Old 01-06-2015   #41
Duane Pandorf
Registered User
 
Duane Pandorf's Avatar
 
Duane Pandorf is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: I'm currently in Brevard, North Carolina.
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
I'd love to be told I'm wrong, so I could realize I can't tell the difference between a CCD file and a CMOS file, and I could get on with 'the future', but just a quick glance at the overall picture with no consideration of anything than the overall look led me to say within two seconds that the second shot is the M-E. Nothing at all to do with color balance or highlight detail, just the overall look.
So, which is it? And please tell me I'm wrong, because I'd rather be.
You are correct Larry. The second one is from my M-E.
__________________
Duane Pandorf
--------------------
Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-06-2015   #42
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
its really too bad that the ccd sensor isn't or can't be developed further in terms of higher ISO. I wonder if it's consumer driven. Expectation of live view and movies in cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #43
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,382
I fear that that is not something we can expect for technical reasons.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #44
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 70
Posts: 1,951
I guess I'm just one of those people who prefers CCD output to CMOS output, and thinks that those differences are in fact, ultimately, not down to other factors like camera algorithms, or my imagination, or that they can ever be routinely obviated in post processing (if it were possible to do that by "a few adjustments in post" as some are fond of saying, there would be a button in Lightroom to do just that, right next to the one for converting to monochrome
As someone who spent decades shooting almost nothing but Kodachrome 25 and 64 without feeling photographically hindered, being confined to shooting below ISO 800 doesn't seem like much of a burden, but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars. I'm just thankful that the option of the M-E still exists (not an option for me financially at this point, but I'm glad it's there.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #45
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwesi View Post
its really too bad that the ccd sensor isn't or can't be developed further in terms of higher ISO. I wonder if it's consumer driven. Expectation of live view and movies in cameras.
It's physics that restricts further development of CCD technology. Here's how.

Link 1. contains graphical (scroll about 1/2 way down) comparing the quantum efficiencies of CMOS vs CCD sensors. QE determines the sensors sensitivity to light. It affects the signal component of the signal-to-noise ratio.

Link 2 summarizes the history of image sensor development and discusses the physics and engineering behind the superior signal performance of CMOS devices.

Link 3 is a technical review in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Of course the CCD vs CMOS physics is irrelevant compared to the perceived, and therefore authentic, preferences for the M9 data stream's rendering. Life is much too short not to own and use technology one prefers and values.

Consumer expectations are also relevant. Many consumers choose convenience (high signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range along with the option to record video) to color rendition characteristics. These are objective factors that can be measured and evaluated. However they don't necessarily define the value-added nature of a brand. Each consumer evaluates the value-added benefits for themselves.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #46
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,250
I found the comparisons enlightening. Shooting your normal way makes more sense than setting specific parameters for the test, unless you are willing to change the way you shoot. I have been pondering a used M9, new M-E., or biting the bullet for an M240. The ISO comparisons may have made my decision for me. I shot a basketball game last night with an M8, and while the photos will work in newsprint, they're not something I'd be willing to put on a wall. Again, thanks for the comparisons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #47
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,395
Thank you for the reading material, Will.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #48
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars.


Bad light is bad light...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #49
Duane Pandorf
Registered User
 
Duane Pandorf's Avatar
 
Duane Pandorf is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: I'm currently in Brevard, North Carolina.
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
I guess I'm just one of those people who prefers CCD output to CMOS output, and thinks that those differences are in fact, ultimately, not down to other factors like camera algorithms, or my imagination, or that they can ever be routinely obviated in post processing (if it were possible to do that by "a few adjustments in post" as some are fond of saying, there would be a button in Lightroom to do just that, right next to the one for converting to monochrome
As someone who spent decades shooting almost nothing but Kodachrome 25 and 64 without feeling photographically hindered, being confined to shooting below ISO 800 doesn't seem like much of a burden, but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars. I'm just thankful that the option of the M-E still exists (not an option for me financially at this point, but I'm glad it's there.)
I have to completely agree with what you've said here. It seems whenever any camera is mentioned the first response is what is it's high ISO capability. Yet no concern whatsoever about how the camera actually handles in the field, etc. My biggest wish is that my M-E's base ISO was 64 or even 25 vice wanting 1600 or 3200 ISO!

....speaking of sweaty people singing off key...



M-E, 75 Cron
__________________
Duane Pandorf
--------------------
Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-07-2015   #50
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
It's physics that restricts further development of CCD technology. Here's how.

