innerimager Posted October 31, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 31, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am a member of the digital wedding photographer forum. There is a photographer who stuck with his M6 until only recently going digital with canon who has been a RF advocate to say the least. He is writing about reasons he will not get the M8, including inability to change EV comp while shooting and Iso. I'm already imaging work arounds for these such as manual exposure and leaving Iso as my only item I'd change under "set". But he raised another issue that I can't contemplate without having the camera. Having played with an M8, he says the frame lines are too small and too thin to adequately use the noctilux, his main Leica lens. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 31, 2006 Posted October 31, 2006 Hi innerimager, Take a look here M8 frame lines and noctilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted October 31, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 31, 2006 I believe he should consider 3 things: 1. From my reading of the manual and comments here, it appeas that ISO is part of the setting in the threI have, purchase the 1.25 magnifier to enlarge the viewfinder image. This simplifies the focusing problem. 3. Since he is an M-lover but has not ordered this camera, concerns about the camera are moot: he probably won't be able to get one for months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted October 31, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 31, 2006 How did he change the EV comp with the M6? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 31, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 31, 2006 I do not have my M7 to compare it with the M8 right now but I just looked in the viewfinder and the frame lines look ok to me. I've used the M8 with 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, 75/2 and 90/2 and framing was always easy. The hardest is the 75mm because it has just corners, not lines but nothing new. When it comes to changing ISO and EV comp whilst shooting, this is fast and straightforward with the M8. Not as fast as with the DMR because of the lack of a dedicated LCD and commands. But say, as fast as changing some parameters on a Metz 54 MZ4i for instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 31, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 31, 2006 But he raised another issue that I can't contemplate without having the camera. Having played with an M8, he says the frame lines are too small and too thin to adequately use the noctilux, his main Leica lens. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks...Peter I don't know why the frame lines would be any different for the Noctilux than for any of the other 50mm lenses. The Nocti is the lens I'm most excited about putting on the M8. I'd be sorely disappointed if there was some problem, but it's hard to imagine there would be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 31, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 31, 2006 I am a member of the digital wedding photographer forum. There is a photographer who stuck with his M6 until only recently going digital with canon who has been a RF advocate to say the least. He is writing about reasons he will not get the M8, including inability to change EV comp while shooting and Iso. I'm already imaging work arounds for these such as manual exposure and leaving Iso as my only item I'd change under "set". But he raised another issue that I can't contemplate without having the camera. Having played with an M8, he says the frame lines are too small and too thin to adequately use the noctilux, his main Leica lens. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks...Peter Peter, Out of curiosity, is this wedding photographer Jeff? I shoot weddings exclusively and I have my own perspective on exposures at weddings. Personally (that what I say with a grain of salt as YMMV), I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding in aperture priority (or anything other than manual). With the groom tuxedo being black and the bride dress being white, moving from one to the other in aperture priority (with the camera reflective meter) will yield exposure about 2-3 stops apart. As such, it's just a post-processing nightmare. I meter a few "key" areas of the church and memorize them. For example, aisle (for processional / recessional), altar (low light), and altar (high light). I just change my shutter, ISO, or aperture to accommodate each area. In other words, the fact that EV comp is not easily accessible is not an issue to me given my philosophy and the fact that I exclusively shoot weddings. Not sure frame lines have anything to do with using a particular lens. On the other hand, if the "focus patch" is smaller in the M8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 31, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 31, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) How did he change the EV comp with the M6? Probably the ISO wheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 31, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 31, 2006 Peter, Out of curiosity, is this wedding photographer Jeff? {snipped} JR--yes, it is Jeff At least, it was Jeff when I offered to ask Sean about this on the DWF. At the time, he didn't have his production M8, but an answer will soon be coming now as more and more people get their M8s. The Noctilux shouldn't be a problem unless you want to use it full frame. No, there's no f1.0 35mm so I kind of see his point if that's your favourite lens. FWIW, I shoot weddings too, but always in manual anyway (and I do even with the Canons). So this isn't an issue for me either, for exactly the reasons JR mentioned: weddings are recipes for built-in camera auto-setting-fooling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 31, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 31, 2006 Not sure frame lines have anything to do with using a particular lens. On the other hand, if the "focus patch" is smaller in the M8... I guess the issue is that the framelines that you are used to using on a film M will look noticeably smaller on the M8. The frames are not only sized for a 1.33x cropped field of view but there is the issue of the slightly lower magnification of the M8 finder (0.68x?) to make the frames seem even smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 31, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 31, 2006 I shoot weddings exclusively and I have my own perspective on exposures at weddings. Personally (that what I say with a grain of salt as YMMV), I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding in aperture priority (or anything other than manual). With the groom tuxedo being black and the bride dress being white, moving from one to the other in aperture priority (with the