M8 or M9 pics?

[photophile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last night I attended the Musharraf lecture at the Baltimore Speaker series. Unfortunately, had to sit in the waaaaaay back section! But.. had an old ( circa 1970's ) 90 cron with me ,as well as my current 50 lux asph. First pics are full frame 50, then 100%, followed by full frame 90, then 100%. A question for all of you...were these taken with the M8 or the M9?

 

No processing except for conversion in LR. All exactly as shot for color, WB, exposure.

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!

[erl]

My first reaction is that pics are hand held at a slow shutter speed and are not as sharp as should be possible. I am familiar with shooting under exactly such conditions and I (and my clients) would expect better.

 

All that makes it hard to know what was used since the camera, at least to my eye, is the least limiting factor.

[photophile]

Erl: Valid points on sharpness. Interestingly, they are shot at 1/180 and 1/125 - the later on the 90. Should, in theory be fast enough on the 90 to hh without blur and certainly is, by far, on the 50. The 90 ( this series) is notorioulsy soft wide - which is pleasing for a well exposed portrait and not forced at 100%. The 50 is actually quite sharp given the distance and blow-up. Remeber these are straight JPEG from the camera - no sharpening etc. These were snaps shot for fun - no clients. Would have taken a completely different rig or used press cred to get much closer, had that been the case. The m8/m9 question is valid here though, I think. Looking forward to other's comments as well. Thanks for the insights. Best. CH

[erl]

CH, my experience has been that the 90 needs at least 1/250 for hand held in such environments + very careful attention to focusing. With the M8's I typically shoot at ISO 640 and whatever aperture the shutter speed allows. In extremes, I move to 1250 rather than slow the shutter speed, although I do break the rule(s) sometimes (gambling!). My 90 is the f2.0 preAsh which sings (sharpness wise) when closed down a stop or more. That is where I aim to set it for such shots as you posted.

 

Your posted pics are close to what I used to expect from film (Col. Neg. @ 800ISO) that I processed myself. Digital has now given us a huge bonus in image quality since those days. My M8's rivalled, in fact surpassed, what I used to shoot on Hasselblad MF. I now expect the M9 to exceed the M8.

 

Last year the M8 gave me a file shot at the back of the third (top) tier at the Melbourne Concert Hall (now renamed Hamer Hall) covering full stage with about 200 musicians and choristers on stage which allowed each individual and their expression to be clearly determined. I never achieved that with the Hasselblad, (but got close), regrettably.

 

This stuff is harder than it appears. Practice and experience go a long way to perfecting it, as with any area of photography.

[Nicoleica]

Last night I attended the Musharraf lecture at the Baltimore Speaker series. Unfortunately, had to sit in the waaaaaay back section! But.. had an old ( circa 1970's ) 90 cron with me ,as well as my current 50 lux asph. First pics are full frame 50, then 100%, followed by full frame 90, then 100%. A question for all of you...were these taken with the M8 or the M9?

 

No processing except for conversion in LR. All exactly as shot for color, WB, exposure.

 

Well, unless you have been rather sneaky here, I would suggest that these pictures were taken with an M8.

 

(I won't say why I believe this to be the case yet though, just in case you have set out to fool us. I don't want to spoil the fun. )

[doug_m]

M8

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't 'spose you did the 50 on an M8 and the 90 on an M9?

[Shootist]

This is quite simple.

First image shot with 50mm on M8.

Second image with 90 on M9.

 

50mm on M8 = 67mm

90 on M9 = 90mm

For a difference on 27mm between the lenses. And that is what the 2 images show as a difference in FOV.

 

Unless you move your seat between taking these 2 shots.

 

If they were shot the other way around, 50 on M9 and 90 on M8 the difference in the FOV would of been much greater. Even if both were shot on th same camera, M8 or M9, the difference in the FOV would be greater.

 

EDIT:

What I don't get is the difference in the shadow on stage from shot 1 to shot 2. In shot 2 the shadow covers the right hand side of the stage. Unless you had someone in front of you and you caught part of there shoulder in the shot.

[erl]

snipped:

 

EDIT:

What I don't get is the difference in the shadow on stage from shot 1 to shot 2. In shot 2 the shadow covers the right hand side of the stage. Unless you had someone in front of you and you caught part of there shoulder in the shot.

 

That is pretty clearly (to me) the head of a person sitting in front of the camera, OOF, so it looks like a shadow. It is in the first shot as well, but not as intrusive because of a slightly different camera viewpoint, or the head moved between shots. It's something that gives me the 'irrits' when I am shooting as a member of the audience instead of official photographer when I can move to suit the camera.

 

Also, being on that side of the frame, the lens tends to see it but the VF does not when it is that close to the camera (parallax).

[photophile]

Erl is quite right, the shadow is in fact another attendee's head in the row just in front of me. He did not sit still all night and indeed, was not seen in the viewfinder though clearly lined up with the lens fov. I won't give away the camera(s?) quite yet but suffice it to say that I did not change position ( vis a vis camera to stage distance ) for this experiment. Focus was aided through the use of Tim Issac's eclipse - which I have found very useful for the longer of my lenses. I think this discussion can become quite instructive for improving technique in this type of shooting situation. Thanks for the comments so far. Best, CH

[photophile]

I thought this post might have gotten a few more picques of interest. OK - the reveal: all shots were taken with the M8 - no subterfuge, no tricks in posting. Straight from M8 to post. I did however wonder, had I used an M9 - would the extra pixels have given me more definition in the 100% crop - and could I have gone closer with the crop and not started to pixelate? The softness or oof issue, however, I doubt would have changed. This 90 remains soft and the 50, I think, was reasonably sharp. Having said that, This particular lens may be off by a few mm on close focus but should have made up for that over the distance. It will be sent in, when I don't need it for a while, for a "tweak". Any thoughts? And is it worth moving "up" for these types of issues? Thanks. CH