satureyes Posted July 17, 2013 Author Share #21 Posted July 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great pictures and I think it shows the capability of the M against the larger C&N cameras very nicely. I have to take issue though with your description of the festival as "bizarre" as I think that is a little misleading. I have attended this festival many times over the years and I think that along with many of the other traditional British social summer events it is a tad eccentric but not bizarre. It is relatively new (started in 1982) and so is a little bit more "out there" than say Glyndebourne but it's nowhere near something like the Burning Man. I do think your pictures reflect your views and do tell a story as viewed through your eyes. This is not a bad thing at all and I like the series very much but it does raise the question of how much an official photographer should allow their personal views to dictate the direction they take in their photos? This is not meant as a criticism but more out of genuine curiosity. I think that is why I am a very happy amateur and the only person I have to please is myself, I would struggle if I had to please others so I have a lot of respect for people photographing for a living and doing it so well. Mark Mark Jackson Photography Well- ok. Bizarre perhaps too strong a word but its definitely out there as a little strange. In terms of working and clients- my client pretty much let me have free reign over the 3 nights. I fact I was hired because they wanted me to record the event through my eyes and not a brief. There were paps there shooting the celebs but that's not what I did. Last year I was there working with another client- I had a walk around and shot some stuff with my M9. I sent the shots to the organiser to see what they thought and I was hired this year as a result of those photos. Those photos were totally for my own pleasure and not for a client or brief. So actually these shots are the same as Id take. I'm not quite sure what you mean in all honesty. All my shots are my own vision - even with a brief, which is why I get hired (or at least I hope so!) Anyway- glad toy enjoyed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Hi satureyes, Take a look here The M for real life work. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mark_j Posted July 17, 2013 Share #22 Posted July 17, 2013 I'm not quite sure what you mean in all honesty. All my shots are my own vision - even with a brief, which is why I get hired (or at least I hope so!) Thanks for you reply and I think you answered my question at the end there about your shots being your vision and that's why you get hired and on this evidence I can see why you would be hired. I also meant to say thanks as your photos are great examples in helping me to decide whether or not to move from the M9 to the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 17, 2013 Author Share #23 Posted July 17, 2013 Thanks for you reply and I think you answered my question at the end there about your shots being your vision and that's why you get hired and on this evidence I can see why you would be hired. I also meant to say thanks as your photos are great examples in helping me to decide whether or not to move from the M9 to the M. For me it was a perfect move.. the M has what I wanted the M9 to have- mainly the extra bit of high ISO. It's not 'worse' than the M9 in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted July 18, 2013 Share #24 Posted July 18, 2013 That's a lovely series. Very well done sir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share #25 Posted July 18, 2013 That's a lovely series. Very well done sir. Thank you kind gentleman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted July 18, 2013 Share #26 Posted July 18, 2013 Great looking results! Just returned from a trip to the Grand Canyon. Left the DSLR behind (D700 and 16-35/4 combo my fave). Did not miss the bulk of the DSLR at all and enjoyed using the M9-P and NEX 6 combo. I used the NEX for low light and macro and tele applications, the M9 for the rest. Superb results. The NEX is noise free beyond ISO 3200 which is great. A little disappointed with some of your ISO 3200 images. I can see a lot of noise in the dark areas. Was hoping the M would do better here. I don't take the M9 out past 800. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share #27 Posted July 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great looking results! Just returned from a trip to the Grand Canyon. Left the DSLR behind (D700 and 16-35/4 combo my fave). Did not miss the bulk of the DSLR at all and enjoyed using the M9-P and NEX 6 combo. I used the NEX for low light and macro and tele applications, the M9 for the rest. Superb results. The NEX is noise free beyond ISO 3200 which is great. A little disappointed with some of your ISO 3200 images. I can see a lot of noise in the dark areas. Was hoping the M would do better here. I don't take the M9 out past 800. Yeah- the M isn't a low light king for sure. Perhaps firmware may help but 1600 is very useable. 800 on the M9 was questionable. With f1.4 I didn't find it an issue though. 3200 isn't bad. I could have run them through a plugin to smooth out the noise but didn't. They do clean up well. Which image are you referring to or just in general? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted July 18, 2013 Share #28 Posted July 18, 2013 Yeah- the M isn't a low light king for sure. Perhaps firmware may help but 1600 is very useable. 