Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shootinglulu

Why do i need FF?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

On the contrary:

Leica's philosophy is to capture images at the purest and most unprocessed form. To do this they use the latest sensors available and combine them with the best optics money can buy. When you overdrive you camera to deliver good results @ 3200 ISO, then the camera performs some sort of processing to kill the noise. It does this at the expense of IQ. CaNikon have invested in what they know best: cpus and electronics.

There will always be limits, and in the end no camera is good for all situations.

In the end it is your choice to go for a bulky dSLR and shoot at 3200 ISO and feel confident, but may I ask how do photographers did it some 30 years back without ISO165000 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no 'proper' focal length; a 35mm is still a 35mm lens. It's just longer on an M8.

 

The advantage of an APS sensor size (I refuse to call it 'full-frame' — that's a misleading term; ever shoot Phase One? THAT'S full frame!) is WIDE ANGLE.

 

That's why camera manufacturers had to start creating super wides to compensate for a small sensor (ex: Canon 10-22).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary:

Leica's philosophy is to capture images at the purest and most unprocessed form. To do this they use the latest sensors available and combine them with the best optics money can buy. When you overdrive you camera to deliver good results @ 3200 ISO, then the camera performs some sort of processing to kill the noise. It does this at the expense of IQ. CaNikon have invested in what they know best: cpus and electronics.

There will always be limits, and in the end no camera is good for all situations.

In the end it is your choice to go for a bulky dSLR and shoot at 3200 ISO and feel confident, but may I ask how do photographers did it some 30 years back without ISO165000 ?

 

Good grief, are you really saying that the files my D3 produces at 3200 (which have less noise and better dynamic range) are inferior to the M8 files because there's less processing involved? Have you looked inside an M8? It's got a sensor and some microprocessors, which do some processing. What's the difference? And more importantly, who cares - it's overall image quality that counts here, nothing else.

 

If Leica had stuck with 10-12mp they could have had a lovely low noise sensor, but they went chasing megapixels at the expense of noise & DR.

 

Up to 800 I believe (from my own tests) that the M8 delivers more clarity and visibly (I'm no measurebator ...!) better dynamic range than the D3. The M8 has lots of advantages over the D3, but image quality at high ISO is not one of them.

 

A camera is a tool, as a professional I have a range of tools available and use the one most suited to the job - sometimes it's the one with the pretty red badge on it, sometimes it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I think the M8/8.2 has equaled or even surpassed what you can get with film in terms of resolution (unless you drum scan at super high res), so you have to ask yourself, unless you are shooting for DKNY and are expected to produce an image that will fit the side of a NY skyscraper is 18mp going to be necessary? - in terms of high iso i don't think the M9 even compares to the d700/d3 etc, as it's not built for high iso noise, rangefinders are tools of documentary/reportage photography, meant to be gritty and raw, not plastic & polished, so unless the lens focal lengths are a real issue is there much point is spending that amount of money upgrading just to get a few more megapixels and marginally better high iso performance?

 

Granted there are those out there that will like having the original intended focal length back on their lenses, but at the end of the day I think the M9 is here to pacify those who ask for more more more when they don't realise what they have is more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too far back, I hesitated on the M8 because it wasn't full frame. Not knowing that the M9 was coming, I bought an M8.2. Getting a couple of w/a lenses from Camera Quest took care of the wide angle aspect.

 

I know that DNG is "better" than JPG, but for my purposes, jpg is usually plenty good enough. Shooting jpg, apparently both the M8 and M9 get you 10mp files.

 

I'd have liked the idea of using a sensor with the capabilities of the D3, but such was not to be. Neither the M8 nor the M9 can even approach the high ISO settings that don't bother the D3 at all. I've read here that the M8 has a top "usable" speed of 800 ISO, and the M9 will do twice that. Anything more, and grain/noise starts to be objectionable. If I had to shoot photos of a black cat at midnight, I'd be using the D3.

 

The IR filter thing is a two-edged sword. Yes, you no longer need IR filters, but you lose the ability to take IR photos which the M8 can do so easily.

 

 

 

It's strange - I know the M9 is "better" than the M8, but I'm not sure if any of this "better" will make any difference to me.

 

Lens, schmenz. I don't think of which lens in terms of which focal length I want to use - I have three lenses that I'm using with my M8, and know what result each will produce. I just reach for the one that does what I want.

