Vegetable pictures - Part Deux

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...............

 

Well, weather sealing is absolutely a "me too" feature because whenever it was discussed here in the context of the M8 and M9, the common reply was that it was pointless because the lenses could not be weather-sealed. So weather sealing was dismissed as a gimmick to please people from the DSLR world, more marketing than substance.

 

...................................

 

I don't recall this consensus. I do recall some people saying it, but as many pointing out that the non-electronic lenses were not nearly as vulnerable to water damage as the highly sensitive body. So some at least always thought weather sealing would be a desirable feature.

 

Anyway, this arguing over personal preferences and asserting them as common sense is, to stretch the pun beyond breaking point, fruitless.

[jonoslack]

Hi There Paul

Have you never hand held a Leica - at 1/4 second. Amazingly after a bit of practice it is really quite easy.

Yes, I have, and I quite agree with you . . . but but but . . . sometimes one's subject moves too.

 

Seriously I've read all you delicious rants, and I have a proposition to make.

 

Forget the fluff - Like you, I'm a rangefinder shooter, and I loved the M8/M9/M for that reason.

 

. . . I've been shooting with a new M for nearly 6 months, and 90% of that has been shooting it with the rangefinder and M lenses in classic mode with metering off the shutter curtain - just like I HAD to shoot the M9.

 

I'm not going to try and convince you that higher ISO is necessary, and certainly not Live view, advanced metering, video or any of the other fluff. As you say, it's Fluff.

 

But the M is a better rangefinder camera (functionally) than the M9 - there's no question about it - the shutter is quieter with less lag, the shot to shot time is quicker, the buffer is larger, it's weather sealed, the controls are better laid out and the camera is better made. If you disagree with this, then come back and tell me when you've taken 10,000 shots with it.

 

If you don't like the images it produces at low ISO, then I can see that's a criticism - but are you basing this view on my DNG files? Or others you've downloaded from the internet? From pre-release cameras too? if so, shame on you. I wouldn't base a decision on anyone else's files but my own, and I'm sure you wouldn't.

 

Leica don't believe that there is an inherent distinction between CMOS and CCD - and after shooting the M I agree with them - of course, I don't expect you to agree with this, but shouldn't you try it out for yourself? (I assume you can get your Leica fixer to lend you a body for a week or so?),

 

As far as the image quality is concerned - maybe you hate it - but there are some inherent improvements - the dynamic range is better, and the corners and edges are better with wide angle lenses.

 

What I'm trying to say to you is two things:

 

1. You should trust your own judgement of your own files about the feel and quality of the files - and preconceptions about CCD/CMOS differences are misleading, and it can do you no possible harm to set them aside whilst you look.

 

2. As a rangefinder camera (forgetting the fluff) the M is just better than the M9 in every respect except for it's weight.

 

All the very best

[lct]

I've shot zero pics with the M240 and i've just developed a dozen DNG files from it but it's enough to see that i can get similar results as from my M8.2 at low isos as well as much cleaner pics at 1250/2500 isos w/o disturbing artefacts. Very useful for higher shutter speeds even at full aperture, needless to say. Go shooting moving subjects at 1/4 second and show me your nice blurs. The M240 is clearly above both M8 and M9 from this view point.

[zlatkob]

I don't recall this consensus. I do recall some people saying it, but as many pointing out that the non-electronic lenses were not nearly as vulnerable to water damage as the highly sensitive body. So some at least always thought weather sealing would be a desirable feature.

 

Anyway, this arguing over personal preferences and asserting them as common sense is, to stretch the pun beyond breaking point, fruitless.

 

I happen to think that weather sealing is a good thing. However, it was often dismissed -- and by core users. Collectors couldn't care less about it. Not everyone dismissed it, of course. Now someone describes weather sealing as desirable, while high ISO is a needless "me too" feature that "no one" needs. You're right, it is just personal preferences.

[jonoslack]

Jono - Thanks for your reply.

 

Let me state right from the start I AM NOT a Leica hater or habitual knocker - I have 5 Leica M digital cameras with more than I care to mention film M and screw cameras.

 

 

Hi Paul

 

Thanks for your reply too, I'm grateful that you've done me the honour of taking mine seriously.

 

I hope that my reply didn't (for a second) suggests that I thought you a Leica hater - quite to the contrary, I understand how you've used the M9 - and I understand your concerns . . . and I have an answer too .. . .

 

but it's time for a family dinner, and I've had a couple of glasses of wine already, so, if you'll excuse me, I'll save my perfect and devastating reply for later (the morning probably).

 

All the best

[zlatkob]

Hahaha goodness me how ever did we manage on film before we all became obsessed with this ME TOO fluff.

