Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

We don't need no high ISO's
Old 04-08-2011   #1
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 849
We don't need no high ISO's

In the last post about sensor quality, I wrote, “just think what will happen if Leitz and Kodak come up with CCD sensor that can run at high ISO’s... .” I thought I was being slightly hopeful and dryly humorous, but, somewhat expectedly, I got some email that essentially said, “We don’t need no high ISO’s, and you are a bad person for criticizing Leica.”

Most of my professional photography has been done as a journalist. While this would establish me as a bad person in the eyes of many, it also makes me one of those people who need high ISO’s. Here’s what Dx0 had to say in its review of the M9.

“In comparison with the sensors used by other full-frame main manufacturers, the pixel quality of the Leica M9 sensor remains low. The results of the Leica M9 are very close to the measurements for the Canon EOS 5D, launched four years ago. The Leica M9 provides good image quality for low ISO, but its results for high ISO are weak, with dynamic range decreasing very fast. So its Lowlight ISO score is a little disappointing, especially for this type of camera. The Leica M9 achieves the lowest score among measured full-frame sensors.”

Remember, they are talking about sensor quality. They are not factoring in either the positive excellence of Leitz lenses or the difficulty of narrow enough tolerances to achieve accurate rangefinder focus on a digital sensor. They are not talking about small size or high build quality. Here’s an excellent explanation of what they are measuring.

http://www.luminouslandscape.com/ess..._cameras.shtml


With the film Leica, you could switch your bodies from Kodachrome to P3200 with the turn of a rewind knob.

Not so with sensors (unless you own a Ricoh GXR). And so the Leica rangefinder becomes more and more of a very expensive specialist tool. I view its slow disappearance from the world of journalism, especially from the hands of young journalists, with regret. But I understand it. I would like to hear from the non-journalist folks who are using it in preference to other cameras and to know in what fields they feel it still excels.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #2
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,418
Dunno, Bill. Sounds like high ISO hype/rat race from DxO to me. I don't have an M9, but I've used a 5D. When the 5D was current, it was the tool of choice for available light weddings. If the M9 is as good as the 5D, that's enough/plenty (3200) for me.

Last edited by Ranchu : 04-08-2011 at 17:20.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #3
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,946
I was never able to make the leap from my M8 to an M9 so moved to a DSLR. I use the Nikon at 3200 comfortably in an environment where my absolute limit with my M8 was 640 ISO. Assuming the M9 is a stop better than the M8 that still limits it to 1250 ... in my book that's not good enough for a $6500 camera.

I'm sure the next incarnation of the digital M will have better high ISO performance ... possibly usable at 3200 but by then the competition will be giving us clean files at 12800 ISO. Leica will never catch the opposition IMO and possibly they don't need to but an improvement of a couple of stops would definitely sell more cameras for them.

But if you're a smallish company making a camera with limitations that already sells like hot cross buns at easter it's probably not a big concern for you.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #4
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
Dunno, Bill. Sounds like high ISO hype/rat race from DxO to me. I don't have an M9, but I've used a 5D. When the 5D was current, it was the tool of choice for available light weddings. If the M9 is as good as the 5D, that's enough/plenty (3200) for me.

I guess wedding venues have gotten MUCH darker over the last three years.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #5
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,952
I spent a lot of the 1980s developing image processing algorithms to pick signals out of noise. I suspect that there is a lot of signal processing going on inside modern DSLR's that is not done in the M9 or M8.

I bought the M9 for personal use, and love it. The ISO2500 performance on mine is quite good out of the camera, and simple quick-and-dirty noise removal using the "dust and scratch" filter in Photoshop 7.0 cleaned up the image. Post-processing the images for removing noise is using algorithms actually designed for this purpose are likely to yield even better results. Maybe I'll look for one and play with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #6
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 688
Going one generation back with Leica - an M8 - and two with Canon - a D1 Mark II - I find the Canon usable at 1600 and, in a pinch, 3200. The newest Canon, again, two generations newer, is much, much better and costs $2,500 less than an M9. The Leica, however, is usable only up to 640, even for newspaper reproduction. I do use both professionally, taking the Leica when I don't want two full kits, one for film and the other digital. But if I know I'm going to need digital, the Canon wins hands down. True, it's a specialized use, but without usable high ISO, I agree that the Leica is becoming a marginal tool. The M8 is great to shoot with and much smaller than the Canon, but it's not a camera I can depend on to handle available dark. I suspect the same may apply to the M9.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #7
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,855
I shoot high school football routinely with the Canon 1DmkIV at ISO 6400. High ISO is really pretty useful. Back in the Tri-X days, I had to use really powerful flash to shoot high school football. The M9 would probably serve for a lot of stuff, but the 1DmkIV was $5,000 and much more versatile in addition to the High ISO capability.

