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.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
Stuart Richardson
Active member
I only saw the 21/1.4, I did not see the 24/1.4 -- I hope this is true -- it would be fantastic. My three favorite M focal lengths are 24, 35 and 75, so having summiluxes in all three would be great. I don't want to pay 6000+ though! That is about 4000 more than I would be interested in sacrificing. It does not seem so long ago when my MP cost 2295 new USA and the 35/1.4 ASPH was below 2000 used like new from Popflash. This looks like the "used like new" price would be 5000 USD. That's pretty intense.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Maybe I am not looking at this correctly but the M8 above 320 and the D3 above 1600 (maybe 800) both start to lose the ability to resolve fine detail. The images can still quite acceptable and with the use of noise reduction wizardry can produce exceptional photographs.......but they will not be as good as those shot at lower ISOs . My experience is that the M8 can produce decent results at 640 but has less latitude for exposure errors...the pictures will look good but will not have the "looking glass" affect of more detail than you can easily see. The D3 seems to go thru the same loss of detail around 1600. So I don t believe the D3 has more than a 1 1/2 stop advantage on the M8 in this range.
The difference is what happens above 640/1600. In my case the M8 just dies at 1250 ..I have to pretend I like that clumpy noise ..to get anything I can use. The D3 ...on the other hand keeps on going ..so both 3200 and 6400 are quite useable..not as good as the M8 at 640 but way better than the M8 at 1250.
Of course this depends on two variables ...one ...what skills am I applying to both shot and process the images and two....what IQ do I need to feel the image is usable.
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.
The difference is what happens above 640/1600. In my case the M8 just dies at 1250 ..I have to pretend I like that clumpy noise ..to get anything I can use. The D3 ...on the other hand keeps on going ..so both 3200 and 6400 are quite useable..not as good as the M8 at 640 but way better than the M8 at 1250.
Of course this depends on two variables ...one ...what skills am I applying to both shot and process the images and two....what IQ do I need to feel the image is usable.
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.
BINGO!!! That is the "elephant in the room" question!
Although I wouldn't mind a 28/1.4 ASPH for use on a M film body ... killer street shooter.
Wish they'd bring forth a updated M7II with a 1/4000th top shutter.
robsteve
Subscriber
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
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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.
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.
Rogerinnerimager
Member
This is where the Zeiss 2.0 F lenses shine. Both the 35 and 50/2.0 are in Leica's neighborhood for wide open performance, coupled with very good/good iso 3200/6400 performance of the D3, hard to beat if you really need to shoot darkness. I still prefer shooting the M system though!
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.
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?
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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?
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.
robsteve
Subscriber
Here is one from the San Juan workshop. Ray playing with a Mamiya mounted with my SF-20. this was the Noctilux at f1 or 1.2 and 1/8th and 1250iso. Both Ray and Bob had D3 with them that night and the D3 couldn't produce images as good as the M8 and Noctilux.
I later put the sf20 on a remote cord and placed it up on a shelf pointing backwards on low power. It added just enough light to shoot at 640, but retain some ambient light.
This is 1/15th and 640iso. She was moving, look at the ghosting on the hands. I found if I focused (ligned the rangefinder) on her waistband, her face was also in focus.
Here is 1/30th.
I later put the sf20 on a remote cord and placed it up on a shelf pointing backwards on low power. It added just enough light to shoot at 640, but retain some ambient light.
This is 1/15th and 640iso. She was moving, look at the ghosting on the hands. I found if I focused (ligned the rangefinder) on her waistband, her face was also in focus.
Here is 1/30th.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Rob I think you made my second point...results vary by photographer . What provides an outstanding result for one photographer may not work for another. In the hands of a skilled and experienced photographer the M8 noctilux can deliver pretty amazing results. Someone thats new to rangefinders or uses them infrequently or has difficulty focusing in low light would be hard pressed to match your results. But you should not care as we know your work and can "handicap" your results. Thats an analogy to golf where players of different abilities adjust there scores to account for skill differences. If Rob can do this at 1.0,1/8,1250....I might need another stop or two to match his results.
New wide angles that provide a 2 stop improvement .... repositions the M8 and extends its range for low light situations.
