jmahto Posted February 12, 2017 Share #61 Posted February 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Right, lets get back to film... I have taken plenty of low light pictures with my M9 - at 200 ISO it is extremely clean when mounted on a tripod. But of course that works with buildings, if they are solidly built. With humans, even using a Summilux, ISO 1600 quickly gets to slow. So yes, I try to use my M9 as good as possible, but the high ISO capabilities of the M10 are one of its most important enhancements to me. I am always fascinated by the extra weight given to high ISO capability (ignoring serious loss of DR) by modern digital enthusiasts. But that's just me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Hi jmahto, Take a look here Telling it as it is.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted February 12, 2017 Share #62 Posted February 12, 2017 I am always fascinated by the extra weight given to high ISO capability (ignoring serious loss of DR) by modern digital enthusiasts. But that's just me. Why? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 12, 2017 Share #63 Posted February 12, 2017 Why? Because I don't like loss of DR. It is important to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 12, 2017 Share #64 Posted February 12, 2017 Funny you should say that. You should check out Ashwin Rao's recent photos of a basketball game shot with the M10 and Noctilux. They are amazing and just might have you reconsidering your words. No. That is Ashwain's skill. Not proof of M's inherent ability compared to other better suited cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted February 12, 2017 Share #65 Posted February 12, 2017 I am always fascinated by the extra weight given to high ISO capability (ignoring serious loss of DR) by modern digital enthusiasts. But that's just me. Well, how should I take pictures when it is to dark to use low ISO then? Have you tried taking pictures in a bar or outside after dark? It is either high ISO or no pictures. And of course, the better the high iso, the less loss of DR one has to suffer from. If all numbers are to believed, the M10 has more DR at 1600 than the M9 at 200, and beyond that, well, the M9 cannot go there (well to 2500 if you are in a real emergency, but you don't worry about DR at 2500 on an M9). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted February 12, 2017 Share #66 Posted February 12, 2017 Because I don't like loss of DR. It is important to me. Yes, but photography is full of compromises. If you're shooting in poor light you have choices of different sets of compromises, such as losing depth of field in return for DR if you go for a low ISO and a wide aperture. You also may need a different lens, with another set of compromises. The availability of good quality higher ISO settings gives us more choice, which is attractive. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 12, 2017 Share #67 Posted February 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, but photography is full of compromises. If you're shooting in poor light you have choices of different sets of compromises, such as losing depth of field in return for DR if you go for a low ISO and a wide aperture. You also may need a different lens, with another set of compromises. The availability of good quality higher ISO settings gives us more choice, which is attractive. No major disagreement (you can read my earlier responses too where I worded my opinion carefully). My only question in this exchange is "how attractive?" My answer is "not much" for my usage. YMMV 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 12, 2017 Share #68 Posted February 12, 2017 No. That is Ashwain's skill. Not proof of M's inherent ability compared to other better suited cameras. Oh, I agree completely. It is the photographer and not the tool that matters most. I was duly impressed that Ashwin got such great sports photos not just using an M, but with a noctilux no less. This combo is definitely not suited to sports photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 13, 2017 Share #69 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Am I the only one feeling unimpressed with the high ISO race? Better high ISO usually means worse low ISO, unless some groundbreaking sensor technology has been secretly developed. Better high ISO means lighter CFA, lighter CFA means worse color separation, worse color separation means color reproduction issues. Everything comes at a price. Edited February 13, 2017 by edwardkaraa 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edw Posted February 13, 2017 Share #70 Posted February 13, 2017 Really! Only if you shoot above 1600. Only if you use elmarits instead of luxes. Only if you have a need to freeze motion more in very low light. Only if you shoot without tripod in very