M9 Redux

[jackal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

some stuff

 

 

*shrugs*

 

more than happy with my M8 and i'm sure Leica will bring it up to more current hi-tech spec in the near future. I had a D200 a load of the best nikon glass and I hated using it in all situations (and its a lot smaller than a D3)

 

also I'm more than confident that the M8's small size, lightweight, its proper manual focusing, and of course the quality of the lenses on the front of it gives me far more advantage than things like sensor size and iso over a D3. You can keep your DSLR technobobbins .... it won't make your photography any better.

 

Pictures are about capturing moments effectively, they are not about studying noise artefacts or megapixels or bragging rights down the pub. Thats why the M system always wins... its all about the PICTURES.

[fotografr]

I thought this horse was dead.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[diogenis]

Hammers, both the M1 claw hammer and the M2 ball hammer, have not been materially updated since the Late Iron Age. Electrical and pneumatic hammers that do all the work for you are available. So why do companies produce these obsolete hammers? And even more curious, why do people insist on owning and even USING these obsolete hammers?

 

A camera is a tool. A tool that does efficiently what you want it to do is not obsolete. It is just efficient.

 

The old man from the Late Iron Age

Much like Lars/Jaap and others shows us here, things are quite simple:

 

For as long as Leica takes these wonderful pictures and accomplish this @ 1/5th of volume/weight And you insist on comparing different products, then Leica holds the hi-tech holy grail, and wins hands down due to miniaturization and simplicity.

 

If size is not important, then why stick to an already large and heavy D3? go medium format or even larger, or just get one of these, that beats everything HubbleSite -- Out of the ordinary...out of this world.

[RSL]

For me it is very simple. When I want to take photographs I take a rangefinder camera. When that doesn't work for reasons like tele or macro I take an SLR. I might like a D3 for the second, but as long as I am happy with my DMR it is OK. The DMR is obsolete, but I happen to like the results and ergonomics and lenses.

 

The M8 is state-of-the-art. There simply is no more advanced digital rangefinder on the market. It will become obsolete when a more advanced digital rangefinder becomes available. My guess is that will be quite some years from now

.

I find it a bit of semantic play to call a product obsolete, and then, because there is no more advanced product available, to point to something completely different.

 

No offense meant, Russel

 

No offense taken, Jaap. Actually I agree with most of what you said, and I'll have to retract my statement that the M8 was obsolete when it came out. It certainly wasn't obsolete among digital rangefinder cameras as a class, and unless Leica gets their act together or Nikon or Canon jumps into the digital rangefinder market it probably never will be obsolete among digital rangefinders. Among professional digital cameras... well, that's another story.

 

Yes. I like to switch back and forth between cameras too. Usually, when I go out on the street in Colorado Springs I prefer the R-D1. When I'm in the mountains I'll probably prefer the D2X over the D3 for the extra reach.

 

But there are situations where the D3 will do what no other camera will do. Here's an example. On Wednesday I spent the day at Epcot. At this time of year Epcot is jammed with people and most of them are carrying cameras, so you easily can do street photography with a DSLR. I've attached a shot I made down a very dim alley. I converted the original raw file to JPEG for the posted shot, but I haven't done any noise reduction. I shot at a focal length of 85mm with a VR lens, f/16, 1/25 second, and ISO 6400. I wish you could have seen the lighting conditions. I wouldn't have tried the shot with any other camera -- even my old Canon 7 with an f/1.2 lens.

 

I think this kind of sensor and the software that goes with it are the beginning of a whole new wave of improvements in digital photography. I'd love to see Leica get on that bandwagon and move with it.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Venkman]

Well, the lightning conditions aren't showing in your photo, that's for sure.

 

I, for myself, would have prefered something that transports the mood, but it looks like a well lit scene now.

 

The Nikon D3 might be a wonderful tool, but comparing it to other cameras is as futile as comparing a Rolls Royce to an Aston Martin.

 

Totally different purposes or as other people here on the forum tend to say:

"Horses for courses".

[RSL]

Well, the lightning conditions aren't showing in your photo, that's for sure.

 

I, for myself, would have prefered something that transports the mood, but it looks like a well lit scene now.

 

The Nikon D3 might be a wonderful tool, but comparing it to other cameras is as futile as comparing a Rolls Royce to an Aston Martin.

 

Totally different purposes or as other people here on the forum tend to say:

"Horses for courses".

 

Several people on this thread aren't reading carefully enough. I'm not trying to compare the M8 with the D3. There's no comparison. The M8 is a much better rangefinder. The D3 is a much better DSLR. What I'm saying, and I've said it at least three times is: I'd very much like to see Leica learn how to handle digital technology and incorporate what they learn in a new rangefinder.They can learn a lot by paying attention to what Nikon and Canon have been doing for eight years now. The sensor and software in the D3 are the latest lesson.