New wide angles that provide a 2 stop improvement .... repositions the M8 and extends its range for low light situations.
robsteve
Subscriber
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
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
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!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Roger that Zeiss 28mm is a sweetie you will like that a lot . has a nice draw to it
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.
For what I have to produce, ISO 640 seems to be the optimal IQ for the M8 ... where the D3/D700 produces comparable file quality (for me) @ ISO 2000 ... and easily produces good results @ ISO 5000. When comparing wide offerings for the sake of this discussion, I wouldn't use my 24-70 as the bench mark in the Nikon line-up ... but instead the 14-24/2.8 which is an astounding performer (as documented on this forum many times.)
I do relish that faster wide primes are now available for the M8, but would much prefer it if Leica would get the M8 ISO up a stop or two ... if ISO 1250 was like 640 is now I'd be one super happy camper.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
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.
Totally agree. The D3 and D700 offer better high ISO color than the D300. I no longer have the D300.
For me, when shooting weddings, getting the shot in the first place trumps other considerations ... so I'd also say that what's acceptable may also be be mitigated by application.
Shooting a corporate gig may demand a slightly different level of acceptance than a candid wedding shot at a reception. Neither can be crap ... but the Corporate useage may be more demanding than pulling a 8X10 for a wedding album.
Point in question: in light that would have had a cat stumbling around, D3 with 24-70/2.8 & fill: 1/40th @ 70mm ... of a quickly moving subject requiring stopping down (I did f/9 in this case), getting the shot trumped all other considerations ... and I knew I was doing these shots in B&W anyway ...
ISO 10,000 !
Horses for courses.
Last edited:
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Marc I understood exactly what your points were. Your point as I understood it was , you can t hand hold 1/15 and even if you could the subject itself may have visible motion. I have tried to restate my POV as" you can hand hold an M8 at a slower shutter speed than a D3" . For me its about a stop ..and thats the only relevant point I was trying to make about the shutter speed.
You are also of course correct that the 24-70/2.8 isn t the optimum lens you can get for a Nikon..especially when you are shooting wide open. It is ,however, probably the most common solution for the 28MM FOV. I stated exactly that in my initial post. This is why I purchased a 28/2 distagon and my initial images show its significantly better.
Really two observations that I have from using both systems . The D3 has a 2 stop advantage over the M8 until the M8 hits 640. This is nice to have but a faster lens(thats better wide open) and an ability to hand hold the M8 at slower shutter speeds really make this a draw for me.
Its only after the M8 is pushed to 1250 that the D3 pulls away because the M8 just quits . This equates to about 3200 on the D3 after which I don t want to use it. So if you want to shoot in places where the M8 has to use 1250 ..keep working on the D3/D700 kit.
If you experience is different(or you need to shoot different subjects/venues etc) then you might make different choices than I have. But for me gaining 2 stops in that critical 21mm(28mm FOV) is a real
benefit.
Roger Dunham
You are also of course correct that the 24-70/2.8 isn t the optimum lens you can get for a Nikon..especially when you are shooting wide open. It is ,however, probably the most common solution for the 28MM FOV. I stated exactly that in my initial post. This is why I purchased a 28/2 distagon and my initial images show its significantly better.
Really two observations that I have from using both systems . The D3 has a 2 stop advantage over the M8 until the M8 hits 640. This is nice to have but a faster lens(thats better wide open) and an ability to hand hold the M8 at slower shutter speeds really make this a draw for me.
Its only after the M8 is pushed to 1250 that the D3 pulls away because the M8 just quits . This equates to about 3200 on the D3 after which I don t want to use it. So if you want to shoot in places where the M8 has to use 1250 ..keep working on the D3/D700 kit.
If you experience is different(or you need to shoot different subjects/venues etc) then you might make different choices than I have. But for me gaining 2 stops in that critical 21mm(28mm FOV) is a real
benefit.
Roger Dunham
I use night vision goggles to watch my cats frolic in pitch darkness, and they never stumble!
Marc:
I find it interesting that the Nikon produces superior results at an intermediate ISOs... My Canon and Leica definitely produce their best results at full ISO multiples of base ISO, and the intermediate steps are usually significantly worse -- noisier -- than the next full ISO up. IOW on my Canon's, 800 was significantly better than 500 or 640. Heck, even my M8 640 pushed one and two is better than using it at the native 1250 and 2500...
Cheers,