jmahto Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1101 Posted August 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I did not realize the M240 had a 60second limit to Bulb! Glad I skipped that. I'm shooting my 7th year with the M9 and occasionally wish only for: Better high ISO performance, Live view for macro work using +4 close-up filters/dioptres. longer Bulb limit, Lighter and weather-sealed body would be nice. Even with all of the above I may not rush to upgrade straight away, but shoot the 9 to death first. The threshold repair expense would be something like a new sensor. What I don't use: Frame lever. jpg processing. AE compensation. AE bracketing. That auto-everything mode (S-mode?) In practice, I never had any issue with 60 sec bulb limits. I have shot flowing water and star trails, both can be managed with less than 60 sec. I believe very few landscape shots require more than 60 sec to smooth out cloud/water etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Hi jmahto, Take a look here New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
exile Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1102 Posted August 15, 2016 Depends. I've regularly had to shoot exposures of several minutes to get some streaking in slow moving clouds. I also like to shoot tourist hotspots with very long exposures to remove the crowds, and in this situation, the longer the exposure, the better. Interestingly, my preferences are the polar opposite for shooting the sky at night - I much prefer pin sharp stars with little or no trailing, so I shoot them with a 35lux wide open. This is one situation in which better high ISO performance would make a huge difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1103 Posted August 15, 2016 Depends. I've regularly had to shoot exposures of several minutes to get some streaking in slow moving clouds. I also like to shoot tourist hotspots with very long exposures to remove the crowds, and in this situation, the longer the exposure, the better. Interestingly, my preferences are the polar opposite for shooting the sky at night - I much prefer pin sharp stars with little or no trailing, so I shoot them with a 35lux wide open. This is one situation in which better high ISO performance would make a huge difference. Of course usage vary and I am not going to argue with that. On shooting sharp stars with no trailing.... I use my 28cron at f/2.8, ISO1600 and 8sec for sharp stars. There is very little coma in the corners (I didn't like coma in wide open 35lux). M240's grain at ISO1600 is reasonable well controlled if you don't lift shadow in dark sky background. There is huge improvement compared to M9 (I used that for two years) in high ISO grain. Of course even better sensor is welcome but the existing sensor is perfect for my usage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1104 Posted August 15, 2016 Not quiet sure if a rangefinder is the ideal tool for star shooting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1105 Posted August 15, 2016 Not quiet sure if a rangefinder is the ideal tool for star shooting? No, I think most Hollywood paparazzi use DSLRs. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1106 Posted August 15, 2016 Why should I carry a second camera to shoot stars if M works!(note: I should add that for shooting milkyway, M's sensor is stretched in high ISO capability. It is not a question of RF or not RF). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 15, 2016 Share #1107 Posted August 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Got an idea. Why not put a winder on a smallish camera body and then inside put a roll of photo sensitive plastic maybe in a metal tube which attaches to the winder via some sort of notches cut into the plastic roll. Then flatten that photosensitive roll right in the optimal place where the image is projected onto it inside of the camera body. Once done with shooting you re-roll the plastic back into the tube it came in maybe with a felt lip system that keeps light out until you get home where you load the plastic roll onto a wire which fits into a a stainless steel can which takes in and out chemicals to develop, stop developing and then stabilizing the processing. Now dry it. Whew. That's just the half of it too, but I have to figure out the rest so we can get some prints from our images. Oh, forgot, this is B&W only for now. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted August 16, 2016 Share #1108 Posted August 16, 2016 men & their light-tight boxes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1109 Posted August 17, 2016 In practice, I never had any issue with 60 sec bulb limits. I have shot flowing water and star trails, both can be managed with less than 60 sec. I believe very few landscape shots require more than 60 sec to smooth out cloud/water etc. Everything depends on the circumstances but there are lot of examples where 60 seconds is just not enough. Comparing the smoothness of water for example 60 seconds vs 200-300 seconds can be huge if the waves are rough. Some examples in this group: https://www.flickr.com/groups/1392676@N21/pool/ Not quiet sure if a rangefinder is the ideal tool for star shooting? Camera being a rangefinder has nothing to do if the camera is ideal or not ideal tool for star shooting, in my opinion. It's just a way to focus (or one of the ways). Depends. I've regularly had to shoot exposures of several minutes to get some streaking in slow moving clouds. I also like to shoot tourist hotspots with very long exposures to remove the crowds, and in this situation, the longer the exposure, the better. Interestingly, my preferences are the polar opposite for shooting the sky at night - I much prefer pin sharp stars with little or no trailing, so I shoot them with