ISO 6400 - 1/500 - f/3.5

__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #8
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,374
I rarely use anything above 400 ISO with film or digital. I'm usually around 100 with digital and lower with film. If you're in need of high ISO, Nikon has a solution.
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/04/04/th...to-102400.aspx
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #9
Bill Pierce
Registered User
 
Bill Pierce's Avatar
 
Bill Pierce is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
I spent a lot of the 1980s developing image processing algorithms to pick signals out of noise. I suspect that there is a lot of signal processing going on inside modern DSLR's that is not done in the M9 or M8.

I bought the M9 for personal use, and love it. The ISO2500 performance on mine is quite good out of the camera, and simple quick-and-dirty noise removal using the "dust and scratch" filter in Photoshop 7.0 cleaned up the image. Post-processing the images for removing noise is using algorithms actually designed for this purpose are likely to yield even better results. Maybe I'll look for one and play with it.
Brian - I think we’re probably on the same track or, at least, two parallel tracks. Noise doesn’t bother me that much in most personal work. But paying customers and other relatively nice folk can sometimes be bothered by it, even claiming it can create a problem with some reproduction (although I’ve never encountered that with either film grain or digital noise).

Photokit Sharpener 2.0 has a lot of sharpening and unsharpening techniques that will work within the recent CS Photoshops starting with several conversions to tif that combine both sharpening and smoothing. I think there is a trial version at http://www.pixelgenius.com. It’s worked for me in that it’s minimal and controllable. Of all the store bought add-ons in this area, it’s the one I like the most. If they have a free trial, you might want to look at it - but look out. It has enough options and variations that it takes a little time to get on top of it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #10
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,834
Anytime I see someone sprouting how high ISO performance is un-needed and silly and just another spec the manufacturers can put on a list I laugh. The amount of times I shoot at iso3200 on my 5d at f1.4, 1/30th shutter...

Strong unaware of how useful high ISO performance really is...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #11
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
Anytime I see someone sprouting how high ISO performance is un-needed and silly and just another spec the manufacturers can put on a list I laugh. The amount of times I shoot at iso3200 on my 5d at f1.4, 1/30th shutter...

Strong unaware of how useful high ISO performance really is...

Check out the Nikon link.. I think they are claiming an ISO of 102400, or some big number for the new d5100 in a special "night vision" mode. It's likely very noisy, but I guess usable for security or night, nature photography?

Here's a link to some D5100 frames - a few at ISO 25.6K
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob-1/

Last edited by PKR : 04-08-2011 at 20:43.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #12
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 43
Posts: 1,043
I think high ISO quality with digital is amazing and is really a big part of the charm. Look at Pickett's example: amazing, really. A pricey digital camera should have high ISO capabilities.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #13
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
Anytime I see someone sprouting how high ISO performance is un-needed and silly and just another spec the manufacturers can put on a list I laugh. The amount of times I shoot at iso3200 on my 5d at f1.4, 1/30th shutter...

Strong unaware of how useful high ISO performance really is...
Indoor lighting is deceptively dim. As a test, I took out my film camera and at f/2, needed ISO 800 to get to 1/30s and it looked quite bright to me. I do have an f/1.2 lens but I probably could not focus it.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #14
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
I spent a lot of the 1980s developing image processing algorithms to pick signals out of noise. I suspect that there is a lot of signal processing going on inside modern DSLR's that is not done in the M9 or M8.
I spent 1973 through 2001 struggling with the analysis of very noisy radio-frequency signals that were useless unless they were digitized. I see no reason to suspect all the vendors but Leica use meager on-camera computing resources to overcome the inherent uncertainty in photo-site photon counts when the signal level is low. Once the data is recorded, the uncertainty in the data from a single exposure can not be reduced. Noise filtering (which is incorrectly referred to a noise reduction) improves the aesthetics of pixels composed of photon counts with large errors at the expense of pixels derived from photon counts with smaller errors. The total information content can not be increased. How can you possibly acertain the real, but unknown, photo count for a given sensor site when the uncertainty in the count is high? Of course clever compromises can be made. But I just don't see how 2 or 3 stops of signal-to-noise ratio improvement can be done in-camera without seriously degrading image resolution.

