Jump to content

Telling it as it is...


David Monkhouse
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

Sam, I appreciate your post a lot, and though you're making the opposite point I was—and far more diplomatically—I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'm quite fond of reciting two of my favorite cliches back to back, to appreciate the frisson between them:

 

* Use the right tool for the job.

* A craftsman never blames his tools.

 

A particular digital camera with a particular lens has a performance envelope, and I welcome any expansion of that envelope. Like you, I "get the shot," but sometimes it's not the shot I wanted. For example, I may have to, because off all the infernal sunlight, stop down, step closer, and reframe the shot in order to get the DoF effect I was looking for. And obviously the low-light situations I'm thinking about involve opening up the lens or settling for a slower shutter than I would've liked.

 

And some of those stressed, edge-of-the-envelope, even outside the envelope, shots come out great, as you said. And it's at the edges of your tools' envelopes where our skills get pushed, so that's great too.

 

Adversity is the crucible in which our skills and creativity are forged, but I still want the camera with the absolute best dynamic range and exposure latitude I can find and afford. I try to be neither nostalgic about lost golden ages nor put my faith in just-over-the-horizon technological saviors that will finally make my images not suck.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It's also much easier to take rubbish pictures with modern digital cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Yes, the T4 is excellent. The way of the LUF is that if anyone professes any enthusiasm for something, someone else will inevitably butt in and say that it is okay but not as good as what they own or like.

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the T4 is excellent. The way of the LUF is that if anyone professes any enthusiasm for something, someone else will inevitably butt in and say that it is okay but not as good as what they own or like.

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not as you describe. I did own a couple of T4 cameras and they were missing focus too often. That is my true experience. Next time I will keep quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also much easier to take rubbish pictures with modern digital cameras.

But it is true with any new technology which can be used in various ways by expanding set of users. Take on camera flash for example. IMHO, on camera flash has done enough to destroy good photography.
Link to post
Share on other sites

...A particular digital camera with a particular lens has a performance envelope, and I welcome any expansion of that envelope. Like you, I "get the shot," but sometimes it's not the shot I wanted....

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi edw,

 

I understand, thanks. You are trying to push the edges of the envelope.

I believe you have an M10 on order? Hopefully it will help, as you suggested.

Sam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

No, I am not justifying my decision... I am simply pointing out that other's decision is wrong and they become defensive... go figure!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Sean Reid reviews addresses the native ISO question. I no longer subscribe but seems like the kind of thing he would be interested in. Regardless, maybe Jono or one of the others in close Leica connections can find out the truth on this point.

 

 In his recent mailing Sean Reid announces that he will be soon publish an article "based on determining the true effective base ISO for the Leica M10, M-240 and SL".

 

So let's see what he found out and explains. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also much easier to take rubbish pictures with modern digital cameras.

Rubbish pictures have always dominated what comes out of any camera. I have that huge magnum book which shows the proofs of HCB and many many others. Tons and tons of rubbish negatives. I love it. I grew up in the age of the instamatic. The general quality of cell shots seems way higher, than the horrible stuff we used to see. I think that's because people throw out the worst quickly and see more of their friends stuff for inspiration.

 

Digital facilitates practice. Much easier to practice more and discover aspects of lenses etc. However I have watched people practice skiing 120 days a season for 30 years and hardly improve or not improve. They have become more mobile with the advent of new ski designs.

 

Technology helps. How much it helps depends on the curiosity of the user

 

If the M10 does nothing but inspire some more picture taking, it's a good choice.

 

If the entry cost is onerous, then people like me find comfort in that the M9, used well, is still a jaw-droping tool which the 240 or M10 can only best in very particular situations.

 

But let's not kid ourselves. Puts did not "tell it like it is". He completely missed the CFA change, and improved edge/corner performance, and credited everything new in the images to algorithms and profiles. The camera is much more different than the 240 than his review lets on. Obviously he had not spend the time and attention in comparison which his makes his lens reviews so special. Confirmation bias is human nature, the default "take" on new things. Getting past that can't be taken for granted.

 

Study Albert Einstein's later years: no one is immune. And he stayed relatively sane compared to many famous scientists. My favorite mass hallucination: phlogiston. Woe to the poor student who questioned it, for generations

 

If you never question what you think you know, it's over.

Edited by uhoh7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have all of the cameras he is talking about. 