 

Have you never hand held a Leica - at 1/4 second. Amazingly after a bit of practice it is really quite easy.

 

Your point about high ISO is not really valid because quoting from the 1800's when exposure was counted in minutes is not relevant if some person thinks that 10,000 ISO is a desirable way to shoot rather than opening up the aperture and HANDHOLDING the camera properly.

 

Fluff and useless features that are there to pretend that the M Leica is something that it will never be. CMOS pap with horrible looking images and bizarre live view and video. Are you really suggesting that a Leica M should be held at arms length and then with some silly live view or electronic viewfinder make a VIDEO record of what it's pointed at. Surely not hahahahahaha !!!!

 

1/4 second? That's fine for some subjects, but for others it yields a blur. Have you tried that when a bride & groom are walking down the aisle in church. Or during their first dance at a darkened reception? Or when photographing indoor basketball? Or actors moving across a stage? Or a ballet dancer in mid-air? Or people on a boat? And good luck handholding for 1/4 second with a 75mm, 90mm or a 135mm lens.

 

The quest for shooting with less light extended well beyond the early 19th century. There was an increase in useable ISOs throughout the 20th century, and it didn't happen by accident. It was a deliberate quest responsive to the real needs of real photographers. That quest continues today. Life on Earth happens in all light levels, not just those suitable for lower ISO's.

 

Your claim that CMOS is "horrible looking" is contradicted by every side by side M and M9 comparison that I've seen. This example, posted in another thread by forum member swiss leica fan, is just one example (click "View all sizes" and then select "Original"): M9 50mm Lux ASPH vs. M240 50mm Lux ASPH | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

"Are you really suggesting that a Leica M should be held at arms length ..." -- Are you really suggesting that I was suggesting that? Because that doesn't follow from anything I've written.

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono - Thanks for your reply.

 

Let me state right from the start I AM NOT a Leica hater or habitual knocker - I have 5 Leica M digital cameras with more than I care to mention film M and screw cameras.

 

I use Leica M professionally and have shot several national UK newspaper front pages on both M8.2 and M9 cameras.

 

I think that this establishes my credentials as a Leica user and also that I have a bit of knowledge about the cameras.

 

Maybe it's because of my sphere of work and the way that I work that I find the new M to be of little interest.

 

Let me try and explain:- I read with slight detachment comments about high ISO. It's as if it's NOT possible to work without a camera giving superb results at 10,000 ISO and above. This is clearly not so because I honestly do not know when such high ISO levels are genuinely of use - a dark night is a dark night no matter what ISO the camera is set to. If theres no light then higher ISO is not going to make one jot of difference.

 

When I started out in this business I used a Rolleiflex 3.5F or a Hasselblad 500C with an 80mm F2.8 Planar lens. Film was wait for it AGFA 80S - yes thats right 80 ISO using AGFA's unique process. A Bright sunny day was 500th at F5.6 and indoors was generally at the lowest 15th wide open on either camera. If flash was needed it was a Metz 402 hammer gun. The pictures were taken and the results were bloody good - never once thought about changing film for higher ISO because there wasn't any available - NO 400 ISO colour film in those days but of course in B&W we shot TRI-X again on 120. Never carried a tripod - shot everything handheld. Just learnt to handhold properly - easy with the Rollei as I am sure anyone on here who cut their teeth on one will readily agree with.

 

Then we moved from 120 to 35mm - Nikkormats and then the good old Nikon FM finally progressing via the F3 and F4 to the best 35mm SLR ever made, the still superb Nikon F5. Film stock was always TRI-X or HP5 then latterly when colour came in Konica 400.

 

Never once felt that ISO 400 was slow -it was always regarded as being super high speed.

 

When Digital came along like all news photogs went through all the Nikons from the D1 to now the D3S. Not moved on yet to the D4 because that camera is another attemt by a manufacturer to convince us that all that went before is not as good, when in reality image wise the D4 is virtually identical to the D3S.

 

Now the pot was stirred when Leica introduced the M8 - I was a late adopter because never being fully convinced of it's image quality, I held off and took the plunge on the M9. Realising what a great system it was I bought a couple of M8.2's which are SUPERB cameras. For B&W they are better than the M9 and for most of my own work, these are the cameras that I always use.

 

With the M9 however I was so glad that I could once again use Leica along with the Nikon gear and adapted my way of working to utilise whenever I could the gorgeous M9 and Leica gear.

 

The M9 is always brought out whenever I need a great image quality with lots of stealth or when I can work more slowly and deliberately.

