gyoung Posted February 18, 2012 Share #21 Â Posted February 18, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Eyeball focussing has been good enough for donkeys years, on focussing screens far less effective than the evf on my G1, Ansel Adams and countless others have produced marvellous work using eyeball alone on a groundglass screen. It might not be as quick but it is just as effective. There is a lack of reality in this forum sometimes, some seem to think there is no other means of focussing than a rangefinder which is nonsense, other parts of the forum wax lyrical about leicaflex, and even visoflex, which while useful, is about the slowest reflex system I have ever used. I love my m rangefinders, but no one else ever made a rangefinder as good as it, nor I suspect ever will, and as with everything nowadays, electronics develop effective ways of doing things which are easy and cheap to produce. Â Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 18, 2012 Share #22 Â Posted February 18, 2012 ...What i do not understand, is those who buy a M9 and put a non-leica lens on it... worst of both worlds... For people who don't know how to use them. There is a learning curve but the game's worth the candle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBL Posted February 18, 2012 Share #23 Â Posted February 18, 2012 For people who don't know how to use them. There is a learning curve but the game's worth the candle. Â That is the kind of comment i expected... Just read Overgaard, and read him VERY well: you will notice that his digilux 2 gave him more usable images than his M9. Â And what makes you believe that i would not know how to use a M9? I never said that one can not make extremely good pictures with a M9, i even said it is nearly unbeatable (except for bigger sensors). But it has several problems, or flaws. Â Are you suggesting that the lightmeter in the M9 is reliable? Â Are you suggesting that you get what you frame if you put a 35 mm pre asp on your M9? Â How often did you clean your sensor? Did it yourself? was it perfectly clean? (bet it is not perfectly clean at this very moment) Â Do you use a 1.25 x loup (300 euros) to focus better your 75 lux? Â Did you buy an external viewfinder (Jesus, the whole idea of a rangefinder camera was to have a decent finder! now you have to add one) and for what price, to frame your 21 mm lens? 600 euros for a good finder...? Thereafter you can start post-processing to get the color-shifted borders right. Â (btw, the 300 euro plastic one is not very clear, the 450 euro zoom one is not framing correctly and showing nothing outside the frame...) Â Of course, you must be right....i don't know how to handle the M9 ?? Â Or could it be that some people just prefer to simplifie their lives with a Ricoh or Sony, having less maximum quality theory, but more often very high quality in real life? Â I might come back to leica once. But they have to offer more precision, and a better system, for the price. Ricoh , Sony and Fuji might give them some ideas. But their lenses, wow ! Â But if your pleasure is to shoot with a M9, i do not want to spoil that. Different people, different needs. Just stop thinking and suggesting that you are a superior photographer because you use a M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 19, 2012 Share #24 Â Posted February 19, 2012 Well, I go by the KISS method. If you don't use your Leica glass on the M9 (M, V lenses) and other cameras (M, V, R lenses) you will never know what you are missing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 19, 2012 Share #25 Â Posted February 19, 2012 That is the kind of comment i expected... Just read Overgaard, and read him VERY well: you will notice that his digilux 2 gave him more usable images than his M9... I like much Thorsten Overgaard, both of us were amongst the first users of the Digilux 1 eight or nine years ago, but comparing a full frame rangefinder to a small sensor camera does not make much sense actually. Good pictures can be made with any camera, but the huge DoF of small sensor cameras is a real problem and even if i don't like the M9 for other reasons, i would answer yes to most of your questions. As i suggested above there is indeed a learning curve on digital rangefinders but with a bit of effort they can produce pictures one cannot dream about with any small sensor camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBL Posted February 19, 2012 Share #26  Posted February 19, 2012 I am not saying that the M9 does can not give far better results.  I am aware of the big problem of thin DoF in small sensor cameras.  The nex7 and Ricoh are coming VERY close to the M9 resolution, have less need for PP, have the same dynamic range, have more consistent lightmetering. Try to make a cityscape with clear skies and a big tower on your left hand side. You can keep the camera in 3 positions and you will find out that each time your meter will give you a different result, with some 4 stops of range. Even the Digilux 2 did not have this problem: which means that leica can do it, if they want. And of course, if you take your time to measure around the subject, or if you switch to fully manual mode, you can get wonderfull results - but you will often have to "eat" your dynamic range in PP.  If it is a "learning-curve" to get used to bad framing framinglines, or if it is a "learning-curve" to get good pictures out of a camera that has a less well performing lightmeter, i just can tell you that it is a learing-curve for a manufacturer to make cameras that frame more exactly, more comfortably, and that have a better lightmeter. I just decided to wait for THEIR learning curve  To put it short:  The quality of leica glass comes with a price of money The quality of leica bodies comes at the price of flaws.      I like much Thorsten Overgaard, both of us were amongst the first users of the Digilux 1 eight or nine years ago, but comparing a full frame rangefinder to a small sensor camera does not make much sense actually. Good pictures can be made with any camera, but the huge DoF of small sensor cameras is a real problem and even if i don't like the M9 for other reasons, i would answer yes to most of your questions. As i suggested above there is indeed a learning curve on digital rangefinders but with a bit of effort they can produce pictures one cannot dream about with any small sensor camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 19, 2012 Share #27 Â Posted February 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have never got the least lightmeter problem with any Leica so far. I'm in A mode most of the time and i don't miss more pics than with my Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Framing is one of the reasons why i prefer my M8.2 to the M9 but it is a well known "issue" common to all rangefinders more or less. If you don't like the latters a DSLR or an EVIL camera would certainly be better for you. Same if you