 

As far as the mood of the photograph is concerned, I was trying to show what the D3 sensor can do, not show the mood. If you have a raw file as good as this one to start with it's easy enough to convert it to what you actually saw when you looked through the camera. If you can't get the shot at all, no amount of post-processing is going to remedy the situation.

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But why do we have to "force" Leica produce sensors, when we all know Leica is a master producing good lenses? Did Canon, or Nikon ever learned their lesson on how to produce quality lens from Leica?

 

Instead they can outsource other manufacturers which do have the available resources for that research.

[delander †]

Nikon D3 review posted on DPR for those interested. Read it quickly, files dont look as good (to me) as those from the Canon 5D, but it has about 1 stop better ISO performance.

 

It is an incredibly advanced computer/camera where the computer features swamp everything else. I am quite happy with the M8 and I am sure Leica will never go this way.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Correct. I have a sneaking suspiscion it will be Sony for the next generation....

[jrc]

Both the Nikon and the Leica are great cameras - but they are NOT comparable. First how can we realistically compare an SLR to a rangefinder?

Lee

 

By looking at the photographs.

 

JC

[jaapv]

By looking at the photographs.

 

JC

 

That is comparing photographs, not cameras.

[stunsworth]

By looking at the photographs.

 

LF has always had better IQ than 35mm. Couldn't be bothered with that, didn't suit what I wanted to photograph and I couldn't be bothered carting all that kit around all day.

 

All photography is a set of compromises. Personally having used Ms for around 10 years I see little attraction in carrying a camera the size of the D3 around all day. Other peoples opinions may differ. I think I can live with that.

[andybarton]

If you want to keep this discussion going, can we NOT post images in the thread, please?

[RSL]

I agree with Jaap about Sony. They're rarin' to go, and they have the technological savvy to go all the way. The only thing they don't have at this point is a great stable of standard (FX) coverage lenses, but with computer design and automated aspherical lens-grinding they'll be able to overcome that problem pretty quickly.

 

Okay, here's a pop quiz:

 

Suppose someone, let's say Sony, comes out with a digital rangefinder. This rangefinder handles M-mount lenses. It's about a third larger than the M8 but doesn't weigh any more, and has a slightly odd protrusion for the lens mount. It has the same sized sensor as the M8, but it has a combination sensor and firmware that'll get you a reasonably low-noise 6400 ISO, same as the picture I posted above. It doesn't require an IR filter on your lenses, but pays for this with a very slightly lower IQ. The camera doesn't require "coding" of short lenses, doesn't give you green bands, has exceptional WB accuracy, doesn't lock up, has a battery you don't have to take out periodically to "reset" the camera and that'll let you go shooting for a couple hours every day and not require recharging for a week. On top of all this, Sony has very reliable, very quick turnaround on maintenance for this camera, even though it rarely needs maintenance.

 

But this camera doesn't have a red or black Leica badge and doesn't look like an M.

 

Would you buy it at, say, $6000?

[RSL]

If you want to keep this discussion going, can we NOT post images in the thread, please?

 

Sorry, Andy. The attachment manager didn't mention that posting images in the thread was forbidden.

[Jamie Roberts]

As I said, higher ISO sensitivity would be nice, and what the D3 does in the shot above is fine.

 

But I have still to see a shot from the D3 or it's like that makes me think the M8 is near obsolete.

 

See, for me, your D3 shot

 

f16 @ 1/25 @ ISO 6400 w/ 85 on FF

 

pretty much equals

 

f5.6 @ 1/25 @ ISO 640 with the 50 M Asph on the M8:)

 

That's more than adequate DOF for the subject at distance with a 50 (crop); and at 5.6 way way sharper on the in-focus elements than the Nikon at f16, with IMO no discernable noise difference (the M8 maybe better for all I know:)

 

And I can easily hand hold the 50 ASPH at 1/25 without any VR or IS. So there you go.

 

Photographic Tradeoffs are photographic tradeoffs. In another forum, I saw someone waxing elegant on the wonders of taking a stationary portrait with the D3 in natural light at ISO 3200 in a church... and it was a lovely shot.

 

But when I looked at the EXIF, he took the shot at 1/3000s or something silly like that. Any 5d or M8 or 20D or any credible digicam would have done *exactly* the same job at lower ISOs and shutter speeds (though the image processor and AD converter is very good in the D3).

 

So I don't need a camera with super high ISO for those conditions or for the conditions you showed in this thread, and neither does anyone else, actually, unless they suffer from severe camera shaking or something like that...