Link 1. contains graphical (scroll about 1/2 way down) comparing the quantum efficiencies of CMOS vs CCD sensors. QE determines the sensors sensitivity to light. It affects the signal component of the signal-to-noise ratio.

Link 2 summarizes the history of image sensor development and discusses the physics and engineering behind the superior signal performance of CMOS devices.

Link 3 is a technical review in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Of course the CCD vs CMOS physics is irrelevant compared to the perceived, and therefore authentic, preferences for the M9 data stream's rendering. Life is much too short not to own and use technology one prefers and values.

Consumer expectations are also relevant. Many consumers choose convenience (high signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range along with the option to record video) to color rendition characteristics. These are objective factors that can be measured and evaluated. However they don't necessarily define the value-added nature of a brand. Each consumer evaluates the value-added benefits for themselves.
Thank you for the reading material Will, looking forward to diving in.

Kwesi
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #51
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by noimmunity View Post
Very nice photos, but the banding is unacceptable to me, personally.

I'd think it would be better to shoot at a lower ISO and push in post, same as with the M9.
Thank you noimmunity. I appreciate your honesty.

Is the banding unacceptable in all those photos, or just that one at ISO6400? I shot that one purposely at ISO6400 to keep shutter speed high and achieve more grain. It was probably too much. I could have shot it at 1/60th and ISO 3200 and reduced banding. However, that room was extremely dim, so some areas where just darkness.

That said, my point was that you can get useable results at ISO4000, maybe even 6400, which of course are not even options on the CCD Leicas. If these high ISO results are not acceptable on the M240, then surely the M-E is not a viable option for you. Maybe an A7s or a D4 are in order.
__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2015   #52
robbeiflex
Registered User
 
robbeiflex's Avatar
 
robbeiflex is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 1,030
^ I'm pretty sure the M-E is not for him, since he sold it to me.

I'm still very happy with it, but I rarely shoot it above ISO 800.

Cheers,
Rob
__________________
"They say, ‘If you use this digital camera, you can take a clear picture in the dark’. The dark should stay dark. You can’t really see that much, and you don’t really want to see that much anyway.” Nobuyoshi Araki 2006

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #53
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
With the M-E, I regularly practiced push processing in post. It's far better to shoot at ISO640 and push 2-3 stops in post than to use the equivalent ISO speeds.

The practice might work as well for the M240.

For low ISO shooting, I preferred the look of the Foveon Merrill sensor, and got all 3 of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras. A completely different shooting experience from the M-E.


Quote:
Originally Posted by neonart View Post
Thank you noimmunity. I appreciate your honesty.

Is the banding unacceptable in all those photos, or just that one at ISO6400? I shot that one purposely at ISO6400 to keep shutter speed high and achieve more grain. It was probably too much. I could have shot it at 1/60th and ISO 3200 and reduced banding. However, that room was extremely dim, so some areas where just darkness.

That said, my point was that you can get useable results at ISO4000, maybe even 6400, which of course are not even options on the CCD Leicas. If these high ISO results are not acceptable on the M240, then surely the M-E is not a viable option for you. Maybe an A7s or a D4 are in order.
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2015   #54
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
Hello Rob,
glad to hear you're having fun with it!
Best,
Jon

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbeiflex View Post
^ I'm pretty sure the M-E is not for him, since he sold it to me.

I'm still very happy with it, but I rarely shoot it above ISO 800.

Cheers,
Rob
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2015   #55
anggono
Registered User
 
anggono is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
You may be correct but lenses also have their own colour signature.
A comparison test of two different bodies using different lenses is meaningless. My impromptu test wasn't great, but at least I used the same lens on each body.
It would be great if somebody can do a test shot of same scene, with both camera, with the same kind of lens, preferably outdoor shot (natural light), at pretty low ISO (lets say 400).

Regards,
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2015   #56
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by anggono View Post
It would be great if somebody can do a test shot of same scene, with both camera, with the same kind of lens, preferably outdoor shot (natural light), at pretty low ISO (lets say 400).