800 on the M9 was questionable. With f1.4 I didn't find it an issue though. 3200 isn't bad. I could have run them through a plugin to smooth out the noise but didn't. They do clean up well. Which image are you referring to or just in general? Image numbers 1000705, 1000595 and really nasty on 1000582_cf. This is the biggest disappointment with the M9, especially compared to the high ISA/low light performance of the D700. The NEX 6 also handles high ISO very well. M does a lot better than the 9, but still, I was expecting more. Horses for courses, as usual. I read someone comment that in the film days, 400 was the usual limit and it wasn't until Fuji came up with a useable 800 ISO film that we ever went this high with ISO. I found that if I used the M9 more like a film M and not what I had been spoiled with the D700, all was good. Where I needed the high ISO, I'd switch over to the NEX 6. The files and the look that the M9 produces are just unreal. Brings me back to my Kodachrome days for sure. Makes sense that Leica used Kodachrome as the target when they developed the sensor with Kodak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share #29 Posted July 19, 2013 Image numbers 1000705, 1000595 and really nasty on 1000582_cf. This is the biggest disappointment with the M9, especially compared to the high ISA/low light performance of the D700. The NEX 6 also handles high ISO very well. M does a lot better than the 9, but still, I was expecting more.Horses for courses, as usual. I read someone comment that in the film days, 400 was the usual limit and it wasn't until Fuji came up with a useable 800 ISO film that we ever went this high with ISO. I found that if I used the M9 more like a film M and not what I had been spoiled with the D700, all was good. Where I needed the high ISO, I'd switch over to the NEX 6. The files and the look that the M9 produces are just unreal. Brings me back to my Kodachrome days for sure. Makes sense that Leica used Kodachrome as the target when they developed the sensor with Kodak. Ah - Actually you're right.. although the shot xxx_cf for some reason I shot at f9 or thereabouts and din't need to.. That was actually the 12mm Voigtlander which has been through cornerfix - so I think it's upped the noise around the edges. But - I agree it's not nice! The other 2 files I'm not so offended by.. the of the car door open is actually not too bad. Actually I'm going to remove that _cf shot because it's so damn terrible! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted July 19, 2013 Share #30 Posted July 19, 2013 Ah - Actually you're right.. although the shot xxx_cf for some reason I shot at f9 or thereabouts and din't need to.. That was actually the 12mm Voigtlander which has been through cornerfix - so I think it's upped the noise around the edges. But - I agree it's not nice! The other 2 files I'm not so offended by.. the of the car door open is actually not too bad. Actually I'm going to remove that _cf shot because it's so damn terrible! I'm glad you included that _cf image. I think we learn a lot by looking at images critically (in this case for technical reasons) and by including the exif data one can get a good feel about what a camera and sensor combo can do. I would certainly be happy coming away with the images you did with the M. I am generally not a pixel peeper, but I am amazed at the images I'm getting with the M9. In Lightroom, I've been going down to 1:1 on the DNG files and seeing incredible detail. I can count the individual leaves on trees 50-60 feet away with the 35 Lux ASPH. No chromatic aberration to be seen. It's amazing to dive in on your images and just see such detail. I have to use very little sharpening or other tweeks, especially compared to my D700 files. Wow, I can see what everyone has been raving about! I feel I am now getting much better results with my Leica lenses than I did in my film days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Old Dog Posted July 19, 2013 Share #31 Posted July 19, 2013 Beautiful workmanship. Such a joy to see images worthy of a Leica forum and not just snap shots. Very well done! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 19, 2013 Share #32 Posted July 19, 2013 ...This is the biggest disappointment with the M9, especially compared to the high ISA/low light performance of the D700. The NEX 6 also handles high ISO very well. M does a lot better than the 9, but still, I was expecting more.Horses for courses, as usual... I read someone comment that in the film days, 400 was the usual limit and it wasn't until Fuji came up with a useable 800 ISO film that we ever went this high with ISO. I found that if I used the M9 more like a film M and not what I had been spoiled with the D700, all was good. Where I needed the high ISO, I'd switch over to the NEX 6. The files and the look that the M9 produces are just unreal. Brings me back to my Kodachrome days for sure. Makes sense that Leica used Kodachrome as the target when they developed the sensor with Kodak. I beg to differ on the allegedly poor high-ISO performance of the M9. Actually, I love the color rendition of the M9 at high-ISO at night, but your reference to Kodachrome is apt in the sense that there is another way to shoot with the M9 at high-ISO, as you can see in in this thread. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share #33 Posted July 19, 2013 Beautiful workmanship. Such a joy to see images worthy of a Leica forum and not just snap shots. Very well done! Thank you! Most kind :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.