 

Now many will not like this, but the M9 can be slipped into my pocket and can get me into places where a big Nikon and lens would be barred from. Officialdom loves to say NO but with the Leica hidden away I can walk past these people and not even be recognised as a photographer.

 

When Jimmy Saville was er lying in state in a Leeds hotel, pro snappers were barred from entry. I walked right in with my M9 in pocket and security never batted an eyelid as I snapped away in the room. I was just some amateur old guy with an ancient crappy camera.

 

Some young hoodies posed no problem for the old crappy camera. This is the advantage of the M in my line of work - it can get you in and nobody takes it seriously.

 

Now of course the new M would be exactly the same and yes the live view and video can be ignored and not used. But to me at least it makes the camera overly complex and detracts from the simple beauty of the M9/8 . More to the point the images I have seen from ALL sources do not impress - or in qualification I would say that the images are no better and often look a lot worse than I can produce on the M9. I DON't want noiseless and lifeless CMOS images. I can get those from the horrible Nikon D2X (that is the moist expensive paperweight I ever bought) I want images that sing and pop like a good M9 picture. I don't want this chocolate boxy noise free look of the M240 - in my work I want FEEL and emotion to be conveyed. Thats the very reason I NEVER shot on Pan F 50 ISO film- no feel or emotion like TRI-X gives. I don't want to shoot boring noise free images that technically might be perfect but convey ZERO emotion.

 

Photography is about a lot more than just recording a subject in true lifelike ways. It's about interpreting that subject and making the viewer look and think about the picture, Emotion can be transferred in an almost intangible way. This is what I want and need - the M240 pics just look lifeless and boring to me - sorry I know that most love it but these are my honest views. Not born out of jealousy or dislike of Leica - on the contrary I am a probably one of Leica's very best customers.

 

We are all different - and long may it be so !!

 

In many ways I feel the same and wonder if I should trade in my M9 for the M. But in the end, I don't see the lower image quality that you are seeing. I haven't seen a significant improvement over the M9 images at lower ISO's, but that is because I think it is just hard to improve on M9 IQ. I do think I will appreciate the better build quality, greater dynamic range and the ability to use higher ISO, not so much for low-light shooting, but for increasing shutter speeds and DOF in marginal lighting. As Jono pointed out, even if one can handhold at 1/4s, your subject moves and you've got motion blur. I also probably prefer more DOF more often than many Leica M users and I can get more latitude stopping down with shutter speed if i can bump the ISO over 2500 in difficult light. Plus, i must be getting old, but it's getting harder for me to shoot at the ultra-thin dof of my Summilux 50 wide open.

 

It's a tool that gives similar IQ (IMO) with more range (dynamic range, shutter speed, aperture, ISO) than the M9. So, while it sounds like its not for you, I'm going to give it a try.

[AlanJW]

@paulmac

 

Yes we are all different. You have explained why the M is not for you repeatedly and with great detail. Sounds like a reasoned and sound decision for you. Not for me and for others, but for you. I accept and respect that you have decided not buy one. Nobody else is going to persuade you differently. At the same time, it is not reasonable to expect to persuade others of your view. As you noted, people have different needs and wants.

[jonoslack]

@paulmac

 

Yes we are all different. You have explained why the M is not for you repeatedly and with great detail. Sounds like a reasoned and sound decision for you. Not for me and for others, but for you. I accept and respect that you have decided not buy one. Nobody else is going to persuade you

 

Oh! I am:D:rolleyes:

But it'll have to wait for the morning (hic)

[Peter H]

Paul, if we're not careful we'll end up playing with words instead of pictures.

 

Of course, everyone should respect that you find a certain amount of grain/noise can convey "feel and emotion". And that's fine, its one of the ways you make such successful photos. And you are certainly not alone in this. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that we all agree with you.

 

But there are two difficulties: one is that not everyone accepts your assertion that the M files are smooth and plastic-looking. If it were, you'd find most people agreeing with you. Hardly anyone wants antiseptic, vacuum-sealed lifeless images do they?

 

Secondly, plenty of photographers who look for "feel and emotion" prefer to find it in the subject than in the medium, and I believe that in fact, to a very large extent, you do too.

 

For these reasons I can't help feeling that you're bending your perception of the camera to support an argument for your preferences, rather than taking it at face value and judging it on its ability to produce fine photos in the way you like to work.

 

I honestly have seen no evidence to suggest that its a less capable camera than the M9 in this crucial respect.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

When Jimmy Saville was er lying in state in a Leeds hotel, pro snappers were barred from entry. I walked right in with my M9 in pocket and security never batted an eyelid as I snapped away in the room. I was just some amateur old guy with an ancient crappy camera.