a 35lux wide open. This is one situation in which better high ISO performance would make a huge difference. Kind of my thoughts exactly. Several times I had wish I had that longer exposure to remove the tourist crowds. And sadly 1 minute often is not quite enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1110 Posted August 17, 2016 In practice, I never had any issue with 60 sec bulb limits. I have shot flowing water and star trails, both can be managed with less than 60 sec. I believe very few landscape shots require more than 60 sec to smooth out cloud/water etc. I don't think so. Unless it's a very windy day, you don't get the clouds to move with 60 sec. The sky is often key in a landscape or fine art image. It's no rare that during the day you can get up to 8 minutes with a 16 stop ND at base iso to get the clouds streaking. Past 8 minutes you start loosing the effect and as it flattens out. For the water you can get away even with 30 sec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1111 Posted August 17, 2016 If it's a question of making a smudge out of the sky then Photoshop is your man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1112 Posted August 17, 2016 From where I stand, in my own personal ivory tower, I'm very glad Leica don't encourage these long-exposure "get rid of the reality" photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1113 Posted August 17, 2016 If it's a question of making a smudge out of the sky then Photoshop is your man. A long exposure is not a smudge out of the sky. There is a work around in Photoshop to obtain a sort of long exposure effect but is not always working, which is to combine several short exposures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1114 Posted August 17, 2016 From where I stand, in my own personal ivory tower, I'm very glad Leica don't encourage these long-exposure "get rid of the reality" photos. Long exposures might not be your kind of photography, but what is reality? I consider photography as an art and as such an interpretation by the artist. By the way, the reality is not in black and white either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1115 Posted August 17, 2016 In his latest very interesting article "Focusing a Leica M with the EVF", Thorsten Overgaard says that a new M with a new EVF will come at the Photokina. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1116 Posted August 17, 2016 Long exposures might not be your kind of photography, but what is reality? I consider photography as an art and as such an interpretation by the artist. By the way, the reality is not in black and white either. I'm with you most of the way here, but you lose me at the end: I agree that reality is not easy to pin down and ultimately eludes us all, and photography is always an interpretation. And I enjoy invention and creativity above most things. I don't like tired cliches though, and I haven't seen a long exposure photo that has interested me for a very long while. They rarely offer an interesting personal insight, and strike me as far more often as just a decorative effect. I do accept they may have important investigative benefits in certain applications though, but that is unlikely to include waterfalls and the like. I'm no defender of black and white by the way, and have frequently questioned what I consider to be its gross over-use though I acknowledge it has a very important place in contemporary photography if used thoughtfully and sparingly. I'm not clear as to why you add the rider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1117 Posted August 17, 2016 A long exposure is not a smudge out of the sky. There is a work around in Photoshop to obtain a sort of long exposure effect but is not always working, which is to combine several short exposures. Sure, try the panorama feature but without moving the camera, then only the differences are merged. Here is a silly example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1118 Posted August 17, 2016 Sure, try the panorama feature but without moving the camera, then only the differences are merged. Here is a silly example. Yes but with moving clouds you often get breaks or other funky stuff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1119 Posted August 17, 2016 In his latest very interesting article "Focusing a Leica M with the EVF", Thorsten Overgaard says that a new M with a new EVF will come at the Photokina. Well, he says "will likely be announced" at this year's Photokina. We still have to wait and see, though I suspect Thorsten knows what he's talking about! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giulio Zanni Posted August 17, 2016 Share #1120 Posted August 17, 2016 I'm with you most of the way here, but you lose me at the end: I agree that reality is not easy to pin down and ultimately eludes us all, and photography is always an interpretation. And I enjoy invention and creativity above most things. I don't like tired cliches though, and I haven't seen a long exposure photo that has interested me for a very long while. They rarely offer an interesting personal insight, and strike me as far more often as just a decorative effect. I do accept they may have important investigative benefits in certain applications though, but that is unlikely to include waterfalls and the like. I'm no defender of black and white by the way, and have frequently questioned what I consider to be its gross over-use though I acknowledge it has a very important place in contemporary photography if used thoughtfully and sparingly. I'm not clear as to why you add the rider. This is what I like to do, it won several awards http://www.giuliozanni.com/p869996416/h4433415f#h4433415f BUT, you don't have to like it of course Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.