Leonil Posted January 24, 2014 Share #1 Posted January 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) So Im reading my manual - (yes Im that kind of person) and I realised that the more I read, the more I realise that I don't need to worry about it because Im skipping over things I don't need, and focusing on the rangefinder (which Im pleased about and means my fundamentals are relatively sound and just want to learn how to use the RF system.) Having said that, I did come across the part in the manual that said Pull 100 will have the sensitivity of ISO100 but will have less Dynamic Range (or contrast) in the images than ISO200. So which one do you use? Is there a difference? How can you tell if there is? What is recommended for Leica users? In my 7D, Im always shooting Expanded 100 (had to unlock it via settings) but I never really thought about why that was so until now... I didn't know that "pull" was somehow not native to the sensor, or that DR was sacrificed for sensitivity... how does it really work? Leo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Hi Leonil, Take a look here Pull 100 or 200?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted January 24, 2014 Share #2 Posted January 24, 2014 Using ISO 100 is the same as using 200 and pulling the exposure 1 stop in Lightroom, since the sensor doesn't support ISO 100, it's basically a 'fake 100' since the real base ISO is 200. So you DONT want to use ISO 100. Because it's a altered version of a ISO 200 image... Use 200 as the lowest, or just shoot 200 as 100 and pull in lightroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2014 Share #3 Posted January 24, 2014 You are right that using Pull 100 is losing a stop in dynamic range. But it is not the same as the exposure slider in lightroom. It is meant to protect highlights when you run out of shutterspeed. Better use an ND filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 24, 2014 Share #4 Posted January 24, 2014 You are right that using Pull 100 is losing a stop in dynamic range. But it is not the same as the exposure slider in lightroom. It is meant to protect highlights when you run out of shutterspeed. Better use an ND filter. A great shame the 1/8000 shutterspeed was dropped after the M8. Numerous times I could have used it without the inconvenience of getting out an ND filter to gain one stop (if I had one with me) or having to modify the photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 24, 2014 Share #5 Posted January 24, 2014 A great shame the 1/8000 s shutter speed was dropped after the M8. To the contrary—it's a good thing. A focal-plane shutter supporting 1/8000 s as the fastest speed is louder (at all speeds, not just at 1/8000 s) and has less longevity. I prefer a slightly slower shutter. A fastest shutter speed of 1/4000 s is plenty—for decades, I was using cameras with a fastest speed of 1/1000 s, and I hardly missed anything. 1/4000 s is fast enough, and I'd consider it a bad move if Leica Camera switched to a 1/8000 s shutter again in one of the future models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest odeon Posted January 24, 2014 Share #6 Posted January 24, 2014 A great shame the 1/8000 shutterspeed was dropped after the M8. We know Leica M8's shutter fail issue that related with 1/8000s. So, i can say Leica M8 lives fast dies young. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2014 Share #7 Posted January 24, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) No we don't know that. As far as we can see from this forum there is no difference in failure rate between the 4000 and 8000 shutters. The one and only reason Leica changed the shutter was to get it a bit less loud. If one reduces the speed of the shutter curtain one needs to narrow the slit to obtain the same shutter speed. If Leica had just lowered the shutter curtain speed to lessen the noise and kept 1/8000th they would have had to narrow the slit to a point where diffraction would have become a factor. Whether the slower speed reduces failure rate is an open question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 24, 2014 Share #8 Posted January 24, 2014 Been using 1/8000s shutters for years w/o any problem. Quite useful indeed. I would welcome one on the next M provided it's not more noisy than the M240's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest odeon Posted January 24, 2014 Share #9 Posted January 24, 2014 Been using 1/8000s shutters for years w/o any problem. Quite useful indeed. I would welcome one on the next M provided it's not more noisy than the M240's. I saw many second hand Leica M8s. Maybe i saw 50 bodys, maybe more than. Generally the majority of bad used cameras have a shutter fail. I talked previous owners about 1/8000s usage. They admit it. At the same time i saw a shutter fail on hard dropped bodys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2014 Share #10 Posted January 24, 2014 That is quite a collection. Has Turkey such an impressive camera shop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest odeon Posted January 24, 2014 Share #11 Posted January 24, 2014 That is quite a collection. Has Turkey such an impressive camera shop? I'm founder of Turkish Leica community. Many people reach me on LeicaTurkiye.com. Or, various people contact me about Leica. Sellers, buyers, fans, insurance companies, etc. (Yes, insurance companies. They ask for stolen cameras.) For that reason, i know almost all Leicas in Turkey. I help them. Moreover i frequently travel