 

 

IF you like CCD, keep the M9, MM1

IF you aren't going higher than ISO 3200 regularly then keep the M/240

IF you primarily shoot bak & white, then the M/246 has the DR, and is even better than the SL, Q and M10 in that regard

If you want the option of video on the fly M240/M246 is your best bet, outside of the SL's 4K

IF you want a rangefinder LIKE experience but want to go completely auto, get the Q

If you want a crazy versatile camera that is built to kill it, get the SL

 

IF you want to shoot faster, not have to worry about poor light conditions, like wifi, prefer a larger rangefinder and a smaller body. Like all of your controls in one place and not have to dig in menus all the time. Need more DR.

AND want the M experience, and use of M lenses.

Get the M10.

 

Otherwise you can get ALL of that with the SL or the Q.

 

 

 

I think MOST of us could care less about the super technical aspects, and just want to shoot. I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite mass hallucination: phlogiston. Woe to the poor student who questioned it, for generations

 

If you never question what you think you know, it's over.

 

an ideal reference to paradigm shifts if ever there was one!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the M10.

 

 

 

They had me at 4mm narrower.

 

That was what sold me. I'm coming from an M9 and M9M. A digital M6, that was all I was looking for.

 

Now in 2-3 years when the MXM (M10 Monochrom) comes out with 2 additional stops up to 200k ISO then I'll get that too. And I'll have had 2-3 yrs with the M10. I shoot regularly and extensively. About 4-8k exposures/month. I get my money's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm a big fan of Puts, but he was wrong and misleading about the M10 sensor vs M240 sensor. It's way more than ISO, totally different CFA, and improved edges with problem wides suggest other fundamental differences.

 

Puts goes into great contortions in his paragraph on why he doesn't want to discuss the differences in color rendition of the M10 and the M240, saying essentially that it's a matter of taste and perception and subjective. Yet for many people the color rendition of the M9, M240 and M10 is one of the most important criteria for deciding which camera to use.

 

Just think back to what Marc Williams ("fotografz") concluded about the M9 vs M240 with respect to skin tones — although others have said that the M240 issues could be fixed by camera profiles, which Marc Williams and a few others have, in my view,  convincingly disapproved. Looks like Puts simply didn't want to enter what he viewed as a quagmire, or simply does not have the color vision to do.

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Take on camera flash for example. IMHO, on camera flash has done enough to destroy good photography.

 

I find a bit of fill flash during the day, is invaluable.  Makes a huge amount of difference to portraiture and people pictures.

Flash for macro is also important.

 

Sadly Leica seems to think flash is unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most users will never need 6400...

Oh, C'mon!  I recently shot a martial arts class working outside in the evening under a single streetlight, f/2 @ ISO 18,500.  Of course, for that I needed to use a Fuji X-Pro 2.  Caught a few quick record shots of a group having a nice dinner surrounded by a very nice wine supply, using M240, Elmarit-Asph at f/2.8, ISO 3200 (don't have M10 yet).  My max ISO in Auto ISO on the SL is 6400, on the M240 I use 1600 but go to 3200 when I need it.

 

scott

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

In his recent mailing Sean Reid announces that he will be soon publish an article "based on determining the true effective base ISO for the Leica M10, M-240 and SL".

 

So let's see what he found out and explains.

 

Sean appears to be working on a base ISO article. Keep an eye on his site.
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I think MOST of us could care less about the super technical aspects, and just want to shoot. I could be wrong.

 

Yes, I feel the same!

And that maybe the reason I'm actually enjoy going back to film partially and think about a digital M for the other things.

I'm scared about the market direction reg. fps, video, touchscreen and other smartphone alike features.

 

Maybe I'm gettin' old ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most photographers don't shoot martial arts classes in the dark...

 

Making the argument that logically follows from this observation, no tool capable of anything new would ever be made, because things that aren't possible aren't done, and if they're not done, there's no need to do them, so it's pointless to make tools that support doing those things. Additionally, if you're not doing what most photographers do, what you're doing is automatically suspect—and probably pointless.

 

On a vaguely related note, I was rewatching La Dolce Vita the other night. I was struck by the fact that all of the photographers were constantly firing flashbulbs whenever they were shooting in non-broad-daylight conditions, because that's what one needed to do back in the day. I am glad they didn't have  awesome high-ISO digital cameras back then, because Fellini uses this to drive home the exploitative intrusiveness and disruptiveness of photographers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most users will never need 6400...

 

For indoors active and large family photography I'm better served with f5.6-f8 and 1/250. If I'm not using flash, ISO 6400 is needed often. I have this option with six times less expensive comparing to M10 consumer DLSR made and purchased in 2008. But I often prefer M-E and flash due to Leica lens and CCD rendering and because DSLR is ten times boring comparing to any Leica M.

Edited by Ko.Fe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...