algrove Posted October 26, 2013 Share #21 Posted October 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is a shame that I am hearing of many M's being sent back from a nearly new state. Is the QC in Solms suffering from too many new employees who have little or no appreciation for what is Leica. I was told that many of the new ones stick around for a couple of years and then move on once they have "earned" their stripes so to speak. Same the world over, but the old loyalty has all but disappeared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Hi algrove, Take a look here Impressions of New M240 by M9-P User. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bideford Posted October 26, 2013 Share #22 Posted October 26, 2013 Interesting to hear the views on this thread. My M8.2 has hit the coffee beans on the LCD so thanks to the good people at Solms I'm upgrading to a new M. A hard choice to make over the M-E or a used M9-P but prudence lost out big time. I previously held off "upgrading" to the 9 because the M8.2 was so good and I was used to my lenses on a cropped sensor. Could not really convince myself that the 9 was worth the upgrade cost. Guess my main worry with the M is the change in sensor but as with all things opinion seems to be divided. Never used video on my X100 or 5D2 so more than likely will not on the M. The better LCD and EVF (especially with other lenses) and weather sealing (to protect the camera if nothing else) are certainly attractive and not fluff to me. If I don't pine for my M8.2 I'll be a very happy man! James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patashnik Posted October 26, 2013 Share #23 Posted October 26, 2013 Well, I sold my M 240 and kept the M9-P. It did come with a lot of new options, but not $7000 worth of them (for me). Or make that $9000, this is Norway after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted October 26, 2013 Share #24 Posted October 26, 2013 If you sell your M9 (P) the new cost isn't $7,000 in U.S. Only $2,000 to $3,000 depending on resale. That's about $1,000 per year which is a lot less than I was paying for film... Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted October 26, 2013 Share #25 Posted October 26, 2013 Gentlemen, let's please respect the OP's thread and keep our responses a little more constructive. If you have an opinion it would help to provide some detail to let us all understand how it came to be. Sweeping statements and tart responses teach us nothing. James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 26, 2013 Share #26 Posted October 26, 2013 My M8.2 has hit the coffee beans on the LCD so thanks to the good people at Solms I'm upgrading to a new M. If that happened to my M8.2, I'd be calling my insurance agent for full replacement value (to new camera model). Unfortunately that didn't happen, so I sold one of my M8.2s after buying the M. No regrets. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted October 26, 2013 Share #27 Posted October 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) If that happened to my M8.2, I'd be calling my insurance agent for full replacement value (to new camera model). Unfortunately that didn't happen, so I sold one of my M8.2s after buying the M. No regrets. Jeff Thanks Jeff - If I recall correctly you have often extolled the virtues of the much maligned M8 so hopefully I'll be good with the M as a replacement! No insurance for the coffee stain LCD issue (my bad joke on the coffee beans...) other than a very fair offer from Solms to upgrade. More than one would normally expect from the maker of a second hand five year old digital camera. That was a big factor in deciding to spend the extra. James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 27, 2013 Share #28 Posted October 27, 2013 Yep, loved the M8.2, but now just keep one as a back-up in case something happens to my new M, which I now prefer. I knew what you meant about the coffee stain. Too bad you don't have comprehensive insurance; the Solms offer is decent*, but my insurance policy would have covered the full price of the M. [*Many presented opposing views in lengthy debates here at the time.] Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 27, 2013 Share #29 Posted October 27, 2013 The high ISO capability is also much overrated as it's quite possible to shoot everything easily at 400 ISO with great results on the M9. I just don't understand the obsession with high ISO's - in the good old film days TRI-X at 400 was always more than adequate so why now that we have digital is it essential to have a camera that will shoot at mega high ISO?? If you need to shoot in low light then just hold your breath and shoot at a slower speed or open up the lens - not hard on a Leica rangefinder camera:) Cars are overrated too...its quite possible to get to work in our horse and buggies, yet some folks just insist on obsessing with new fangled automobiles. In the good old days, a nice horse was more than adequate:) sorry, just couldn't resist...its 2013, tri-x is dead and shooting at iso 1600 is essential to some folks or its wouldn't be included on the dial. You may be happy holding your breadth and others may not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted October 27, 2013 Share #30 Posted October 27, 2013 sorry, just couldn't resist...its 2013, tri-x is dead and shooting at iso 1600 is essential to some folks or its wouldn't be included on the dial. You may be happy holding your breadth and others may not. You clearly don't have a clue. It's 2013, and Tri-X developed in Diafine still yields great results at 1600 ASA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 27, 2013 Share #31 Posted October 27, 2013 You clearly don't have a clue. It's 2013, and Tri-X developed in Diafine still yields great results at 1600 ASA. I think you missed my point. I was replying to the post before mine. I have been shooting Tri-x for 40 years. Today's modern sensors far exceed anything Tri-X can resolve. But my post wasn't about this, please try reading both posts again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted October 28, 2013 Share #32 Posted October 28, 2013 the idea that in darker environments - one simply holds their breath, prays and opens the lens wide- neglects the fact that in so doing you lose the ability to get much in the way of depth of field- and you have to accept the distinct possibility of motion blur not to mention camera shake. Being able to shoot at higher ISO's widens the possibilities open to you; want to freeze action- can