Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shootinglulu

Why do i need FF?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

And lurking in the back of my mind is the Zeiss question. Seeing where the price point is with the M9, will they make a move with a body $1K to $1.5K less expensive? But how would Zeiss handle lens coding? (My suggestion for lens coding is a small RFID chip epoxied into a pocket in the lens mount. You could come up with hundreds of variations and the alignment would be less critical.)

 

That one has already been answered in this forum by Dave Farkas: No Zeiss DRF. Zeiss have bowed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using the 21mm f/1.4 at 1.4 on a FF camera will be an experience unique to the Leica M9 user! If you shoot wide in low light then this is one very good reason to move to FF. One of my most used Canon lenses is the 24/1.4 so.....

 

Or film users!

 

The M9 has a chance of nudging me to use digital, but right now, film is just so easy. It sounds odd, I know, but its true. I love the look of silver prints and so do other people.

 

My main interest would be in finding master printers that can do with a raw file what top name printers can do with a neg without costing five times as much. From my outside impressions, getting custom work done on files seems extraordinarily expensive compared to the serious graft wet printers put in for often reasonable sums. However, the M9, as expensive as it is, replaces a number of film bodies in one go (holding various film speeds)... I carry anything from one to four bodies depending.

 

Lots of people argue that FF is not the answer, but I beg to differ. If the M9 is a good'un, it could make a serious positive impact on Leica and photography as a whole. Its not just about being a RF, it is about physical size and right now, what else competes with 18MP, the finest (interchangeable) primes and small enough to go under your coat? Being FF does mean wide lenses, better noise control and no matter the praise heaped upon the M8 IQ, 80% more pixels does make a difference if you want large images with fine detail holding up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
If Guy knows anything it's superficial stuff that many people know and he's learned it at the last minute from a dealer update. I've known lots of info for over a month, but my ego is in control.

 

I'm also fully aware that there are three Beta testers regularly posting on these Forums that haven't spilled a single bean, not one, although one has made it clear that he's publishing tests soon.

 

What's more, they actually know who the others are, but not a word. Guy knows zero that 20 people here have known for weeks.

 

Enjoy the day, it's a milestone for Leica and their loyal customers.

 

Yup I know nothing at all. Let's keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does the quieter shutter come from? I get the impression it is the same one as in the M8.2.

 

..But not the M8's I was speaking of the M8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That one has already been answered in this forum by Dave Farkas: No Zeiss DRF. Zeiss have bowed out.

 

That kind of corporate response is usually followed by a "*".

 

 

 

 

 

* Unless we change our mind or decide differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Jamie same magnification cropped.

So are you selling your M8/s? if not then you will have to deal with filters on one and no filters on the other and the crop factor.

 

Ed--I honestly haven't made up my mind on that yet.

 

I am on a list for the M9 right now (dealer just called to confirm

) and I hope to have one by next week!

 

Given that the M9 is as good as I think it is, I will actually sell my D3 and Nikkor equipment, and move to a twin M9 setup by next year.

 

I will hopefully keep the m8 as a backup (though I have an M6 and an M3 as well). I would keep the filters as backup as well.

 

I love my M8 and it will be just as spectacular with a 24 or 28mm lens on it as it has been for the past 3 years. I could also simply use it as a BW camera and forget filters entirely.

 

Either way, that would make me solely an M shooter (!!), which is a huge change for me, and would completely change how I shoot a full wedding as well.

 

So we'll see how that turns out, and of course I'll share anything I find out about the M9 with the community.

 

But today is a day to congratulate Leica! I can't remember a time when I've been so excited by a product announce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish you well on that, Jamie.

 

Turning down your 'edges proposal' wasn't done lightly.

 

Thank-you very much! I hope no workaround is necessary this time out, and I can't wait to shoot a little more aggressively with my M glass

 

I was *very* pleased to see the shot with the sun in the side / background in the PDF brochure

 

Does anyone know if there are any RAWs at higher ISO to be played with yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup I know nothing at all. Let's keep it that way.