Regards,
Not sure how familiar you are with the M9 sensor. It's. Rey unique in hat its output is tuned to give you neutral yet rich colors with deep shadows that are quite manageable in post if one chooses. This is a big part of why it has such a loyal following.
You really don't need a side by side comparison to tell them apart.
I and another person here were able to tell them apart pretty quickly, despite the different lenses used.
I would suggest looking at the M9 "alive and well..." Thread to familiarize your self and also the new LFI Gallery with its filtering capability to get a sense of the 2 cameras. If you are on the fence.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2015   #57
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,395
I almost always use ISO160 on my M9. It brings out its best qualities. I live in Florida, so we have lots of bright sunny days throughout the year. Why would I get a camera with a target to use very high ISO? I have bo assume that we have lots of people here who often frequent dark rooms for their photography, and they live in regions where the weather is very cold and the sky is almost every day cloudy and dark. That's why they LOVE a camera that does well with ISO 5,000. For over 25 years, my "high ISO" has been 400. My preferred "low ISO" has been 50, but on the digital cameras, I am not finding such an ISO setting. My standard ISO was and is 100, but on the M9, I settle for ISO 160. My E-P2 has ISO 100.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2015   #58
anggono
Registered User
 
anggono is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwesi View Post
Not sure how familiar you are with the M9 sensor. It's. Rey unique in hat its output is tuned to give you neutral yet rich colors with deep shadows that are quite manageable in post if one chooses. This is a big part of why it has such a loyal following.
You really don't need a side by side comparison to tell them apart.
I and another person here were able to tell them apart pretty quickly, despite the different lenses used.
I would suggest looking at the M9 "alive and well..." Thread to familiarize your self and also the new LFI Gallery with its filtering capability to get a sense of the 2 cameras. If you are on the fence.
I'm not familiar with output of both camera but lately have been thinking of getting the M-240, or the M-E (or M9).

It's a doldrum considering the M9 potential sensor corrosion problem. Else would have given the M9 a definite go.

Btw I picked the second shot by Duane, simply because I found the colour to be richer and more pleasing tonality, which turned out to be shot from the M-E.

Last edited by anggono : 01-25-2015 at 05:50. Reason: text addition
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2015   #59
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
It is a tough choice to make but having owned both cameras, I would suggest you get the M240.
It's what I am currently using. It is more versatile so you will get more use out of it if it's your only camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2015   #60
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 164
I don't know about comparing the ME to the M240, but the M240 seems to be a nice camera. I am still learning how to use it, and frankly, I am just learning about how to PP effectively and how to use exposure most effectively to allow recovery of highlights or shadows. But I did my very first shoot of a friend and I thought that they OOC jpgs came out pretty well. I wish I had shot DNG to give me more room to PP, but over all I'm pleased



  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2015   #61
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 497
You chose a great time of day for your shoot! Both images are very inviting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2015   #62
Dez.
Registered User
 
Dez. is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 29
I find the M9/M-E is perfectly fine at higher ISO levels, so long as you expose correctly. It you're sloppy with your exposure, or rely on auto settings, it can bite you but otherwise it works well.
I haven't shot much with the M240, but I would expect it to have more dynamic range in the shadows and the M9 to have more in the highlights.
CMOS sensors are also much more "linear" than CCD sensors, so they capture a flatter image, then the camera embeds a contrast curve in the raw file. CCD sensors by nature are a little less linear, having a bit of a natural contrast curve already, which is then enhanced the camera's software.
I think far too much is made of high ISO noise levels, even with cameras that aren't great at higher ISO it's still worlds better than trying to push color film into those ranges.
Anyways, here's an example from my M9 shot at ISO 1250, with fairly heavy-handed sharpening making the grain stand out even more. This is with the default color noise setting of "25".

__________________
I would post a link to my personal blog here, but apparently that's not allowed.

"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2015   #63
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,395
Thank you for the illustration above.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2015   #64
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
 
dogberryjr's Avatar
 
dogberryjr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Appalachia, USA
Posts: 1,161
Dez. wrote: "I would post a link to my personal blog here, but apparently that's not allowed.

"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature." "

Man, I would hope the spirit of that rule is against self-promotion for commercial purposes. Any RFF authorities want to chime in?
__________________
M, LTM, FD, F, Film, Digital, MF . . . Jack of all, master of none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2015   #65
Dez.
Registered User
 
Dez. is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogberryjr View Post
Dez. wrote: "I would post a link to my personal blog here, but apparently that's not allowed.

"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature." "

Man, I would hope the spirit of that rule is against self-promotion for commercial purposes. Any RFF authorities want to chime in?
I got into it with one of the mods a while back, essentially I'm not allowed to post any links to my blog because some articles have Amazon links. So even if I post to something on my site that doesn't have an Amazon link, it's still forbidden because there's amazon links scattered sporadically though out other articles.

They have a pretty broad definition of "commercial".
__________________
I would post a link to my personal blog here, but apparently that's not allowed.