If everyone but Leica uses trickery to achieve high ISO performance without destroying IQ, why isn't Lecia clever enough to do the same thing? Could it be the trickery degrades overall image quality to an extent that is simply unacceptable to Leica?

I have no issue with claims that images from M9 DNG files are superior in important ways to images from other 24 X 36 mm sensors. After all there is no anti-aliasing filter and M9 images are often recorded using some of the best optical lenses in existence. It doesn't hurt that Leica performs it's own in-camera corrections based on the lens in use. Actually I think it's amazing a small company with limited resources and limited in-house expertise in digital electronics produces a camera that performs like the M9 performs.

At the same time, you can't use just any sensor with M lenses. The M9 sensor requires specific and unique design characteristics. Perhaps high-ISO performance was not a design priority compared to other issues. I speculate this could be the reason the M9 has inferior high ISO performance. If Leica chose to maintain compatibility with their diverse and distinguished line of M lenses at the expense of ISO performance, that seems like a reasonable choice to me. Perhaps the need to maintain the traditional Leica M body depth means there is not enough space to dissipate heat as effectively as 135 format DSLRs. Again, keeping true to the M body form is important. Or, maybe Leica's sensor supplier is simply behind other sensor manufacturers when it comes to high-ISO performance.

If I wanted to own a M9, I would not care one bit it's high ISO performance was inferior to many full-format DSLRs'. I can't see how this diminishes the M9.

But if high-ISO performance was critical to my success, I would not care one bit my DSLR RAW files were inferior to the M9's in other areas. I don't see how this diminishes the DSLR.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,

Last edited by willie_901 : 04-08-2011 at 22:12.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #15
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
I spent 1973 through 2001 struggling with the analysis of very noisy radio-frequency signals that were useless unless they were digitized. I see no reason to suspect all the vendors but Leica use meager on-camera computing resources to overcome the inherent uncertainty in photo-site photon counts when the signal level is low. Once the data is recorded, the uncertainty in the data from a single exposure can not be reduced. Noise filtering (which is incorrectly referred to a noise reduction) improves the aesthetics of pixels composed of photon counts with large errors at the expense of pixels derived from photon counts with smaller errors. The total information content can not be increased. How can you possibly acertain the real, but unknown, photo count for a given sensor site when the uncertainty in the count is high? Of course clever compromises can be made. But I just don't see how 2 or 3 stops of signal-to-noise ratio improvement can be done in-camera without seriously degrading image resolution.

If everyone but Leica uses trickery to achieve high ISO performance without destroying IQ, why isn't Lecia clever enough to do the same thing? Could it be the trickery degrades overall image quality to an extent that is simply unacceptable to Leica?

I have no issue with claims that images from M9 DNG files are superior in important ways to images from other 24 X 36 mm sensors. After all there is no anti-aliasing filter and M9 images are often recorded using some of the best optical lenses in existence. It doesn't hurt that Leica performs it's own in-camera corrections based on the lens in use. Actually I think it's amazing a small company with limited resources and limited in-house expertise in digital electronics produces a camera that performs like the M9 performs.

At the same time, you can't use just any sensor with M lenses. The M9 sensor requires specific and unique design characteristics. Perhaps high-ISO performance was not a design priority compared to other issues. I speculate this could be the reason the M9 has inferior high ISO performance. If Leica chose to maintain compatibility with their diverse and distinguished line of M lenses at the expense of ISO performance, that seems like a reasonable choice to me. Perhaps the need to maintain the traditional Leica M body depth means there is not enough space to dissipate heat as effectively as 135 format DSLRs. Again, keeping true to the M body form is important. Or, maybe Leica's sensor supplier is simply behind other sensor manufacturers when it comes to high-ISO performance.

If I wanted to own a M9, I would not care one bit it's high ISO performance was inferior to many full-format DSLRs'. I can't see how this diminishes the M9.

But if high-ISO performance was critical to my success, I would not care one bit my DSLR RAW files were inferior to the M9's in other areas. I don't see how this diminishes the DSLR.