low light. Only if you print your low light pictures at full resolution. So many "only if"s. Nobody discounts M10's increased operating envelop but if this not light and day. The armchair "expertise" here is unbearable. I have a 35mm 'Lux. The lower base ISO, the higher usable ISO? I crave both. I bump against the max 1/4000 shutter speed quite a bit shooting wide-open in daylight, and popping a ND filter out of my pocket, unscrewing my hood, etc, etc is slow and a hassle. Additionally, I want to be be able to shoot with 1/4-1/8th the shutter speed at a given aperture with the same IQ in low light. Focusing with a rangefinder in low light is a challenge, so the ability to stop down a bit and gain a larger margin of error for misfocusing is wonderful. I was out shooting this afternoon in NYC. It was an overcast, rainy day, and there were several occasions where I couldn't get the shot I wanted on my 262 and had to spin the aperture ring until the blinking 4000 went away. I couldn't help but fantasize about my someday-soon-Wetzlar-willing M10, which would've made maybe 3/4s of those shots possible the way I wanted them. Somehow I don't think the people issuing their god-like pronouncements about what sort of light sensitivity a photographer should need in a camera do a lot of shooting in bars late at night or on moon-lit sidewalks, or like to shoot wide open in daylight. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted February 13, 2017 Share #71 Posted February 13, 2017 ^ it all depends on how you shoot. Not everybody wants to shoot wide open in daylight. It's also a reason why many people go for Summicrons or Elmarits even when they'd have the means to buy a Summilux. They just simply don't want or need the faster lenses and aren't interested in shooting wide open - many prefer the 2.8 - 5.6 range in daylight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted February 13, 2017 Share #72 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) The armchair "expertise" here is unbearable. I have a 35mm 'Lux. The lower base ISO, the higher usable ISO? I crave both. I bump against the max 1/4000 shutter speed quite a bit shooting wide-open in daylight, and popping a ND filter out of my pocket, unscrewing my hood, etc, etc is slow and a hassle. Additionally, I want to be be able to shoot with 1/4-1/8th the shutter speed at a given aperture with the same IQ in low light. Focusing with a rangefinder in low light is a challenge, so the ability to stop down a bit and gain a larger margin of error for misfocusing is wonderful. I was out shooting this afternoon in NYC. It was an overcast, rainy day, and there were several occasions where I couldn't get the shot I wanted on my 262 and had to spin the aperture ring until the blinking 4000 went away. I couldn't help but fantasize about my someday-soon-Wetzlar-willing M10, which would've made maybe 3/4s of those shots possible the way I wanted them. Somehow I don't think the people issuing their god-like pronouncements about what sort of light sensitivity a photographer should need in a camera do a lot of shooting in bars late at night or on moon-lit sidewalks, or like to shoot wide open in daylight. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Hi edw and jmahto I'm just coming into the middle of this, so sorry if I misunderstand what you are discussing. I just wanted to say that as photographers (and as you know, I'm sure), we all just make it work, whatever the equipment or situation. I've shot with film Leicas since 1980, I've rarely found a situation where I couldn't get the shot, and I'm talking about K64 and Tri-x. (50, f2 Summicron, 35 f2.8 Summaron, 28 f2.8 Minolta Rokkor) I've shot in India and when I ran out of K64 I was able to easily get Fujichrome (100) and kept shooting. The only time I used a flash was when a client (Canadian Opera Company) asked if I could also take photos at events they were holding for their donors - receptions, so I just popped on my old Vivitar 285 (I think) and took some nice flashy shots of happy people. Other than that I've shot, in bars, concerts, low light at ISO 400, 800. 64 or 100 (1/8th, 1/15th). Strangely, I've got some of my best shots and subsequent gallery requests for photos I've taken when I've just been a guest at events. Since I was all suited up, I didn't want to bring the Leicas, and just brought my little Yashica T4 happy snap (35mm 3.5). We all just make it work. Now we can have one camera (vs the 2 I would carry for colour and B/W) and we can have crazy ISOs. I rarely pushed Tri-x to 800, and never pushed K64. Only missed a shot when I was not prepared. Sorry for the long post, but It's more a general response to some of the other posts where people are complaining about other minor issues. I just wanted to remind us all that we have amazing cameras available now. If any of the Leica Ms don't fit our needs, we're lucky to have so many other cameras as options. In my opinion, in the M10 it seems like Leica has come quite close to my beloved film Ms, and after reading Leica's philosophy for the Ms, I'm happy they are intent on improving the core features going forward. Thanks, Sam Edited February 13, 2017 by skanga 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 13, 2017 Share #73 Posted February 13, 2017 This whole thread seems to have turned into people justifying. (non) buying decisions. Nobody should have to be defensive about his personal reasons to (not) purchase. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted February 13, 2017 Share #74 Posted February 13, 2017 This whole thread seems to have turned into people justifying. (non) buying decisions. Nobody should have to be defensive about his personal reasons to (not) purchase. Completely agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 13, 2017 Share #75 Posted February 13, 2017 It is almost impossible not to love the M10. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted February 13, 2017 Share #76 Posted February 13, 2017 This whole thread seems to have turned into people justifying. (non) buying decisions. Nobody should have to be defensive about his personal reasons to (not) purchase. So true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 13, 2017 Share #77 Posted February 13, 2017 Hi edw and jmahto I'm just coming into the middle of this, so sorry if I misunderstand what you are discussing. I just wanted to say that as photographers (and as you know, I'm sure), we all just make it work, whatever the equipment or situation. I've shot with film Leicas since 1980, I've rarely found a situation where I couldn't get the shot, and I'm talking about K64 and Tri-x. (50, f2 Summicron, 35 f2.8 Summaron, 28 f2.8 Minolta Rokkor) I've shot in India and when I ran out of K64 I was able to easily get Fujichrome (100) and kept shooting. The only time I used a flash was when a client (Canadian Opera Company) asked if I could also take photos at events they were holding for their donors - receptions, so I just popped on my old Vivitar 285 (I think) and took some nice flashy shots of happy people. Other than that I've shot, in bars, concerts, low light at ISO 400, 800. 64 or 100 (1/8th, 1/15th). Strangely, I've got some of my best shots and subsequent gallery requests for photos I've taken when I've just been a guest at events. Since I was all suited up, I didn't want to bring the Leicas, and just brought my little Yashica T4 happy snap (35mm 3.5). We all just make it work. Now we can have one camera (vs the 2 I would carry for colour and B/W) and we can have crazy ISOs. I rarely pushed Tri-x to 800, and never pushed K64. Only missed a shot when I was not prepared. Sorry for the long post, but It's more a general response to some of the other posts where people are complaining about other minor issues. I just wanted to remind us all that we have amazing cameras available now. If any of the Leica Ms don't fit our needs, we're lucky to have so many other cameras as options. In my opinion, in the M10 it seems like Leica has come quite close to my beloved film Ms, and after reading Leica's philosophy for the Ms, I'm happy they are intent on improving the core features going forward. Thanks, Sam Yes, advancements in technology is really amazing. It is so much easier to take good pictures with modern digital cameras. Totally agree. Btw, I loved my Yashica T4 too. Pretty little camera with sharp lens. I have many nice family pictures from that camera. Thanks for reviving old memory. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted February 13, 2017 Share #78 Posted February 13, 2017 Btw, I loved my Yashica T4 too. Pretty little camera with sharp lens. I have many nice family pictures from that camera. Thanks for reviving old memory. Yes that was a lovely camera. I always mention to people when they ask about what camera I use, that some of my best shots were actually with the T4 - because I had it with me at all times. Before that I had an Olympus XA and actually shot my first assignments with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 13, 2017 Share #79 Posted February 13, 2017 The T4 had a very sharp zeiss lens but missed focus too often. Contax T2 was much better 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted February 13, 2017 Share #80 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) The T4 had a very sharp zeiss lens but missed focus too often. Contax T2 was much better Interesting to read your experience. I didn't find that to be an issue. It did have a nice lens for a small happy snap type camera. I wasn't familiar with the Contax. Thanks Edited February 13, 2017 by skanga 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.