 

We are all different - and long may it be so !!

 

Hey, you said it, pal.

[marknorton]

So where, if anywhere, is this thread going? On the one hand, we have the real world experience of highly regarded photographers who have been using the camera for months and who like it. We then have emotionally charged photographers who tell us the camera could never be for them, not that they've tried it. We also have people who take pictures of vegetables, but hey, it's a free world. What we don't have is people who have tried the M for real and found it lacking.

 

I am no Leica fan-boy. I may have 6 figures invested in their equipment but I am the first to criticise when I find cause and I aim to do so constructively and fairly. Those with long memories will remember I took a very robust stand against Leica's initial position not to support discreet mode in the M8u.

 

Against that background, I am delighted with the M. I'll continue making a case for the sole major shortcoming I have found so far but, overall, I think this camera is a huge step forwards for Leica, not just in the product but in building their own IP. Having your own IP puts you in so much better a position than licensing it from others. I feel certain we can look forwards to further development of this camera and its likely commercial success will see Leica go from strength to strength.

 

Edit: don't forget that, 9 or 10 years ago, Leica was on the ropes, as close to bust as makes no odds. We're fortunate they are still with us.

[Peter H]

Paul, good luck to you. I do understand your preference for the M9, and there will be plenty of others who feel exactly as you do.

 

I might be one too, but I'll have to see a lot more of the M before I'm able to make that decision.

 

Anyway, as you know, I believe that the camera is almost the least important part of what makes a successful photograph!

[zlatkob]

This is what I am meaning - yes of course the subject is perhaps paramount BUT the way in which it is portrayed is also part of the feel of it. Gritty images should not be automatically decried as inferior - grain and grittiness equals immediacy and a sense of being there.

 

The sense of immediacy and of being there is created by the closeness to the subject, not by the grain and grittiness. The reason we don't have fine grain action photos of D-Day is not an artistic choice, but a reflection of the impracticality of bringing a fine grain film or larger format camera to such a scene.

 

Grain may have added something to war photos in the past, but cameras are used for more than just war photos. For many photos and subjects (weddings, children, families, travel, theater, sports), grain and grittiness are typically unwanted artifacts of the photographic process. For such subjects, there is often a greater sense of immediacy and of being there without the grain and grittiness of a war photo.

[algrove]

You know the M has only 6MP more than the M9, but just about no one needs more than a total of 6MP anyway, especially for this internet traffic. So why sweat it. Enjoy what you have and move outdoors.

 

It seems this forum is heavily about gear and less about substance-images. If you print large then get 100MP and you can fill the block next to you forever. Just remember to ask your national military if you can borrow one of their super computers to optimize an image now and then especially when you stitch a few together.

 

Often,some try to help and stick their heads above the hedge row and some sharp shooter(s) take it off. Great aim. Pat yourselves on the back. Eventually you'll end up shooting each other because all the "helpers" will be dead.

[thighslapper]

Why not some flowers instead ??

3 sets of images ........ M9 & M, iso 160 &200, same white balance. 50/2.8 .... one on each camera (I have 2 .... well 3 actually.... don't ask....)

No LR4 jiggery pokery.

 

And there's not much point uploading DNG's as they still look the same....

 

You can deduce which is which ......but NOT by looking at the actual image quality which to my eye looks pretty much identical. Did anyone really think there would be an improvement at base ISO with such a minor increase in pixel numbers ???

 

The M is an M9 with better high ISO performance. That's it as far as real-world image quality goes. They are however much more 'processable' from my limited experience so far....

All the other improvements are in speed, flexibility, ergonomics and build. Thats what you should be buying an M for...... if you want/need one.....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thighslapper]

100% crops of candle holder....

 

errrr .......can someone point out the CMOS versus CCD differences in image characteristics ?????

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thighslapper]

and the last 100% crop pair........

 

if you can delude yourself into thinking there are significant differences that make a blind bit of difference, then possibly psychiatric assistance may be helpful ......

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[keithlaban.co.uk]

and the last 100% crop pair........

 

if you can delude yourself into thinking there are significant differences that make a blind bit of difference, then possibly psychiatric assistance may helpful ......

 

My immediate reaction, why are all the images so soft? Shot wide open?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thighslapper]

Yup. 2.8 ..... images look pretty normal to me in these conditions

 

In the conservatory, crappy natural lighting (its grey, dull and snowing), handheld ...... all the USUAL things when you take photos. That's the whole point......

 

If you want arc lamps, test cards, tripods, 50/2 apo's then we are back into the strange world of the pixel peepers who presumably never leave their laboratories to take real pictures.....