"Rule No. 5 - No Self-Promotion
5) Members will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, forums, email address, business, MLM, activity, or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). Additionally Self-Promotion links will no longer be allowed in your signature."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2015   #66
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 164
LOL! might as well ban everything and shut the forum down. *Everything* posted here is a form of self promotion!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2015   #67
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dez. View Post
I find the M9/M-E is perfectly fine at higher ISO levels, so long as you expose correctly. It you're sloppy with your exposure, or rely on auto settings, it can bite you but otherwise it works well....

...Anyways, here's an example from my M9 shot at ISO 1250, with fairly heavy-handed sharpening making the grain stand out even more. This is with the default color noise setting of "25".
[/IMG]
Totally agree on exposing correctly and knowing the gear. However, the photo included is a well illuminated photo at f2, 1/90th, ISO1250.

But when high ISO is needed just to "get the shot" it's a whole different ball game. I shoot so much in super dim environments that often ƒ1.4, 1/30th, and ISO4000 barely get the shot.

Here one at ISO4000 & 1/45th, so I could use about ƒ3 for DOF.



And it's crop


Again, I am not saying anything bad about the M9/ME. And high ISO performance does not make a camera better on it's own.

But IMO, the M240 is a more versatile camera because of it's ISO performance, live view, and battery life.
__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2015   #68
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonart View Post
Totally agree on exposing correctly and knowing the gear. However, the photo included is a well illuminated photo at f2, 1/90th, ISO1250.

Again, I am not saying anything bad about the M9/ME. And high ISO performance does not make a camera better on it's own.

But IMO, the M240 is a more versatile camera because of it's ISO performance, live view, and battery life.
I definitely notice that the M240 is quite usable at even the highest ISO settings. I don't have experience with the M8 or M9 so I cannot opine on them from first hand experience. But didn't you have the M8 and M9 before you got your M240?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2015   #69
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I definitely notice that the M240 is quite usable at even the highest ISO settings. I don't have experience with the M8 or M9 so I cannot opine on them from first hand experience. But didn't you have the M8 and M9 before you got your M240?
M8. Loved the "film-like" color. Great for B&W. Low ISO was outstanding. Definitely understand the LOW ISO CCD attraction. After ISO640 things got iffy though.
__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #70
Jim Evidon
Jim
 
Jim Evidon's Avatar
 
Jim Evidon is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
aka why I do not want an M240.

I was in the Leica Store LA, and sampled the M240, alongside my M-E and took a couple of snaps with each using a Summicron Asph 35 lens.
Shot at f2.0, metered on auto pointed at the floor in order to get the highlighted look that I use in my work. I then imported them to LR, and made them look as close to each other as possible. All I did was make sure the white balance was the same (3400, +16), increased the shadow brightness to match and decreased the highlight slider to -100.
And here is the big surprise. I was able to recover far more information in the highlights with the M-E than the M240. I did notice that while the skin tones were the same, the cabinets were slightly blue in the M-E shot, while more neutral in the M240 shot. Maybe I could have played with the colour sliders to adjust that, but I wanted to do as little to these images as possible while still getting a result that I would consider satisfactory for a comparison.

I asked a couple of people to judge which photo they preferred without telling them what camera took what picture and all of them picked the M-E image.

Yes, the M240 has a deeper ISO range, but for the majority of my shooting that is not needed. Yes the M240 has a nicer screen, video and quieter shutter. But that matters not one bit for the final image.

Note. All this is purely subjective. If you prefer the M240 image, great. But for me, I do not.





M-E image is on top. Excuse the lousy photo bucket compression of the images.
As has been commented previously, not great shots, but the M-E seems to be a bit more saturated.
__________________
Jim

"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak."

Leica M240
Leica CL
Leica IIIG
Contax G1
Fuji XF-1
DXO One
Sony Alpha 6000
Sony RX100V
Nikon 8008
Robot Star II
Tessina
Minox B

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #71
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
.... but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars.
I resemble that diss:


20150131-054-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20141210-009-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20141210-037-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr

Some folks need high iso for capturing, well, whatever they shoot in dark places. Some folks don't because they just don't go there. If you don't, great. Easier choices in gear. Those who do will care about a stop or two of higher iso ability, less banding, and so forth.

Re Duane's comparison shots, minor tweaks in LR to WB, hue, and saturation would resolve 95%+ of the differences. I can't believe folks are making judgments on the desirability of these two cameras from such comparisons. What might be useful is a controlled comparison of something challenging, say Asian skin tones in mixed lighting, between the two.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #72
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Pandorf View Post
I have to completely agree with what you've said here. It seems whenever any camera is mentioned the first response is what is it's high ISO capability. Yet no concern whatsoever about how the camera actually handles in the field, etc. My biggest wish is that my M-E's base ISO was 64 or even 25 vice wanting 1600 or 3200 ISO!

