johnastovall
Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Actually I rather like the M8 at 640 and up. Reminds me of the M's with pushed Tri-X. One can get some very nice thing out of it with Alien Skin's Exposure.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
BINGO!!! That is the "elephant in the room" question!I wonder if focus shift that has dogged other Summilux models has been addressed in these new ultra fast models.
I think Leica worked with what they had control over and expertise in; making fast lenses. They are limited to what the sensor supplies can supply.The debate will be over(for available light champ) if Nikon or Zeiss deliver fast primes that perform wide open or Leica improves its sensor. The good news is that both systems are getting better.
Rob Certainly agree on the wide open performance of the Nikon lenses but they are really improving and with a sensor advantage of a few stops ...they are getting closer . Leica at 1.4 ..Nikon at 2.8 ..Leica has an advanatge but Leica at 2.0 and Nikon at 4.0 closer. But the real advantage comes after the Leica at 1.4 with 1250 bottoms out...from there on the D3 can still perform ...so if we can get excellent..maybe not to Leica standard performance ...then the D3 can shoot in available darkness.I think Leica worked with what they had control over and expertise in; making fast lenses. They are limited to what the sensor supplies can supply.
In what I have seen, the Nikons or the Zeiss have never been comparable to the fast Leica wides when shot wide open. I wouldn't hope for miracles there.
Did you notice the sample files from the Sony Alpha 900 at iso 1600 and higher? To me they don't look as good as the Nikon and Canon file. It looks like Nikon and Canon have the market on high iso sensors.
Robert
1/15th, which works so well when photographing dead people and the imoblized elderlyRob Certainly agree on the wide open performance of the Nikon lenses but they are really improving and with a sensor advantage of a few stops ...they are getting closer . Leica at 1.4 ..Nikon at 2.8 ..Leica has an advanatge but Leica at 2.0 and Nikon at 4.0 closer. But the real advantage comes after the Leica at 1.4 with 1250 bottoms out...from there on the D3 can still perform ...so if we can get excellent..maybe not to Leica standard performance ...then the D3 can shoot in available darkness.
But you forgot to throw in that you can shoot a M at 1/15 and the nikon will need 1/30 or 1/60 to match it. Roger
1/15th, which works so well when photographing dead people and the imoblized elderly
No doubt the M glass is top of the heap ... you'll get no argument from me in that regard. But a low light machine the M8 is not when compared to some DSLRs ... fast primes will help that M cause a little, but my Nikon D3 ISO 10,000 is as good or better as my M8s top ISO 2500.
Isn't the notion that the Leica M21 @ 1.4 is superior to something else a bit early to be speculating on?
Exactly what Leica was trying to do. I bet more people can handhold a 21mm at 1/20th of a second than a 50mm at that same speed.New wide angles that provide a 2 stop improvement .... repositions the M8 and extends its range for low light situations.
The competition is pretty strong though from the new d700. The DHL man just delivered a zeiss 28/2 for my D3 . It is sharp wide open and at least to my eye I can hold it at 1/30 . So maybe under more careful inspection it will be 1/60. I don t view this as an either or just some nice extensions to both systems. But the D3 is still a beast for street shooting even with the 28/2. I want that D3 sensor in my Leica!Exactly what Leica was trying to do. I bet more people can handhold a 21mm at 1/20th of a second than a 50mm at that same speed.
Robert
I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make ... I totally agree that one can hand hold a M8 at a lower shutter speed than a D700 (which I would debate is easier to do with a D3 than it was with past DSLRs, so that gap isn't as wide as it once was IMHO) ... however, when you get down into the 1/15th or 1/20th area it's the subject motion that becomes the issue, not camera movement. Unfortunately, most of my subject matter tends to be alive : -)Not looking for an argument. My point has been from the beginning is that it depends on what ISO range is important to you. Personally using the M8 above 640 isn t attractive to me (your experience may be different). When I compare what I can get with my D3 its around 1600 that seems to compare . Both systems can produce excellent results at these levels. Its after that the M8 seems to drop out..the rate of decline is quick . I don t like the results I get at 1250 and 2500 doesn t cut it.
The D3 decline is much more gradual with the results at 6400 still acceptable but clearly degraded from 1600. So your perspective /experience that the D3 at 10,000 is as good or better than the M8 at 2500 is consistent with what I have been able to do.
I agree with Rob s point that the the quality of the optics at wide apertures should be considered. I am completely happy with my 35 asph at 1.4 but not with my 24-70/2.8 at 2.8. This of course is apples and oranges but not an uncommon situation. The big hole in the Leica argument has been the lack of fast wide angles ..without which the differences aren t as great . To get a 28mmFOV I use the 21asph/2.8 ....if ,and of course its a wish and a hope, the 21/1.4 produces results similar to the 35/1.4 then this creates a lens speed advantage for the M8.
As to what shutter speed can be hand held this is a discussion with in itself. I believe I can hand hold an M8 at a lower shutter speed than a D3 and get similar results.
None of this in anyway takes away from the far superior sensor performance of the D3. But is it 2-3 stops better than the M8 ? My experience up to a point ..say 640-1250 on the M8 and 1600-3200 on the D3......the sensor performance of the D3 is matched by the speed of the Leica glass and my ability to hold slower shutter speed. After that its not a contest.
In the context of a thread on the new Leica offerings, I am excited about the possibilities that fast wideangles might bring to my street photography.
Totally agree. The D3 and D700 offer better high ISO color than the D300. I no longer have the D300.Marc interesting you put ISO 2000 on the D700. When I had the D300 i noticed the reality was ISO 2000 was truly the limit with good quality and holding noise down, after that i was not comfortable at all with color on the D300. Yes you can jump higher into the ISO but it was not great. I see the D700 and d3 maybe better at this top end. But i just could not get happy past ISO 2000 with the D300. Of course what I find acceptable maybe different than what others think also.
I use night vision goggles to watch my cats frolic in pitch darkness, and they never stumble!in light that would have had a cat stumbling around...
Marc:where the D3/D700 produces comparable file quality (for me) @ ISO 2000 ... and easily produces good results @ ISO 5000.