 

Shutter speed? The M8.2 is already quiet enough that to me this is a non-issue. I've got a digital Canon P&S that doesn't make any sound when you take a photo, so I had to turn on the "speaker" so I could hear something when I push the button.

 

The D3 has a function you can turn on, which helps "compress" lighting. I think they call it "active D lighting" or something similar. The M8 (and M9) lack this capability. Still, the M8 images are great. To me, my M8 images seem to be sharper than those from my D3.

 

Yes, Leica makes wonderful lenses, none of which I can afford. CameraQuest solves that problem for me, and I have been very pleased with their image quality.

 

 

Bottom line is if I were buying a new camera tomorrow, price would have a lot to do with it, but I'd be leaning towards a M9. On the other hand, I can't really see that much of reason for me to sell my M8 just to buy an M9. If anything, I'd probably keep my "old" M8 and buy the M9 in addition to it, but I'll have to think long and hard at the pricing.

 

(Anyone know how much M9's are supposed to be available for? Will this price go down a year later?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

(Anyone know how much M9's are supposed to be available for? Will this price go down a year later?)

 

There really is no reason to think that the pricing for the M9 will be any different than any other digital product. Blackberry, iPhone, iTouch, Dell computers, Apple computers, they all drop in price with time. Look what has happened with the prices of the M8 and the M8.2. Most likely the pricing of the M9 will drop as soon as the M9.2 is produced. I am like you, I would love an M9, but do I really need one? Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Anyone know how much M9's are supposed to be available for? Will this price go down a year later?)

 

There really is no reason to think that the pricing for the M9 will be any different than any other digital product. Blackberry, iPhone, iTouch, Dell computers, Apple computers, they all drop in price with time. Look what has happened with the prices of the M8 and the M8.2. Most likely the pricing of the M9 will drop as soon as the M9.2 is produced. I am like you, I would love an M9, but do I really need one? Cheers

 

If Leica history has anything to do with it the M9 will go up in price just like the M8 did 1+ years after it's release. At one time the M8 went from $4895 to $5495 (IIRC).

 

It wasn't until the M8.2 came out that the original M8 went down in price and then only down to around same price it was when released. I think it went up to $5495 and Leica then offered a $500 rebate bringing it back down to $100 over the original. It did finally go down bellow the original release price once it was discontinued.

 

So look for the M9 to go up in price 8-14 months from now.

 

At the cost of the M9 I'll be using my M8 and CV 21 (along with all my other lenses) for many years and if I need a wider lens I'll buy a P&S that can go wider (No I don't shoot ultra wide much). Once the M8 I have dies I'll buy another M8 used and keep on going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never accept a film camera that was not FF.

 

There are people around who recognise that the film aesthetic is unique and cannot be duplicated, but for most of us we want the convenience and immediacy of digital. A print from a scanned and post process film capture is not inferior to digital, in fact I prefer it.

 

The M8 will produce images beyond our dreams in spite of being cropped and will produce images bigger than I ever do from M's (beyond 20x16"). So why do I want an M9 ? :

 

Because it's FF

Because it's leading edge

Because it's got better high ISO ( I am trusting Leica will resolve that tomorrow, .. next day).

Because it's topical

 

Will it make much difference to my pics? Yes, the benefit of very wide returns to my 24mm and my 35mm Lux and 75 Lux images will have the benefit of extended bokeh, plus my night pics will improve with the high iso. All helping drag that spark of creativity out of me.

 

Is FF worth the cost ? Yes IMO, but what am I prepared to let go to fund it .... that's where it gets difficult.

Edited by Rolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no 'proper' focal length; a 35mm is still a 35mm lens. It's just longer on an M8.

 

To be a bit picky, it's not longer on the M8, it has a narrower Field of View. The optical focal length is still the same length, 35 milimeters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I read something wrong earlier.... is the screen on the back of the M9 still the same very hard material that won't/can't scratch, or is it back to being a regular screen as on the original M8 cameras?

 

Is the small window with battery level and film count gone, replaced by something in the menus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I read something wrong earlier.... is the screen on the back of the M9 still the same very hard material that won't/can't scratch, or is it back to being a regular screen as on the original M8 cameras?

Is the small window with battery level and film count gone, replaced by something in the menus?

Regular screen and no more window on the top plate.

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...