The answer to all the questions posed here is: CMOS

The m9 uses a CCD sensor for whatever reason, everyone else is now using CMOS. It's obvious that cmos sensors are much better with high ISO stuff - for instance the day nikon changed from a ccd to a cmos (d2x to d3) was the day they acquired good high iSO performance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2011   #16
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,740
Yeah, it's important to document incipient TBI's in 15 year olds.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/

Last edited by semilog : 04-09-2011 at 00:04.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #17
Harry S.
Registered User
 
Harry S.'s Avatar
 
Harry S. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Shellharbour, Australia
Age: 32
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I'm sure the next incarnation of the digital M will have better high ISO performance ... possibly usable at 3200 but by then the competition will be giving us clean files at 12800 ISO.
That makes me wonder, the world isnt getting darker at night; so how far does this high-ISO drive need to go?

Ive had a 5D, 1DM3 and now 5D2, and have never needed anything other than 1600 ISO in any condition. What Id like to see in the future is a digital sensor with film-like latitude.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #18
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,418
Well whatever. I agree with Harry. I never had much of a problem, 1600, 2.8 and VR works fine imo. YMMV.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #19
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,418
Btw, CCD's have lower noise than CMOS. CMOS have more processing, though. That's why they look so plasticy, and appear to have less noise. Here is a link with serious sounding words in it.

http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.aspx

Last edited by Ranchu : 04-09-2011 at 01:23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,649
Yesterday I was shooting in a 1000-year-old crypt, VERY dimly lit: one of the major stops for pilgrims on the Compostela route. Yes, I'd have liked a GOOD 6400 or even 12,500. Or I could have used a tripod...

Quite honestly, even the M9 at 2500 is better than any colour film at 2500, so even though I hope an M10 (or whatever) will deliver better quality at higher speeds, the M9 is still pretty amazing.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #21
Stuart John
Registered User
 
Stuart John's Avatar
 
Stuart John is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 551
However high the Hi ISO race goes people will always demand more. Photographers are rather spoiled today and seem to be constanly looking for the magic bullet. Better hi ISO performace won't improve most people photos sure the images will be cleaner but the content will remain the same and the quest for the next latest and greatest camera will continue.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogsjm/
http://www.sjmphotography.co.nr/

Canonet QL17, Canonet 28, Zorki C
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #22
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 63
Posts: 12,543
.... well iso is a lot better than asa was, you were lucky to get beyond 500 with your asa, and don't even ask about din, 27 was pushing it in din :yes:
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #23
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,952
Kodak is one of the few companies to post "long sheets" on their products, although the KAF-18500 is not up.

On the sensor used in the M8, the nominal total noise figure (includes amplifier and system noise) is given as 18 electrons.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...00LongSpec.pdf

I found some long sheets on older CMOS sensors. Most of them included information on signal processing applied in acquiring the signal. The Kodak CCD's tend to give a true "Raw" readout.

To compare the true sensor noise of the Kodak based Leica cameras with a CMOS based SLR, the native noise of the CMOS sensor is required. Comparing noise measured in electrons allows "apples to apples" comparisons. Anything else is a comparison of CCD raw output compared with CMOS processed output. The Leica uses a 16-bit RISC processor that is more of a data flow engine rather than signal processing engine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2011   #24
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 45
Posts: 5,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Quite honestly, even the M9 at 2500 is better than any colour film at 2500, so even though I hope an M10 (or whatever) will deliver better quality at higher speeds, the M9 is still pretty amazing.

Cheers,

R.
Yes. I don't compare the M9 to DSLRs, I compare it to film Ms. And it compares very favorably. When occasionally I need to shoot in very low light, I use my DSLR. Why must an M compete?

The CCD sensor has a distinctive look. I wouldn't want to sacrifice it for better low light performance.
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2011   #25
dseelig
David
 
dseelig is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 139
I am shooting a personal project right now using mostly M9s. However when I go to no ligth zones needing 3200 to 6400 I have to take my canon mk1v out as the m9 just does not cut it. Mind you I have 24 through 75 summilux lenses. With the canon I am shooting 24 , 35 50 and 85 L . I hate carrying the extra weight but I have to get the shot I have to shoot the canons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2011   #26
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 4,226
I compare my film Leicas w/film SLRs & my M9 w/dSLRs. IMHO, it is perfectly reasonable (as a photographer, maybe not as an electronics engineer) to expect any digital M to compete w/dSLRs because it is used by many, such as me, instead of a dSLR. I don't think the world has gotten darker, it's just that people are shooting available light in places where in years past they would have used flash or not shot @ all. Why should I be forced to buy a big, fat D700 or 5D or be stuck using f/1 & f/1.4 just to shoot digital in low light? It's not that Leica must compete, but it would be nice if they did.