 

Having said that, I'm firmly convinced that the next M digital will have a very usable ISO 2500 (in other words, a stop or two of leeway out to ISO 10K or something so it will perform as well as ISO 640 does on the M8 now).

 

EDIT: just to reply to your hypothetical Sony RF btw--of course I'd take a serious look at it: I'm invested in the glass more than the name. By the time Sony brings that to market though, there will be an M9 equivalent, though

[danyves]

D3 soon obsolete ?

 

Is the Nikon D3x in the Building? - Shoot The Blog

 

Is Nikon Prepping A 24 Megapixel D3 Replacement? | Gadget Lab from Wired.com

[delander †]

 

But this camera doesn't have a red or black Leica badge and doesn't look like an M.

 

Would you buy it at, say, $6000?

 

Honestly I'd try not to. It would be a Sony and not a Leica. I am more interested in keeping Leica in the game than giving money to a giant conglomerate.

 

If it was a Nikon RF I just might.

 

Jeff

[RSL]

As I said, higher ISO sensitivity would be nice, and what the D3 does in the shot above is fine.

 

But I have still to see a shot from the D3 or it's like that makes me think the M8 is near obsolete.

 

See, for me, your D3 shot

 

f16 @ 1/25 @ ISO 6400 w/ 85 on FF

 

pretty much equals

 

f5.6 @ 1/25 @ ISO 640 with the 50 M Asph on the M8:)

 

That's more than adequate DOF for the subject at distance with a 50 (crop); and at 5.6 way way sharper on the in-focus elements than the Nikon at f16, with IMO no discernable noise difference (the M8 maybe better for all I know:)

 

And I can easily hand hold the 50 ASPH at 1/25 without any VR or IS. So there you go.

 

Photographic Tradeoffs are photographic tradeoffs. In another forum, I saw someone waxing elegant on the wonders of taking a stationary portrait with the D3 in natural light at ISO 3200 in a church... and it was a lovely shot.

 

But when I looked at the EXIF, he took the shot at 1/3000s or something silly like that. Any 5d or M8 or 20D or any credible digicam would have done *exactly* the same job at lower ISOs and shutter speeds (though the image processor and AD converter is very good in the D3).

 

So I don't need a camera with super high ISO for those conditions or for the conditions you showed in this thread, and neither does anyone else, actually, unless they suffer from severe camera shaking or something like that...

 

Having said that, I'm firmly convinced that the next M digital will have a very usable ISO 2500 (in other words, a stop or two of leeway out to ISO 10K or something so it will perform as well as ISO 640 does on the M8 now).

 

EDIT: just to reply to your hypothetical Sony RF btw--of course I'd take a serious look at it: I'm invested in the glass more than the name. By the time Sony brings that to market though, there will be an M9 equivalent, though

 

Jamie,

 

It looks as if we agree on several of the things you said. Yes, it doesn't make sense to be shooting at 1/3000 second in natural light just to be doing that.

 

But there are a couple of problems with your analysis of my shot. First, you wouldn't have had time to move in close enough with the 50mm to get that shot. It was only there for a heartbeat. All I had time to do was raise the camera and shoot. I was outside in a well-lighted area, which is why the camera was on f/16. Second, if you'd shot, as you say, "at distance," with your 65mm lens (50mm x 1.3) you'd have had to crop the result considerably to get the same picture, and the visible noise would have been higher. I also question whether or not your DOF would have been equal, though it might have been close. Yes, I can hand-hold the D3 at 1/25 second without VR too. In fact the more mass the camera has the more stable it's likely to be when you hand-hold it.

 

I'm not holding that shot up as great photography. I'm trying to illustrate what I think is the next burst of technological improvement in digital imaging. The two important things about that shot are (1) the light was very dim, and (2) it was a snapshot. If I'd had to do anything to the camera before the shot, I'd have lost the shot. It might not have mattered in this case, but if it had been one of those once a year or two opportunities you sometimes run across it would have mattered a lot.

 

I hope you're right about Leica bringing out the equivalent of my hypothetical Sony, but I don't see it happening unless Leica gets off their "perpetual care" for the M8 schtick and moves on into the current state of the art. On the other hand, I think you're going to see a lot of responses saying, "I wouldn't buy the Sony because it's not a Leica M," which is what Leica seems to be counting on.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[diogenis]

So I don't need a camera with super high ISO for those conditions or for the conditions you showed in this thread, and neither does anyone else, actually, unless they suffer from severe camera shaking or something like that...

 

 

Actually anyone who is not an Athlete in decathlon, will suffer from camera shaking short after trying to frame with a 2kg heavy camera, and another 10kg bag with goodies hanging from his shoulder...

Maybe thats the reason for all the low noise high iso, and fast autofocus