bilbrown Posted February 14, 2017 Share #21 Posted February 14, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) M 10 because with its good higher ISO you can use an F/2 or Summilux with better focus and DOF. Super fast lenses (I have two, F/.95 and F/1) are really not needed by most of us with late model digital cameras. You are not doing surveillance work, are you? Best of luck! This is exactly how I feel. I prefer the Summicrons because of the way they render, had the Noctilux for a short period of time and ended up using it on the SL because nailing the focus with a rangefinder is so hit or miss. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 Hi bilbrown, Take a look here M10 or a noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest )-( Posted February 14, 2017 Share #22 Posted February 14, 2017 How did you get to M10 OR Noctilux? GAS is a cruel mistress, only through her lens did I start to learn interesting terms like cognitive dissonance, ease of association, induced compliance and so on. Only the Noctilux will bring balance, such is the weight of the problem. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grievor Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share #23 Posted February 14, 2017 Ahaha well sorry for the lack of information. I came from M240 with a 50lux asph.but I'm heading to Scandinavia in the winter where I think that the ISO capabilities of the m240 will not be sufficient.. So I traded that for an A7rii which is bloody awesome. But eventually after my trip I would like to return to a M system because I love the set up. But when I saw the m10 released and its capabilities at high ISO it made me think if I should go for that rather than another M240. With the same money I could potentially get a noctilux and a M240 and that would more or less settle my need for low Light performance. Or I could stick with a M240 with my 50 lux asph... So yeah that's kinda the back story... Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
349A Posted February 14, 2017 Share #24 Posted February 14, 2017 M10 with 50/1.4 that you already own. The DOF of a Nocti is a very specialized thing, the higher ISO of the M10 body will more than compensate for the difference between 1.4 and .95 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 14, 2017 Share #25 Posted February 14, 2017 M10 with 50/1.4 that you already own. The DOF of a Nocti is a very specialized thing, the higher ISO of the M10 body will more than compensate for the difference between 1.4 and .95 Agree Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 14, 2017 Share #26 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) M10 with 50/1.4 that you already own. The DOF of a Nocti is a very specialized thing, the higher ISO of the M10 body will more than compensate for the difference between 1.4 and .95 Agree, the 0.95 wasn't that specifically developed for low light situations, but much more for artistic, image-characteristic reasons. If you want a heavy lens you can think of the Summilux whose bo-keh fares well with the very nice noise/grain of the M10 at 1600-6400 ISO. Edited February 14, 2017 by otto.f 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookbook Posted February 14, 2017 Share #27 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I prefer the m8 with the noctilux! Edited February 14, 2017 by lookbook 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 14, 2017 Share #28 Posted February 14, 2017 The Leica M10 with a Summilux or even Summicron lens (or a few thereof) makes more sense than a Leica M9 or M (Typ 240) with a Noctilux lens ... except, maybe, when you are after the particular—and peculiar—Noctilux character. However size, weight, viewfinder obstruction, and 1 m minimum focus distance cut deeply into versatiliy and usability. A Noctilux is a wonderful complement to other lenses but not a good choice as your first or only lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 14, 2017 Share #29 Posted February 14, 2017 I'd like a Noctilux 50mm, although of all the M lenses it is the one that fits my SL better. I'd put it on the M-D or SL, and be happy. The M10 ... down the line a while. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted February 14, 2017 Share #30 Posted February 14, 2017 I guess it's a matter of how one shoots, but 1m close focus limit doesn't bother me at all. More often it's the purple fringing wide open on high contrast edges that troubles me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted February 14, 2017 Share #31 Posted February 14, 2017 The grass is always greener on other side of the fence. Right? I own an F1 Noctilux and an older 50mm Summicron. Personally I think the 50mm Summilux asph would be a good replacement for both the lenses. If it were me, I'd keep the M240 and Nocti, and get one of the wide Summilux lenses - 21, 24, or 28mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 14, 2017 Share #32 Posted February 14, 2017 Agree, the 0.95 wasn't that specifically developed for low