wparsonsgisnet Posted January 23, 2015 Share #81 Posted January 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Originally Posted by Tmuussoni About astrophotography: My personal experience is basic exposure of stars/milky ways are something like 30 seconds and ISO 3200-6400. Sadly we can only use 8 seconds for M. So it's quite not enough. Agreed. And I was enough disappointed in the max exposure on the M that I commented on it in the Forum. However, I have found that sequential 8 sec exposures that are combined in Photoshop results in a sharper image of the stars (less movement) and less noise. Thanks, Tim. I was wondering what adding exposures would do. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Hi wparsonsgisnet, Take a look here Leica M 240: It's serious drawbacks for landscape shooters – but can we fix it?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted January 23, 2015 Share #82 Posted January 23, 2015 That is true of my Volkswagen, but today Volkswagen owns Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, and more that I do not remember. As long as all those other brands don't have that lawnmower sound on acceleration it'll be okay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 23, 2015 Share #83 Posted January 23, 2015 Considering that this is the company that produces an f 0.9 lens, their cavalier attitude to long exposures is understandable, possibly not justified fully, but at least understandable. Not that I could afford it, but a 28 mm Noctilux would really be something for the twilight and fireworks landscapers. .......and it would be the size of a one pound coffee can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 23, 2015 Share #84 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) I was initially worried about all this talk of limited exposure time on M240. Before purchasing I went and looked back at the EXIF of my starry night shots with M9. With my M240 I will have no problem shooting with similar exposure.... (32 sec for iso 640, f/4) https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmahto/12155357023/ (16 sec for iso 400, f/4) https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmahto/12155776166/ BTW, to OP... beautiful pictures on OP's site. I think he knows what he is doing and what he wants in his cam. Edited January 23, 2015 by jmahto Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 23, 2015 Share #85 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Just for curiosity, I looked at one of the OP's picture 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! The EXIF says Sony A7r, 24mm lens, f11, ISO 200, 450sec With this wide lens f11 can be opened to f4 (with enough DOF) with the following exposure (water blur won't be that different than 450 sec --- I guess, and sun will move less ) f4 (3 stop more), ISO 200, 50sec (3 stop less) This is perfectly doable in M240. There certainly will be situations where more exposure is needed but M240 is *not* that limiting. Edited January 23, 2015 by jmahto 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The EXIF says Sony A7r, 24mm lens, f11, ISO 200, 450sec With this wide lens f11 can be opened to f4 (with enough DOF) with the following exposure (water blur won't be that different than 450 sec --- I guess, and sun will move less ) f4 (3 stop more), ISO 200, 50sec (3 stop less) This is perfectly doable in M240. There certainly will be situations where more exposure is needed but M240 is *not* that limiting. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240073-leica-m-240-its-serious-drawbacks-for-landscape-shooters-%E2%80%93-but-can-we-fix-it/?do=findComment&comment=2752003'>More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted January 23, 2015 Share #86 Posted January 23, 2015 I guess it's all about how much "blur" is desired. To me, there is a painterly quality to Tmuussoni's pix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 24, 2015 Share #87 Posted January 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) One ring to rule them all........ OP wants a a camera that will do everything ...... it won't be a Leica .... Change to an A7s ....... Leica w/a performance seems to be better and thats where most of the astro guys seem to be heading .... I've looked recently at astrophotography and decided the amount of gear and patience needed to do it properly is not worth it .... nice as the results can be...... Specialised photography needs specialised gear .... expecting a generalist camera to excel at everything is unreasonable. The Leica M series was .... and still is ..... aimed at reportage. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share #88 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Thank you for all the positive comments, everyone One ring to rule them all........ OP wants a a camera that will do everything ...... it won't be a Leica .... Change to an A7s ....... Leica w/a performance seems to be better and thats where most of the astro guys seem to be heading .... I've looked recently at astrophotography and decided the amount of gear and patience needed to do it properly is not worth it .... nice as the results can be...... Specialised photography needs specialised gear .... expecting a generalist camera to excel at everything is unreasonable. The Leica M series was .... and still is ..... aimed at reportage. I guess we have to agree to disagree. We are talking about bulb mode. There is nothing specialised about that feature. Almost every CMOS camera out there has. That's it. In my opinion Leica being Leica and/or a rangefinder has nothing to do with it. It's an important missing feature. Off topic: In the distant future I might be consider a modified A7S with thinner sensor glass as back up body. The results look quite promising with some Leica wide angles as well. Edited January 24, 2015 by Tmuussoni Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 24, 2015 Share #89 Posted January 24, 2015 I guess we have to agree to disagree. We are talking about bulb mode. There is nothing specialised about that feature. Like I said, I think the M is missing some "specialized" hardware and/or software to reduce long exposure noise in-camera without dark frame subtraction. Without these, the output would suck (but at least we could postprocess it as we want). Then again, these "specialized" technologies are present in most half-decent general purpose el-cheapo cameras. And - correct me if I am wrong - the M is also a general purpose camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2015 Share #90 Posted January 24, 2015 I'm not sure one can call the M a general purpose camera. That would be more like a DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 24, 2015 Share #91 Posted January 24, 2015 Pointless pedantry arguing about what a camera is called! As if calling it a certain name demands it should or should not do this or that. General purpose or not, the M is what it is. It does not have bulb. If you need bulb, you must find another solution, which could be another camera. I do understand the desire to have these features, but today the M does not. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 24, 2015 Share #92 Posted January 24, 2015 Pointless pedantry arguing about what a camera is called![...] It does not have bulb. If you need bulb, you must find another solution, which could be another camera. Cool. Thanks again for stating the obvious. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 24, 2015 Share #93 Posted January 24, 2015 Cool. Thanks again for stating the obvious. It's seemed appropriate, based on many, continuing posts here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 24, 2015 Share #94 Posted January 24, 2015 Cool. Thanks again for stating the obvious. Judging by this thread, not too obvious.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 25, 2015 Share #95 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Like I said, I think the M is missing some "specialized" hardware and/or software to reduce long exposure noise in-camera without dark frame subtraction. Without these, the output would suck (but at least we could postprocess it as we want). Then again, these "specialized" technologies are present in most half-decent general purpose el-cheapo cameras. And - correct me if I am wrong - the M is also a general purpose camera The inherent noise problems don't vary enormously between (CMOS) chips and the on-sensor hardware options for reducing noise are also rather limited. I am sure Leica's main issue is just lack of sheer processing power .... they just don't have a Bionx or Expeed processor with low power consumption and the capability of using complex algorithms at lightning speed. Some NR seems to be applied at RAW level in some of these cameras. Leica's use of dark frame subtraction as a method of NR works fine as it needs fairly limited processing power ..... The exposure time limits set by Leica appear to be a corporate decision as to the maximum amount of noise they feel a Leica DNG image should exhibit. This seems to be applied fairly uniformly throughout their range of cameras. Even the new S3 is 125secs max ... and less at higher ISO's. All the Leica range with their own-sourced electronics are sluggish ......... and this 'problem' is just another reflection of overall lack of processing power ..... Edited January 25, 2015 by thighslapper 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Posted January 25, 2015 Share #96 Posted January 25, 2015 The inherent noise problems don't vary enormously between (CMOS) chips and the on-sensor hardware options for reducing noise are also rather limited. I am sure Leica's main issue is just lack of sheer processing power .... they just don't have a Bionx or Expeed processor with low power consumption and the capability of using complex algorithms at lightning speed. Some NR seems to be applied at RAW level in some of these cameras. Leica's use of dark frame subtraction as a method of NR works fine as it needs fairly limited processing power ..... The exposure time limits set by Leica appear to be a corporate decision as to the maximum amount of noise they feel a Leica DNG image should exhibit. This seems to be applied fairly uniformly throughout their range of cameras. Even the new S3 is 125secs max ... and less at higher ISO's. All the Leica range with their own-sourced electronics are sluggish ......... and this 'problem' is just another reflection of overall lack of processing power ..... ------ I agree and perhaps I'm off side on the forum. My Leica kit is a compliment to my other kits. I normally don't use it for studio work (I could), instead I like my Hasselblad which has it own limits, for sport it my Nikon kit, with limits, and for old school landscapes and exposures it my wooden 4X5 which I feel like a Sherpa every time I use it. I like making images and the equipment is secondary. I made the chose many years ago to use Leica for the absolute beautiful qualities of the equipment and as a compliment to pleasure of taking a photograph. I understand you would like to challenge Leica on their design to expand the B features/ functions, but life is too short, get a second kit with a processor, sensor that work for you or step back and burn some film. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted January 25, 2015 Share #97 Posted January 25, 2015 Pointless pedantry arguing about what a camera is called!As if calling it a certain name demands it should or should not do this or that. General purpose or not, the M is what it is. It does not have bulb. If you need bulb, you must find another solution, which could be another camera. I do understand the desire to have these features, but today the M does not. Agree. The M is lacking in many features. It doesn't have autofocus, or numerous buttons and wheels and a gazillion menu items that change when a wheel is turned. Those are pluses, not minuses. It doesn't have a true Bulb or a way to turn off dark frame NR. Those are minuses, not pluses. I wish there was a way to do longer exposures and turn off NR, but there isn't. All cameras have pluses and minuses. The answer to the OP is fundamentally this: No, the M cannot do what you want it to do for your landscapes, and it is not likely to be "fixed" because that is the way it was designed by Leica. Whether that was a good choice or a bad choice makes for lively discussion but not a solution. Maybe Leica will listen for the next model. It is sort of like arguing the umpire's call (before instant replay). The argument is not going to change the call, but maybe he will listen and cut you a break on the next. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 25, 2015 Share #98 Posted January 25, 2015 As long as all those other brands don't have that lawnmower sound on acceleration it'll be okay. Well, my '58 VW Bug no longer has the lawnmower sound. It makes no sound. The engine stuck a couple years ago. Oh, my mate named it Flattery - because it gets me nowhere. . 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted January 25, 2015 Share #99 Posted January 25, 2015 It suprises me that such a serious landscape photographer as the OP doesn't care that Leica lenses are optimized for larger apertures and are suffering from diffraction at the apertures he shoots at. Or that the M240 does not have swings, tilts and shifts. The M 240 is actually a brilliant handheld landscape camera because (1) it takes an EVF and (2) can overlay an extremely effective artificial horizon. Of course, I also shoot Noblexes and Silverstris handheld, so mine may be the ravings (albeit positive) of a madman. The biggest problem with the M 240 as a landscape camera is that the color filter and sensor angle of attack does not work well with some of the best landscape lenses available in M mount, like the 21/4.5 Biogon. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2015 Share #100 Posted January 25, 2015 But the Super-Elmars compensate for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now