camera reflective meter) will yield exposure about 2-3 stops apart. With RAW, does this matter as much when you can correct the exposure 4-5 stops in post-processing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 31, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 31, 2006 With RAW, does this matter as much when you can correct the exposure 4-5 stops in post-processing? Yes, if you don't nail the exposure you might be able to decrease the exposure to recover some highlights in the dress, but you'll lose shadow detail in the groom's suit. In the opposite direction you may be able to recover detail in suit, but you could have blown highlights in the dress. I have great admiration for people who shoot weddings, I can't think of too many more stressful ways of earning a wedding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 31, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 31, 2006 With RAW, does this matter as much when you can correct the exposure 4-5 stops in post-processing? Yup it does -- a lot: for weddings, you don't have 4-5 stops latitude even in RAW. Here are two examples from my Sunday wedding (DMR). I didn't adjust anything from the RAW file so that you can see the range of scene. For this image, with overexposure, the dress would be blown. Any underexposure would result in a very grainy image. For this image, underexposure would not have mattered much. However, overexposure would have resulted in very little details being retained in the background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 31, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 31, 2006 I guess the issue is that the framelines that you are used to using on a film M will look noticeably smaller on the M8. The frames are not only sized for a 1.33x cropped field of view but there is the issue of the slightly lower magnification of the M8 finder (0.68x?) to make the frames seem even smaller. The magnification of the M8 (0.68) is similar to the 'standard' 0.72. However, the frameline for the 50 will be equivalent to a frameline for a 67mm, making it smaller. On the other hand, the where one would have used the 50mm, one would not use a 35mm... So the frameline of the 35mm on the M8 are essentially the same as the 50mm on the 0.72 M6. In other words, because of the crop, one has to use a different lens for the same work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 31, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 31, 2006 JR--yes, it is Jeff At least, it was Jeff when I offered to ask Sean about this on the DWF. Which was the question you wanted to ask me on Jeff's behalf? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 31, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 31, 2006 With RAW, does this matter as much when you can correct the exposure 4-5 stops in post-processing? Hi Albert, Yes, it matters very much and RAW does not have anywhere near that kind of range from any camera I've tested. I often use AE at weddings but I keep tabs on what it's doing. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted October 31, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 31, 2006 RAW digressions aside. Does anyone know whether (or to what degree) the Noctilux (a rather sizeable rotund optic) intrudes onto frame lines of the M8, if at all? Like fotografr, I, too am keenly interested in the 50mm Noctilux as part of my M8 kit. (The others being the 24mm and the 75mm Summicron). Sean? Regards, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 31, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 31, 2006 I I've used the M8 with 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, 75/2 and 90/2 and framing was always easy. A bit off topic, but Pascal MUST have some very good connections. Not only is he first on this forum to have the M8, he also has that Summicron 24mm I've been dreaming about for some time... :) Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share #18 Posted October 31, 2006 Peter, Out of curiosity, is this wedding photographer Jeff? I shoot weddings exclusively and I have my own perspective on exposures at weddings. Personally (that what I say with a grain of salt as YMMV), I couldn't imagine shooting a wedding in aperture priority (or anything other than manual). With the groom tuxedo being black and the bride dress being white, moving from one to the other in aperture priority (with the camera reflective meter) will yield exposure about 2-3 stops apart. As such, it's just a post-processing nightmare. I meter a few "key" areas of the church and memorize them. For example, aisle (for processional / recessional), altar (low light), and altar (high light). I just change my shutter, ISO, or aperture to accommodate each area. In other words, the fact that EV comp is not easily accessible is not an issue to me given my philosophy and the fact that I exclusively shoot weddings. Not sure frame lines have anything to do with using a particular lens. On the other hand, if the "focus patch" is smaller in the M8... JR- yes, it's Jeff. And I entirely agree that manual exposure is preferred for weddings.....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 31, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 31, 2006 Which was the question you wanted to ask me on Jeff's behalf? Cheers, Sean Sean, Jeff has a number of objections to the M8, but the one I asked you about awhile ago, before your second review, was about the frame lines / size of magnification for longer lenses (from 50 on up). You said you hadn't tested yet (at that point) but that the magnifier was probably a good idea for longer lenses, which others have confirmed. So I think Jeff also wanted to use a Noctilux full frame, so there isn't a lens quite like that at 35, despite all the goodness of the 1.4 ASPH. (and to be specific, it wasn't really just Jeff I was asking for... Lots of folks over at the DWF are not getting the point of the M8--a lot are JPEG shooters, too, but Jeff was a well-known and accomplished Leica shooter for very long time). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 31, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 31, 2006 I've read this thread out of curiosity and still don't get the point about the frame lines. The frame lines will be marked for the equivalent focal length of a 50mm lens so what difference does that make with a Nocti or an Elmar? The rangefinder patch is the same for all. ? I've shot quite a few weddings, and if in doubt you alway expose the dress correctly - nobody cares about the suits!! I used AE perfectly OK for close ups and groups but would revert to manual and bracket for the full lenght bride/groom shots. Sometimes though, the customer would make things a little easier; 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/8208-m8-frame-lines-and-noctilux/?do=findComment&comment=81413'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.