Of course, like any other group of photographers, Leica users come in all types & I know there are plenty of people who are happy w/slow Elmars & low ISOs, just as there were back in the days of film. The problem is there is no Leica-mount camera that excels @ high ISOs. As I've written before, my ideal solution would be for Leica to offer 2 separate models: 1 for daylight shooters (like the current M9) & 1 optimized for available darkness (perhaps w/fewer, but bigger pixels & a native ISO of 400 or higher). Like it or not, in the digital era, camera manufacturers must be "film" suppliers, too. Unfortunately, this is probably beyond the capabilities of the current company & would probably require partnering up w/1 of the Japanese manufacturers (I would vote for Sony, since they make sensors & are the successor to Minolta).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mabelsound View Post
Yes. I don't compare the M9 to DSLRs, I compare it to film Ms. And it compares very favorably. When occasionally I need to shoot in very low light, I use my DSLR. Why must an M compete?

The CCD sensor has a distinctive look. I wouldn't want to sacrifice it for better low light performance.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery

Last edited by furcafe : 04-13-2011 at 14:08.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2011   #27
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 3,973
At short notice I discovered my good friend was delivering his inaugural professorial lecture. I had my M5 with 50 1.5 at work with me, but only 100 ISO film. This is straight out of your chapter in the Leica Manual. The camera on the front rail and lots of shots at 1/4 and even 1/2s and finally he stayed still enough to get this. So I won't be getting the M9 yet either.


Dean's Lecture by Richard GM2, on Flickr
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2011   #28
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
At short notice I discovered my good friend was delivering his inaugural professorial lecture. I had my M5 with 50 1.5 at work with me, but only 100 ISO film. This is straight out of your chapter in the Leica Manual. The camera on the front rail and lots of shots at 1/4 and even 1/2s and finally he stayed still enough to get this. So I won't be getting the M9 yet either.


Dean's Lecture by Richard GM2, on Flickr
I did the same thing on a cruise ship during the evening entertainment, except I had Velvia 50 loaded. The shots were quite good.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2011   #29
kshapero
Exposed
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 9,049
I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.
__________________
Akiva S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #30
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,229
The bottom line is that high ISO lets people do handheld photography is more situations (some of us don't only photograph in bright sun). How can that be bad? I would never not own a camera that doesn't have great high ISO. I love my M8 and M3, but when high ISO is needed, I'm glad I have a the X1 (and soon the X100). If Leica brings out a digital M with high ISO, I'll be in heaven.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.
Do yuo do post processing of the images or rely strictly on in camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #32
sig
Registered User
 
sig is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
The bottom line is that high ISO lets people do handheld photography is more situations (some of us don't only photograph in bright sun). How can that be bad? I would never not own a camera that doesn't have great high ISO. I love my M8 and M3, but when high ISO is needed, I'm glad I have a the X1 (and soon the X100). If Leica brings out a digital M with high ISO, I'll be in heaven.

How can that be bad? Easy, there is a reference camera out there. Functionality not covered by the reference camera is bad or not needed. And if you think you need, or even see benefits of the functionality, you probably are not a real photographer
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #33
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.

That's just a metering/exposure issue ... the camera wants everything to look like an 18% grey card shot at ev 15!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #34
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by sig View Post
How can that be bad? Easy, there is a reference camera out there. Functionality not covered by the reference camera is bad or not needed. And if you think you need, or even see benefits of the functionality, you probably are not a real photographer
Huh? A real photographer uses the tools that are available to him/her to get the photo he/she wants...

and what is this reference camera you speak of?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #35
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Quite honestly, even the M9 at 2500 is better than any colour film at 2500, so even though I hope an M10 (or whatever) will deliver better quality at higher speeds, the M9 is still pretty amazing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart John View Post
However high the Hi ISO race goes people will always demand more. Photographers are rather spoiled today and seem to be constanly looking for the magic bullet. Better hi ISO performace won't improve most people photos sure the images will be cleaner but the content will remain the same and the quest for the next latest and greatest camera will continue.