 

Come on then, Guy. Money where your mouth is, time...

 

What did you know that no one else knew?

 

My £10 is still here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't full frame also do something to depth of field?

Yes of course. To get the same FoV & DoF as full frame's, one needs a wider lens one or more stops faster with crop bodies. For instance to mimic a result like this (FF 28/2.8, f/2.8) with an M8, one would need a 21/2 lens at full aperture but such a lens does not exist for M cameras and the Summilux 21/1.4 is almost as expensive as the M9 per se.

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3425/3905393196_0439f1ddc0_o.jpg&key=a82c1458eeeb17c91b46334355ffc3d090d2e1ae92d9aeca8d1c20d5d4be7185">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M8 would also retain its higher IR sensitivity compared with the M9 that has a stronger built-in IR filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that the M9 is as good as I think it is, I will actually sell my D3 and Nikkor equipment, and move to a twin M9 setup by next year.

 

Seriously? The M9 is supposedly only one stop better in terms of ISO, and I'm sceptical about that - the 1250 sample shots I've seen look very average. Most weddings for me feature quite a few shots at 3200 and 6400 from the D3, and the M9 isn't going to deliver that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously? The M9 is supposedly only one stop better in terms of ISO, and I'm sceptical about that - the 1250 sample shots I've seen look very average. Most weddings for me feature quite a few shots at 3200 and 6400 from the D3, and the M9 isn't going to deliver that.

 

Why? how can you tell that? what kind of lenses do you use with D3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does that have to do with the ISO performance?

 

Everything.

Iso is just one parameter. The other two are Aperture and shutter speed. It is generally good to adjust ISO in the end. It is not good to drive your sensor to extremes.

 

With high ISO settings you also amplify noise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything.

Iso is just one parameter. The other two are Aperture and shutter speed. It is generally good to adjust ISO in the end. It is not good to drive your sensor to extremes.

 

With high ISO settings you also amplify noise

 

Whether I shoot with a 24-70 f2.8 or a 50mm f1.2 is irrelevant, surely we can take it as read that in a dark situation we would all use the widest aperture and slowest shutter speed that we could get away with before increasing the ISO. Since f1.4 at 1/30s on a Nikon or Canon is the same as on a Leica, the variable (and limiting) factor becomes the ISO.

 

The general opinion seems to be that the M9 has slightly better high ISO performance than the M8, for example at 1250 on the M9 you will see the same amount of noise as 640 on the M8.

 

In my experience with the M8 640 is about the limit before noise becomes unacceptable, therefore it is reasonable to assume that 1250 is the practical limit on the M9.

 

The DNG files which I have seen from the M9 confirm this.

 

I know from my own experience that the D3 and D700 (and I understand the Canon 5dII) will produce acceptable files at up to 6400ISO.

 

My point was that many of my images are shot at 3200 or above, and using a camera which cannot achieve this will limit the options for photographing weddings in dark churches and halls.

 

In ISO terms the M9 appears to have performance similar to the dSLR's of 4 years ago, which to me is a big disappointment - Leica has been chasing megapixels at the expense of noise, and that is a big mistake in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have 28 and 50 mm lenses to suit my M8 and i am very happy with these focal lengths.

What benefit would FF be to me?

 

 

i think, if you don't see a benefit of FF and you are happy with the 28 50 on your M8, you don't need the M9.

 

I am 110% happy with my M8, but for me, my 50/1.4 and 75/1.4 have mostly only been on my MP because i don't like the cropping the M8 does. and i use my 28/2 more because it mimics my 35/1.4's frame lines on my film body.

 

with the M9, i will have FF for my 35 50 75, and also will be able to us my 28 as a 28 and not a 35 replacement.

 

I will still use my M8 but i, for one, will definately have a new perspective with FF.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...