need optimal results without PP. Neither the M8 nor the M9 are the best cameras for that. Those little things need some effort to get the best out of them. It's up to you to decide if you want to play their game or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 19, 2012 Share #28  Posted February 19, 2012 The lightmetering in the M9 is barely usable  The light meter is simple but highly consistent. You do however need to know how it works and understand the lighting of whatever your photographing. People have been using similar meters for decades and getting superb results. I don't think your problem lies with the metering system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted February 19, 2012 Share #29  Posted February 19, 2012  Try to make a cityscape with clear skies and a big tower on your left hand side. You can keep the camera in 3 positions and you will find out that each time your meter will give you a different result, with some 4 stops of range. Even the Digilux 2 did not have this problem: which means that leica can do it, if they want. And of course, if you take your time to measure around the subject, or if you switch to fully manual mode, you can get wonderfull results - but you will often have to "eat" your dynamic range in PP.  If it is a "learning-curve" to get used to bad framing framinglines, or if it is a "learning-curve" to get good pictures out of a camera that has a less well performing lightmeter, i just can tell you that it is a learing-curve for a manufacturer to make cameras that frame more exactly, more comfortably, and that have a better lightmeter. I just decided to wait for THEIR learning curve  To put it short:  The quality of leica glass comes with a price of money The quality of leica bodies comes at the price of flaws.  The key to the performance of the light-meter in the M9 lies in understanding how it works. It is strictly a center-weighted brightness meter. As that it performs very precisely. So you would expect the 3 to 4 stops of variance if you look at a typical cityscape. The shadow parts are at least 3 stops darker than the sky. Fortunately, if you work near base ISO, you can pull the shadows by that amount. All cameras which perform the light metering with the camera sensor, have much more data to base their evaluation on and give you a bit more processed metering result - which usually is more balanced, but occasionally can get wrong as the algorithm took the wrong decision.  Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 19, 2012 Share #30 Â Posted February 19, 2012 It's more like a fat spot meter than centre weighted, but your explanations about why there are metering variations is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 19, 2012 Share #31 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I got my GXR for ease of focusing (live view) while always using M glass for more casual use. Then I got the Walter eye piece and now still prefer the M9 even more for serious shooting. Less confusing menu system on M9. Actually the M9's menu is not confusing at all, but instead very straight forward. Have to say though that the GXR images are very appealing to me with my Mandler glass. Have not tried GXR with newer glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBL Posted February 19, 2012 Share #32 Â Posted February 19, 2012 It's more like a fat spot meter than centre weighted, but your explanations about why there are metering variations is correct. Â Â Yes, a fat spotmeter using not a spot but a horizontal band. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 19, 2012 Share #33 Â Posted February 19, 2012 Yes, a fat spotmeter using not a spot but a horizontal band. Â The meter doesn't use the whole width of the horizontal white line on the shutter blades. There's a diagram showing the metering pattern somewhere on Leica's website Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBL Posted February 19, 2012 Share #34  Posted February 19, 2012 The key to the performance of the light-meter in the M9 lies in understanding how it works. It is strictly a center-weighted brightness meter. As that it performs very precisely. So you would expect the 3 to 4 stops of variance if you look at a typical cityscape. The shadow parts are at least 3 stops darker than the sky. Fortunately, if you work near base ISO, you can pull the shadows by that amount. All cameras which perform the light metering with the camera sensor, have much more data to base their evaluation on and give you a bit more processed metering result - which usually is more balanced, but occasionally can get wrong as the algorithm took the wrong decision. Peter  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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 19, 2012 Share #35 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I understand how it works. It is just my decision that i like another way of measuring. Â You were complaining that the meter isn't consistent not that it has to be used in a different way to some other meters. The M9 meter is simple to understand, easy to use and is very consistent - I really don't see what the problem is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 19, 2012 Share #36 Â Posted February 19, 2012 I think what he is trying to say is that the meter doesn't work like the one in a Canon or Nikon SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 19, 2012 Share #37 Â Posted February 19, 2012 And you are confirming that (even) you are needing to use the dynamic range to pull the shadows. Â If the dynamic range of a scene exceeds that of the sensor something has to give regardless of the metering system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted February 19, 2012 Share #38 Â Posted February 19, 2012 The nex7 and Ricoh are coming VERY close to the M9 resolution, have less need for PP, have the same dynamic range, have more consistent lightmetering. Â 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBL Posted February 19, 2012 Share #39 Â Posted February 19, 2012 If the dynamic range of a scene exceeds that of the sensor something has to give regardless of the metering system. Â That is exactly why a correct (or better: optimal- ) exposition in the beginning is needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 19, 2012 Share #40 Â Posted February 19, 2012 That is exactly why a correct (or better: optimal- ) exposition in the beginning is needed. Â How does the camera know what's optimal? 'Correct' exposure is a subjective decision. When there's a high contrast scene the camera has to expose for either the shadows or the highlights, how does an matrix kind of meter know what the photographer wants? I can see how a matrix meter could ensure that the highlights aren't blown, but that merely pushes the 'problem' into the shadows. It's for situations like this that some photographers use an external spot meter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.