to Europe. I looked second-hand cameras in Germany and the Netherlands. If i see a good camera, i ask my friend who wants Leica. Conclusion, i saw lots of camera. I'm reading articles related Leicas. I spend too time for cameras. My goal is help to someone who are dreaming Leica. PS: 1- I'm not a trader. I don't earn money with this job. 2- Not only bodies. Also i look the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 24, 2014 Share #12 Posted January 24, 2014 Well reliability and noise would not have been unreasonable factors to have led to dropping 1/8000. Was the M8 shutter really any louder or less reliable than that of the M9? Yes Olav, we all worked with 1/1000 maximum speed, or even 500 in the shutter of my old TLR, but in very bright light it's nice to have the option without having to slip on an ND filter (especially if I've forgotten to bring one or have to move quickly). I'm not into minimal DOF photography but at times would like some control in bright light. Remember we are using much faster base ISOs of 160 to 320 than when we went out in good light in the old film days of ISO 25 to 125 in bright light especially with the Monochrom., and more people are using fast lenses. In good light I usually used Kodachrome 64ASA or 100ASA B&W, and or that glorious Panatomic X 32 ASA (who remembers that ?) for when I really didn't want any grain...oh I'm getting nostalgic for those lovely old slow films ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted January 25, 2014 Share #13 Posted January 25, 2014 yes, the original M8 was a lot louder than the M9...& the M8.2. Hard to believe but it was enough to make many M8 owners upgrade their cameras to the M8U for a small fortune, even before the M9 was a rumour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 25, 2014 Share #14 Posted January 25, 2014 I talked previous owners about 1/8000 s usage. They admit it. It doesn't make a difference whether you're actually using the 1/8,000 s setting. ... but in very bright light it's nice to have the option without having to slip on an ND filter (especially if I've forgotten to bring one or have to move quickly). I'm not into minimal DOF photography but at times would like some control in bright light. I never had to use an ND filter to control bright light ... I didn't even own one. And If I did, I would have used it in order to achieve shutter speeds like, say, 10 s or 30 s in daylight. Remember we are using much faster base sensitivities of ISO 160/23° to ISO 320/26° than when we went out in good light in the old film days of ISO 25/15° to ISO 125/22° in bright light ... That's why we're having 1/4,000 s today rather than 1/1,000 s. A fastest shutter speed of 1/8,000 s still is uncalled for ... except maybe for the bragging rights. If cameras with 1/8,000 s didn't exist elsewhere then it wouldn't occur to you to call for it in the Leica M cameras. After all, no-one complains about not having 1/16,000 s ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted January 26, 2014 Share #15 Posted January 26, 2014 The 1/8000s shutter was more prone to fault. My friends actually just went and Leica is still honoring free replacement, but I completely disagree that it wasn't useful. In bright sun at base ISO, 1/8000s is about perfect for shooting a summilux wide open. As far as the film Leicas go, the 1/1000s is very limiting. I shoot black and white film rated at ISO250 and in bright sun that gets my between an f8 and f11, right in the range where diffraction shows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 30, 2014 Share #16 Posted January 30, 2014 After all, no-one complains about not having 1/16,000 s ... I do. Especially when using a Noctilux. Mounting/unmounting the 3-stop ND filter is not fun when you move to sun/shade. The base ISO 200 of The M sensor does not help. To be as flexible as a 5D2 (base ISO 100 and 1/8000), the M should have 1/16000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share #17 Posted January 31, 2014 Wow, ok that was a lot of information to sift through So Im inferring from the comments, that ISO 200 is the optimum ISO for the Leica and that Pull 100 has the same sensitivity as ISO 100 but with less Dynamic Range. I was hoping if someone can confirm if its 1 stop of DR lost at ISO 100? Im sure I read it somewhere. But its good I have been shooting at 200 since I have received my camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share #18 Posted January 31, 2014 ... Would a polarizing filter be a better alternative compared to a neutral density filter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 31, 2014 Share #19 Posted January 31, 2014 I was hoping if someone can confirm if its 1 stop of DR lost at ISO 100? You’ve got that right. Selecting ISO 100 when the sensor’s native sensitivity is ISO 200 amounts to overexposing it by one stop, thus pushing one stop worth of highlights over the top. These highlights are gone for good and cannot be recovered. What tonal values remain are adjusted so the picture won’t look overexposed, but the reduced dynamic range is something you have to accept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 31, 2014 Share #20 Posted January 31, 2014 Would a polarizing filter be a better alternative compared to a neutral density filter? A polarizer is meant to modify the image. This is not always wanted. A true variable ND from 0 to -3 stops would help, but I understand they are made with polarizers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.