Very true. People have been whining (some of them are claiming for, but many are whining) about how "bad" ISO 1250 (or if you'll be reading this in 2014, ISO 64000000000) when during the days of film people who used ISO 800 in color they would have loved to get the "grain" (or from that point of view, lack thereof) you can get at ISO 3200 from a Nikon circa 2007.

More and more barely-trained photographers are meeting the needs of commercial photography. Many have hardly ever used anything other than the P or green square mode.

On the other hand, there are a few specialized photographers who really know what they're doing, and given the current economic and workflow realities you must use digital photography and the "slow and tedious" world of B&W (OMG! lack of color!) silver photography is just not in today's do-you-want-fries-with-that consumer society.

You can never satisfy everyone. If Leica were in the business of selling to sports photographers, I'm sure they would have tended to that a while back. Canon and Nikon, however, are the go-to brands for that market, and of course they will make educated and researched compromises in image quality to try to please everybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2011   #36
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.
Agree.

Also,

the *need* for high ISO has to be distinguished between professional (shooting for a client) and non-professional (shooting for ourselves).

Those who are professionals can't dictate their preference of standard on which the high ISO performance is based on. They may prefer film, but the digital world has trained the clients to expect "clean" images.

Those who are non-professionals can choose what they compare the high ISO against. I personally like grain and texture, so I compare any digital cameras against film. And so will most of us here on RFF. Good thing that I'm not a wedding photographer.

Now this is not to say that at some point in the future, people will be bored with the clean images and start to appreciate imperfections, at that time, the manufacturers will then start to sell High ISO *with texture*

Just watch.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2011   #37
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Now this is not to say that at some point in the future, people will be bored with the clean images and start to appreciate imperfections, at that time, the manufacturers will then start to sell High ISO *with texture*

Of course it will happen. Then people will b & moan "where is the noise function?!" and "remember the good old days of noise and grain?"

During the 20th century there was this insane drive for "sharpness". Then came Lensbaby, Holga and Diana.

Not to mention that everybody wants something for nothing: "sharpness" and clean digital images come after years of manpower and hard money, but if you charge the customer for it, they'd balk. Why, technology grows on trees in the magical land of You-sent-your-email-and-you-b-and-moaned-enough-on-Internet-forums...

I don't deride progress; I deride demands with a sense of entitlement, like those spoiled kids on "My Super Sweet 16".
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2011   #38
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 49
Posts: 4,226
Point taken, but your analogy only goes so far. At one point in the increasing distant past (like the early '60s), Leicas were used for the same purpose as the competition & they have made pretty good SLRs over the years. Leica may have ended up being like Harley-Davidson as a niche manufacturer of old-style motorcycles, but an alternative path would have been for them to emulate BMW & Honda, both of which were able to successfully enter the car business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post

On the other hand, there are a few specialized photographers who really know what they're doing, and given the current economic and workflow realities you must use digital photography and the "slow and tedious" world of B&W (OMG! lack of color!) silver photography is just not in today's do-you-want-fries-with-that consumer society.

You can never satisfy everyone. If Leica were in the business of selling to sports photographers, I'm sure they would have tended to that a while back. Canon and Nikon, however, are the go-to brands for that market, and of course they will make educated and researched compromises in image quality to try to please everybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2011   #39
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 700
My M9 is set to Auto ISO 800, and I rarely go above that unless I want that little bit extra, or I have forgotten a fast lens. But I never use it in situations that demand clean performance at upper levels, anyway. I use the Canon 5D Mark II for that.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want better high ISO performance from any high end camera in this day and age; at the same time, 35mm sensors seem to have the edge over medium format sensors in this area, so perhaps it is a matter of horses for courses. The digital M's images have often been favourably compared with medium format, so perhaps those similarities run to the negatives as well as the positives.

Riccis Valladares tends to shoot very low light using 3200 speed film and a Noctilux. He gets great results, but only for those who like that look. It would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to get acceptable results with colour film at that speed.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2011   #40
kevin m
Registered User
 
kevin m is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 2,209
The world's gone all topsy-turvy. It used to be the Leica M that had technological advantages over film SRLs for available light shooting. But now, of course, the reverse is true in the digital age. Clean high-iso capture (not to mention excellent Image Stabilization in bodies and lenses) is today what Tri-X and a Noctiliux were in the golden age of film. In the low-light situations that used to be its forte, the M8 and M9 have no technological advantages over a DSLR.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:36.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.