....speaking of sweaty people singing off key...


I don't understand. Does this mean that the M240 is an inferior camera with a poor sensor and only a high ISO advantage? I wonder why Leica would do such a thing..... And personally, I see nothing wrong or beneath contempt with taking photographs in dimly lit clubs. Different strokes for different folks.. I enjoy taking pictures of musicians and dancers in dimly lit venues. Many of them play and sing quite on key And not all sweat either....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #73
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
I shoot a lot of stuff in dim interiors, including live music venues. I would just like to say that in most cases, the solution is not higher ISO, but correct usage of flash. Yes, sometimes that's not allowed or possible, but that usually results in better photos than just cranking up the ISO, at least in my experience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #74
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
I shoot a lot of stuff in dim interiors, including live music venues. I would just like to say that in most cases, the solution is not higher ISO, but correct usage of flash. Yes, sometimes that's not allowed or possible, but that usually results in better photos than just cranking up the ISO, at least in my experience.
Of course. More light, and better yet more controlled light, is wonderful. Not to be argumentative, but very few places I shoot permit flash. And the few that do permit it don't seem too successful. So your solution is what - be the xxxx and try to get away with it? Me, it's 6400, f/1.4, and try to get a decent shutter speed. And not get my unsightly self thrown out.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #75
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
So your solution is what - be the xxxx and try to get away with it?
Sorry, perhaps I was assuming some things or not being clear.
Most of the time that I'm shooting at a live venue or event I'm being paid to be there. Flash being allowed or not generally doesn't apply then, though sometimes if there is also video being done I won't/can't use flash.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #76
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 501
I guess it looks as though you have more information in the highlights in the first capture, but I don't know how that could be (does that make sense?). Did you shoot these really hot and bring them down, losing that info in the highlights?

More importantly, the first picture is indeed the more interesting capture (as a poster noted in the first reply to this thread...or at least hypothesized something to that effect).

And even more importantly, these captures are way too low quality due to compression or something or other to get a good idea of what is going on. Post a couple of decent versions, as these are some of the worst I've seen on this forum as far as acuity is concerned.

And yeah, I prefer a CCD to a CMOS sensor any day with good light. I'm sure the M-E offers the better looking image, but you haven't given us a lot to go on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #77
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
I shoot a lot of stuff in dim interiors, including live music venues. I would just like to say that in most cases, the solution is not higher ISO, but correct usage of flash. Yes, sometimes that's not allowed or possible, but that usually results in better photos than just cranking up the ISO, at least in my experience.
I respect your predilection, whatever works for you is fine. For me using flash is a huge hassle, a bore and just plain annoying to people. My shooting is more along the lines of "stealth" if you wish. I don't want to shoot flash in people's faces. Frankly, I hate the flash of the cell phones, let alone a big professional flash.
Anyway, I don't even have a flash unit for my Leica. I bought a good, Olympus flash for my Olympus O-MD E-M1 and I used it about 3 times just to try it. The M240 will capture very good images (for me) at high ISO without the need for the flash. I shoot the Lux wide open and use whatever ambient light exists. I'm not a purist or any such thing, it's just that flash for me sucks. I feel that a camera that won't do well in higher ISO than 1200, is severely handicapped for my particular shooting predilection. It would do me no good to have the best quality images if I need to only shoot in good light situations.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2015   #78
chaospress
Registered User
 
chaospress is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 76
One shot in crappy lighting is enough for you to draw conclusions?

I've had both cameras and see no significant difference other than that the M240 does better with higher ISO. Aside from the fact it adds live view, focus peaking, etc..
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2015   #79
chaospress
Registered User
 
chaospress is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samouraï View Post
I'm sure the M-E offers the better looking image...
Yeah well, not really.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2015   #80
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by xavoy View Post
Not really. Get exposure wrong and you can blow highlights with any camera.
Exactly. I would go as far as to say that blown highlights are ALWAYS operator error.

The way to judge a camera is to shoot identical exposure to hug the highlights and then judge shadow recovery. (and no, identical settings on different cameras will NOT result in identical exposure. ISO value in digital cameras is a judgement call by the designer, not an absolute value. ( as it was on film as well, despite a more stringent norm than for sensors)) Use exposure bracketing and the histogram in LR to test.

Some camera makers like Sony like to push exposure to the left to make it appear they hold highlights better. More fool us.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  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 04:10.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.