway, since that test was not enough for you to make the decision (based on cost as well which is an issue for me as for many), probably the DRF is not good for you.

The "not-so-good sensor" is your definition of the M9's sensor, that's not an universal statement, and that's not what I said.

I said that you can't compare a 1.4 vs 2.1 MP/cm2 sensor without taking that difference into consideration.

 

 

Last, but not least, I never implied that YOU can't expose, that "if you can't expose properly with an M camera, you'll get noisy pictures, but that's not a camera fault, that's a photographer's fault" was explicitly a general statement, not an offense. That's not my style, and I'm not subtle.

[@bumac]

I have found a website where you can order a image stabilization for M8 and M9 up from 75 dollar.

 

Go here

[Mauribix]

i have found a website where you can order a image stabilization for m8 and m9 up from 75 dollar.

 

go here

 

rotfl :D:D

[alanball]

I do however feel that using a rf is better in low light, which is the ironic paradox. The best low-light sensor is harder to focus, the not-so good low-light sensor is easier to focus... Annoying..

 

My feeling exactly.

 

The M should be the king of night, and could easily take back its crown, but perhaps not with this 9th generation. Next one will be "it".

[jaapv]

I'm a bit amazedat this hallowed status of IS. Even if one is able to hold the camera steady for an amazing time, the subject will move. With the M9, this point has long been reached. Photographs are not unusable due camera shake, but by subject movement.

[ulrikft]

So, you're criticizing the Digital M system, describing it as not any longer suitable the best system for low light photography, without using it?

That's why this discussion is no longer mature. We're here to share experiences, if you don't need, please, just don't post.

I'm glad that someone borrowed his M9 to you to make those tests (metering, WB and all the stuffs) and I'd like to see those shots if you can post. I wish I could see the "not-so-good sensor".

I'll try to make those tests too with a Nikon D700 and a summicron 50 if you need.

I have (fortunately) the use of both.

 

Anyway, since that test was not enough for you to make the decision (based on cost as well which is an issue for me as for many), probably the DRF is not good for you.

The "not-so-good sensor" is your definition of the M9's sensor, that's not an universal statement, and that's not what I said.

I said that you can't compare a 1.4 vs 2.1 MP/cm2 sensor without taking that difference into consideration.

 

 

Last, but not least, I never implied that YOU can't expose, that "if you can't expose properly with an M camera, you'll get noisy pictures, but that's not a camera fault, that's a photographer's fault" was explicitly a general statement, not an offense. That's not my style, and I'm not subtle.

 

I use rangefinders all the time, with film, and I love ot use them, and I have used the M8 quite a bit, and the M9 over the range of a week for lots of photography. So I do think that i have, at least a quite good basic knowledge about how rangefinders work and how they do not work.

 

When it comes to "not-so-good-sensor" I said "not-so-good low light"... sensor. Misrepresenting me and arguing against that view is hardly very constructive. The M9 is not as good as the d700 in low light. It retains more detail, but it also gets _very_ noisy in shadows. In good light however, the M9 has great dynamic range, great detail-level and great colors. If you want samples, I can pm you a range of different shots/crops/samples.

 

When it comes to why i want a rf instead/in addition to my slr, is that I tend to have my dslr in my bag, and my rf in my hand. So when situations like this come:

 

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/269/c/3/Fly_away__by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

I tend to have the rf ready, the slr not so much.. and lots of my shooting is like that, spontanous portraits, moments, funny accidents.. so I like rf for that reason. I just prefer having a sober perspective on it's cons and pros.

 

 

 

On the megapixel/pixel pitch versus noise issue, I can just point to this: The Real Megapixel Myth

[thrice]

Ulrik has shared the comparison shots with me quite a while ago and we've both commented favourably on the M9 sensor. He's used the camera a fair bit from my impression and the variety of his shots.

 

The fact remains that when PURELY considering high ISO performance the D700 is still ahead.

For me, the subtle imaging characteristics of the CCD sensor and more accurate CFA are more desirable than another stop (or even two). But for others, High ISO might be the deciding factor, making the decision between size and IQ (for their application) a difficult one.

[johnastovall]

Why does such a widely used and accepted piece of technology have to become part of a debate about who is a superior photographer? No wonder Leica users are considered snobby Luddite morons in many camera forums. In case it is a worry for you that an M10 has IS, it can be switched off on most decent cameras, but doing so would leave good photographers hand holding an M10 at 1 second, and you as an equally good photographer hand holding at only 1/8th sec. I know wouldn't worry about being branded an inferior photographer by leaving IS switched ON.

 

Steve

 

Snobby Leica Luddite and proud of it.

[Mauribix]

I use rangefinders all the time, with film, and I love ot use them, and I have used the M8 quite a bit, and the M9 over the range of a week for lots of photography. So I do think that i have, at least a quite good basic knowledge about how rangefinders work and how they do not work.

 

When it comes to "not-so-good-sensor" I said "not-so-good low light"... sensor. Misrepresenting me and arguing against that view is hardly very constructive. The M9 is not as good as the d700 in low light. It retains more detail, but it also gets _very_ noisy in shadows. In good light however, the M9 has great dynamic range, great detail-level and great colors. If you want samples, I can pm you a range of different shots/crops/samples.