light situations, but much more for artistic, image-characteristic reasons. If you want a heavy lens you can think of the Summilux whose bo-keh fares well with the very nice noise/grain of the M10 at 1600-6400 ISO. Sorry I meant the Summilux 75 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 14, 2017 Share #33 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Agree, the 0.95 wasn't that specifically developed for low light situations, but much more for artistic, image-characteristic reasons. If you want a heavy lens you can think of the Summilux whose bo-keh fares well with the very nice noise/grain of the M10 at 1600-6400 ISO. Disagree with respect. I used Canon's 0.95 on a Canon 7S while I was a metro daily news photographer in the USA Seventies, late Sixties because we didn't want to pop flashes that drew attention to us, so it was not about 'art', whatever the heck that it is, or was. Pragmatism reined, aesthetics were left to persons much later who had had no urgent requisites. Edited February 14, 2017 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 15, 2017 Share #34 Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) The Noctilux 0.95 I meant. Which was developed in the digital era if I'm not mistaken Edited February 15, 2017 by otto.f Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Fasmer Posted February 15, 2017 Share #35 Posted February 15, 2017 Nobody really needs a m10 or a noctilux. For a pro, depending on your work, you would need a dslr and a couple of lenses. For fashion and product shoots maybe a mid format. A lot of pros and amateurs find leicas and noctilluxes inspiring and fun. I have had summicrons for 35 years. I find f. 2 sufficient. Photography means painting with light, And most of the character of the picture comes from the quality of the light. Low light and night shots are possible with slower apertures than f. 2. So the noctilux is for people, who likes the look it gives wide open. Or are a little into showing off! The m10 is "just" another Leica, it sounds like the best digital leica available, so go for it. But nobody needs a Leica- but a lot of people wants one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grievor Posted February 15, 2017 Author Share #36 Posted February 15, 2017 Nobody really needs a m10 or a noctilux. For a pro, depending on your work, you would need a dslr and a couple of lenses. For fashion and product shoots maybe a mid format. A lot of pros and amateurs find leicas and noctilluxes inspiring and fun. I have had summicrons for 35 years. I find f. 2 sufficient. Photography means painting with light, And most of the character of the picture comes from the quality of the light. Low light and night shots are possible with slower apertures than f. 2. So the noctilux is for people, who likes the look it gives wide open. Or are a little into showing off! The m10 is "just" another Leica, it sounds like the best digital leica available, so go for it. But nobody needs a Leica- but a lot of people wants one. Honestly the question of need vs want is pointless... No one really needs leicas... But we all want them... Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Fasmer Posted February 15, 2017 Share #37 Posted February 15, 2017 In fact I agree in the point want vs. need. I was trying to make some kind of point in the fact that you already have a good rangefinder camera and a superb 50 mm. Lens. So keep the summilux and go for a new camera, if you think it will improve something. I'll keep my m9 for a while, because I like it , lousy buffer and noisy low light performance and all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Fasmer Posted February 15, 2017 Share #38 Posted February 15, 2017 I missed the fact that you sold the m 240 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 17, 2017 Share #39 Posted February 17, 2017 Disagree with respect. I used Canon's 0.95 on a Canon 7S while I was a metro daily news photographer in the USA Seventies, late Sixties because we didn't want to pop flashes that drew attention to us, so it was not about 'art', whatever the heck that it is, or was. Pragmatism reined, aesthetics were left to persons much later who had had no urgent requisites. well the vast majority of those that own the Noctilux .95 today use it for its unique look, not for its low light capabilities. Especially considering most cameras today have high ISO capabilities. News photographers have more advanced cameras today and don't need a .95 lens to shoot without flash...and besides the extreme shallow depth of field is not ideal for reportage. Not to mention very few news photographers are going to spend $12,000 on a 50mm lens. I rarely use my Noctilux in extreme low light situations, rather mostly use it in full daylight...as do many Noctilux owners I'm sure. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 17, 2017 Share #40 Posted February 17, 2017 I would personally buy a Noctilux before I bought an M10, any day. 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.