do; want the whole face in focus not just the nose- it's possible. Great. Just too dang good to need it? No problemo: set to iso 200 and forget. I am sure if you went back to the 60's many of those photographers who previously made do at ISO 400 (and were often forced to use flash in dark places) jumped at the chance to get a higher speed film- with higher resolution. Just as the old horse and buggy owners were relatively quick to adopt the new fangled motorised jitneys- with few pining for the good old days of oats and horse dung... Sure for the true purist, the man of yesteryear- the skilled serious photographer- who shoots 12 second exposures from the hip, takes no prisoners and asks no questions later- this may all be so much extravagant fluff and puffery for the pathetic, molleycoddled vain, amateuristic masses.... I suspect such exalted timeless types are truly in the minority though... the world is graced with few such fine men- perhaps but one or two in a generation... We had Capa... now we have Paul. Bless them- and there steely shake free hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted October 28, 2013 Share #33 Posted October 28, 2013 On a serious note jaques does make a valid point. Shooting wide open is seriously overdone in terms of depth of field/bokeh etc.. The ability to just close down just a little more in order to suggest more background - away from the area in focus - is often, for me at least, the difference between a good or indifferent image. So better ISO capabilities are not necessarily the domain of night shooters - it can also contribute in a more subtle/artistic way. James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted October 28, 2013 Share #34 Posted October 28, 2013 I have the feeling the extra iso is also needed to make it easier to make use for the resolution of the M240. As the resolution increases, it becomes more of a challenge to use that resolution. Higher shutter speeds can help. I picked up my own M240 on saturday, and I agree with the positive sentiments in the original post. The ergonomics in classic rangefinder mode are very nice. I'm pleasantly surprised with the iso performance. It really is a very useful upgrade (more so that I thought). I still have my doubts about the rendering, and shooting familiar objects I do see a CMOS/CCD difference. But I knew that when I paid for the camera, so I will just see if the CMOS rendering starts to grow on me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted October 28, 2013 Share #35 Posted October 28, 2013 paulmac, A detailed and interesting post - and a fascinating glimpse of life as a (presumably) pro photographer. The exacting demands of today's commercial photography, not least the client's requirement for perfection (in terms of lighting etc.), certainly illustrates how things must have changed over the years! Maybe higher ISO capabilities are of greater use for different circumstances - from my point of view as a complete rank amateur and hobbyist it will just allows me to use the M in more "light challenging" situations. To be honest, in circumstances where a high ISO is required (say concert photography) I would use a DSLR - auto focus and all! James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted October 28, 2013 Share #36 Posted October 28, 2013 Really excellent pictures on your site James - always good to see work from another Leeds photog Thanks paulmac, appreciated - blimey, another Loiner! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surge Posted November 17, 2013 Share #37 Posted November 17, 2013 Glad that you like your new M. If you need to shoot in low light then just hold your breath and shoot at a slower speed or open up the lens - not hard on a Leica rangefinder camera:) Umm, well, because for one thing you can only shoot stationary objects that way! You can rule out street shooting at night, for example. The new M is just about at its limit at night, at 2500 ISO at f/2.8. With an M9 it seems like you'd lose a lot of color, gain noise, etc., at that ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surge Posted November 17, 2013 Share #38 Posted November 17, 2013 It is a shame that I am hearing of many M's being sent back from a nearly new state. Is the QC in Solms suffering from too many new employees who have little or no appreciation for what is Leica. I was told that many of the new ones stick around for a couple of years and then move on once they have "earned" their stripes so to speak. Same the world over, but the old loyalty has all but disappeared. Unless you compare statistically, there's zero value in wondering about quality. "Many" Nikon D800s shipped with defective AF in the first year, among other issues. There's no way to compare properly unless we know the numbers, which we never will. Is Leica perfect, no. But it seems like they do produce better reliability than the higher volume competitors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 17, 2013 Share #39 Posted November 17, 2013 Unless you compare statistically, there's zero value in wondering about quality."Many" Nikon D800s shipped with defective AF in the first year, among other issues. There's no way to compare properly unless we know the numbers, which we never will. Is Leica perfect, no. But it seems like they do produce better reliability than the higher volume competitors. Generally in optics I agree. Their digital bodies lack probably due to steep learning curve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 18, 2013 Share #40 Posted November 18, 2013 ...With an M9 it seems like you'd lose a lot of color, gain noise, etc., at that ISO.You're referring to shooting at ISO 2500. However, it has been shown conclusively that another technique is called for when shooting at night with the M9, i.e. using the technique of Shooting at ISO 640 and Pushing in LR5. This technique allows you to achieve good night shots at ISOs as high as 5,000 or even 8,000. Seems to me that one cannot simple shoot as one would with film or to throw up one's hands and complain that high ISO on the M9 is useless. Better to learn how to do it and benefit from the unique color rendition that the M9 can provide, even at high ISO. The picture below, which I have posted before was shot at an effective ISO of 7,500; the lighting is highly mixed, including a read LED light falling on the main subject. M9-P | Summicron-28 } ISO640 pushed 3.5 stops | f/2.8 | 1/60 sec Hua Hin —Mitch/Chiang Mai Looking for Baudelaire [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.