jmahto Posted September 9, 2015 Share #181 Posted September 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am going to try this. But I seriously doubt it works like this. ISO 800 and 60 seconds would be more useful if this is true. Thanks I just now checked again to make sure I was not smoking something when I gave the steps. I also noticed that you need to be in B mode which was missing in prev steps. This is what I did: - Set B mode on shutter dial - Auto ISO mode with max ISO 3200. - Simulate night sky by putting cap on the lens. - 10 second delay timer. Press the shutter and check the EXIF. Mine showed ISO 800 and 60 sec. For me it is repeatable. (note: my firmware is 2.0.1.5) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Hi jmahto, 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!
jmahto Posted September 9, 2015 Share #182 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Reporting on the A4 print results for the Milky way pic. - some color noise in the areas where I lifted vignetting in the sky. I could not remove this in LR5. Fixed color noise (since sky was supposed to be dark blue) in the sky using photoshop and printed again. - Very faint banding visible only at 1 ft viewing distance. - At 2-3 ft viewing distance everything is fine. I am happy to report that M240 can do milky way if needed. Thanks to 15mm CV V3 as well. Edited September 9, 2015 by jmahto 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted September 11, 2015 Share #183 Posted September 11, 2015 This is an interesting thread, took me a while to get through it. To the original poster: did you ever check out the work on 500px? There are some very impressive landscapes (sunsets and all) long-exposure shots (within one minute) with the M240 that look astonishingly good. I don't see why anyone would need more than a minute, if it is possible to get results like these with exposure times of less than one minute. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 11, 2015 Share #184 Posted September 11, 2015 This is an interesting thread, took me a while to get through it. To the original poster: did you ever check out the work on 500px? There are some very impressive landscapes (sunsets and all) long-exposure shots (within one minute) with the M240 that look astonishingly good. I don't see why anyone would need more than a minute, if it is possible to get results like these with exposure times of less than one minute. Ece For most low light photographs you are right that with our high quality fast lenses one minute even at relatively low ISO is sufficient BUT there are times where I want to smooth water or stretch out clouds (and would sometimes want some minutes of exposure) and anywhere I may want more depth of field. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted September 11, 2015 Share #185 Posted September 11, 2015 I'm with you on that one Mark. It does seem to an unfortunate limit. My guess is that the design team has no photographers in it, just engineers. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 11, 2015 Share #186 Posted September 11, 2015 Well, that is certainly not the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted September 12, 2015 Share #187 Posted September 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mark, all I have to go by are the gorgeous low-light (even night) landscapes with lots of super smooth water (falls, ocean, you name it) produced by this camera that are presented elsewhere. Clearly, it is possible and photographers are creating some jaw-dropping landscapes (with <=60 second exposures) with this camera. I still don't understand the problem. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 12, 2015 Share #188 Posted September 12, 2015 Slow exposures are the least of your worries. Landscapes at fast shutter speeds at infinity focus at 75 miles, for example distant Rockies mountains, are IMPOSSIBLE. Light from the mountains will not reach the camera at 1/4000ths of a second. Ya whiners. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 12, 2015 Share #189 Posted September 12, 2015 Pico, time and light move very slowly in your part of the world. Does that mean you will live longer? . Ece, I fully agree. I've presented my fair share of nighttime landscapes here in the Forum having used the M240. Most of the time 60 seconds is ample and I am very happy with the results. However, there are times where I've really wanted longer exposures - 60 sec is often not enough time to 'smooth the waters' and certainly not enough if I have to stop down for increased DOF if I want foreground and distance in focus at night. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted September 12, 2015 Share #190 Posted September 12, 2015 Interesting thread. Didn't know about the typ 240 exposure time limits and never ran into them. 15 seconds is a very very long exposure for me with the Leica. I normally use the Leica with 24 to 75mm lenses, hand-held. If I really need longer exposure times, well, that's why I bought a Nikon D750 that has both bulb and time options, with a cap at 30 minutes long exposure time. It also has defeatable long exposure NR. And if I want the Leica lens look, I'll just Leitax a couple of my R lenses for Nikon mount. Different tools, different capabilities, different purposes. A D750 is pretty inexpensive compared to Leica M gear. It makes a good adjunct or complement because it's good at what the M isn't so good at. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 12, 2015 Share #191 Posted September 12, 2015 Ramarren, yes you're quite right about the right tool for the right job. However, I really didn't want to buy into another camera system as I'm trying to streamline my life. This is really my only significant complaint about the M240 and not one that even arises that often. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LorenzoMueller Posted October 29, 2015 Share #192 Posted October 29, 2015 I have to agree with Tmuussoni on this one. Regardless the motivation to buy an M camera - The bulb mode should definetly do better then this! A camera should enable - NOT limit you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted October 29, 2015 Share #193 Posted October 29, 2015 3. I have been using M's since 1970 -- and there are LOTS of pictures I can't take. I recognize this and have lived with it, because the ones I can take WORK BETTER [author emphasis ] Actually, with the live view, I can now take some of the pictures I didn't used to be able to take. I'm thinking about getting an R-zoom lens for some shots. Let's see, where's that wallet? Regards to all, Bill Brilliant. Too brilliant for a mere 'Thanks'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 29, 2015 Share #194 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I am not a zoom shooter and like to carry one camera one lens most of the time. Whenever I am asked about whether I am "limited" in photo opportunity due to my choice, my usual response is that no one can see the pictures I didnt/couldn't take... However, they can see the pictures which I took, and they do look good (being modest here). Not to pass any judgement on people I see carrying heavy DSLR with 0-1000mm zoom lens. I am sure it works for them, else they wouldn't be carrying it. Horses for courses. Every camera has limitations and my goal is not to shoot every damn thing I see on my walk everywhere I go every single day. Edited October 29, 2015 by jmahto 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted October 29, 2015 Share #195 Posted October 29, 2015 On long exposure topic, see the discussion in another thread. Although not at the same level as others (including my lowly canon P&S), I have not felt serious limitation with M240 for my usage. (Warning: we are discussing a hack in the following thread to get full 60sec at high ISO) http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251944-long-exposures-with-m240/?view=getnewpost 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share #196 Posted November 4, 2015 Long time since I read this thread. Thank you all for contributing to this. This "ISO hack" Looks very interesting. Although it is not a solution for the problem it could make it (slightly) less of an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 4, 2015 Share #197 Posted November 4, 2015 I cannot rationalize 35mm for landscapes when medium format, either film or nominal digital is so superior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted November 5, 2015 Share #198 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I cannot rationalize 35mm for landscapes when medium format, either film or nominal digital is so superior. Most landscape these days is done on 35mm digital, it is far superior to APS-C digital. Given the great dynamic range and low noise of the M240's sensor at ISO 200, it makes a great landscape camera. Aside from the lack of long exposure time... Edited November 5, 2015 by Mornnb 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted November 5, 2015 Share #199 Posted November 5, 2015 Here we go again! "This is better that that, or vice versa". Can't we all see that different photographer prefer different outcomes for their pictures, therefore will probably prefer different tools to achieve it. Digital V's film (yawn) ad nauseum. My preferences change from time to time, so therefore so does my digital or film use vary. They are different! That is all. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted November 5, 2015 Share #200 Posted November 5, 2015 Here we go again! "This is better that that, or vice versa". Can't we all see that different photographer prefer different outcomes for their pictures, therefore will probably prefer different tools to achieve it. Digital V's film (yawn) ad nauseum. My preferences change from time to time, so therefore so does my digital or film use vary. They are different! That is all. Film vs. Digital is effective, efficient click bait. Please don't kill it. Think of the children. s-a 2 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