 

When it comes to why i want a rf instead/in addition to my slr, is that I tend to have my dslr in my bag, and my rf in my hand. So when situations like this come:

 

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs51/i/2009/269/c/3/Fly_away__by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

I tend to have the rf ready, the slr not so much.. and lots of my shooting is like that, spontanous portraits, moments, funny accidents.. so I like rf for that reason. I just prefer having a sober perspective on it's cons and pros.

 

 

 

On the megapixel/pixel pitch versus noise issue, I can just point to this: The Real Megapixel Myth

 

Do what you want, I don't like to waste my time reading clashing words.

So this will be my last comment to the thread(I will be anyway reading eventual responses as I'm respectful).

 

The picture you posted doesn't make the point for low light photography IMHO.

 

Then, I'll reasonably look forward to your comparison tests, 'cause I'm still waiting to see how the M9 should be considered not as good as a D700 for low light photography (read available light).

I won't be feeding a polemic anymore, nor clash with you anyhow until I can see your specific results to the M9 and D700.

 

Anyway, I read the link you posted, and that prove my point:

"Once again, let me make this clear: people and reviewers perceive the D700 to be far better at high ISO settings than the 1Ds Mk III not because it is, but because they examine the two cameras' files at 100%. Since the 1Ds Mk III file is far more magnified at 100%, it looks worse than the D700 at 100%, even though they actually have equivalent performance."

(I did copy and paste as to avoid misrepresenting).

 

The same reasoning was fairly applied to the D3 vs D3x paragon.

 

Did you read what you linked at?

Was that not what I said few posts before?

 

Enjoy the D700.

[Mauribix]

Ulrik has shared the comparison shots with me quite a while ago and we've both commented favourably on the M9 sensor. He's used the camera a fair bit from my impression and the variety of his shots.

I just wanted to see those tests where Ulrik came to determine that the M9 was not as good as the D700 as a low light camera.

Nothing more than that, personal impressions, being subjective, are not facts IMHO.

 

The fact remains that when PURELY considering high ISO performance the D700 is still ahead.

That's unprecise.

As a reference, since it's been involved before, see the link that Ulrik posted above.

[ulrikft]

Do what you want, I don't like to waste my time reading clashing words.

So this will be my last comment to the thread(I will be anyway reading eventual responses as I'm respectful).

 

The picture you posted doesn't make the point for low light photography IMHO.

 

Then, I'll reasonably look forward to your comparison tests, 'cause I'm still waiting to see how the M9 should be considered not as good as a D700 for low light photography (read available light).

I won't be feeding a polemic anymore, nor clash with you anyhow until I can see your specific results to the M9 and D700.

 

Anyway, I read the link you posted, and that prove my point:

"Once again, let me make this clear: people and reviewers perceive the D700 to be far better at high ISO settings than the 1Ds Mk III not because it is, but because they examine the two cameras' files at 100%. Since the 1Ds Mk III file is far more magnified at 100%, it looks worse than the D700 at 100%, even though they actually have equivalent performance."

(I did copy and paste as to avoid misrepresenting).

 

The same reasoning was fairly applied to the D3 vs D3x paragon.

 

Did you read what you linked at?

Was that not what I said few posts before?

 

Enjoy the D700.

 

The image i posted was not a reference to low light photography, but a example of why i wanted a smaller, more "carriable" camera for my excursions around the city, I'm sorry if you misunderstood the intention of that image-link.

 

 

When it comes to the link, I have read and I understand perfectly what it states, and I have taken that into account while testing by upressing the d700 shots to the M9-size, before making samples/crops.

 

Samples at 2500 here, they are both profiled by color charts and noise filtered by Noise Ninja:

Leica:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/leica-2500_filtered.jpg

 

Nikon:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/nikon-2500_filtered.jpg

 

 

The leica shows more detail, the nikon has less noise. That means, of course, that you can filter out more of the leica noise, and still have the same level of detail as the nikon, but at the same time, the noise in the shadows on the m9 pose a problem.

 

I'm not saying that the M9 is a bad camera noise-wise, it is not that far behind the class leaders. It is just not as good. The question if it is good enough, is 100% personal

[Mauribix]

The question if it is good enough, is 100% personal

I guess not just personal, for my clients and my agency the M9 is good enough.

That's why it's good for me too for that same reason (otherway I'd use it just for my delight)

 

cheers

[Mauribix]

Leica:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/leica-2500_filtered.jpg

 

Nikon:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/nikon-2500_filtered.jpg

 

processed and resized to match the same ratio of 5212*3468px.

That's not a such a reliable (or fair) comparison IMHO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ulrikft]

processed and resized to match the same ratio of 5212*3468px.

That's not a such a reliable (or fair) comparison IMHO.

 

Well, I have posted the unprocessed files too, which are far harsher on the M9 than the filtered ones, trust me. And if you don't understand why I have upressed the nikon to match the leica file size... read the article you have taken to quoting a few times now... a few more times, ok? That way, you won't make this mistake again