Archive 2008 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #1 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
thrice wrote:
No offense brainiac but you nailed the correct eye in about 1/2 of those shots (might be motion blur).
These are drunk people dancing and swaying in near darkness. The lens is at f1.4, and effective iso is typically 6400 or 12800 in order to get shutter speeds that stop motion enough to generate a usable picture.
> But I can use live-view without much penalty to shooting speed.
On an M8??
>Is the camera really the limiting factor here? Have you seen any shots taken with an M8 in a similar environment where you've felt "I could have done better with my SLR" ?
You just couldn't get these pictures at all with an M8 for the reasons I have already pointed out: iso, frame rate, and slowness/unreliability of focus-recompose with moving subjects and wide apertures. To have a hope of tracking moving subjects at close range through wide apertures you need to maintain composition at the same time as focussing, and that can't be done on a rangefinder.
p.14 #2 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Mawz wrote:
And there's little to no recomposition in the first two. the first two were totally recomposed to the point of moving a few inches to the left when taking the shot from outside a window. The common mistake made when recomposing is to focus on a point on the same plane as the new one: one has to realize that the focal node will be at a circle around the sensor, not a straight plane.
The third one wouldn't show the issue in the first place as you have gobs of DoF at 15mm and f4.5. The heliar at 12" and at 4.5 does not have the DOF you may expect -12" at best! I realized than when I dropped the f stop to f.8.
Here's an example (of me rather than by me) of the sort of thing I'm talking about. The focus is just about dead on my left eye here. Not sure what you are illustrating here. Both photos seem accurately focused on the points mentioned.
p.14 #3 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
dasrocket wrote:
Mawz wrote:
And there's little to no recomposition in the first two. the first two were totally recomposed to the point of moving a few inches to the left when taking the shot from outside a window. The common mistake made when recomposing is to focus on a point on the same plane as the new one: one has to realize that the focal node will be at a circle around the sensor, not a straight plane.
Both have the point of focus very close to dead centre. A slight recomposition at most, the sort that likely won't cause too many issues. The issue increases the further off-centre you get, the closer you get, the longer the lens and the wider the shooting aperture.
The third one wouldn't show the issue in the first place as you have gobs of DoF at 15mm and f4.5. The heliar at 12" and at 4.5 does not have the DOF you may expect -12" at best! I realized than when I dropped the f stop to f.8.
12" of DoF is huge compared to the sorts of situations I'm talking about. More than enough to handle even a wild recomposition.
There's a big difference between the roughly 4" of DoF that the Heliar has at 12" and f4.5 and the 1/4" that a 35/1.4 has at the same distance and f1.4. The DoF you get at 12" and f4.5 is the same as the DoF you'd get with a 35mm f1.4 wide open at 4.5', at f8 the 8" of DoF you were getting is equivalent to a 35mm f1.4 wide open at 5.5'. It's enough to cover the shift in composition shown here.
Note that after running the actual numbers, I was clearly incorrect above when saying that the issues start to crop up at 3m. It's clearly more like 2m from the DoF numbers unless we start considering truly exotic lenses (ie faster than f1.4).
Here's an example (of me rather than by me) of the sort of thing I'm talking about. The focus is just about dead on my left eye here. Not sure what you are illustrating here. Both photos seem accurately focused on the points mentioned.
Yes, and both were done with SLR's at or near wide open on fast lenses around a normal length with significantly off-centre focus points. Both are the sort of composition where focus & recompose would cause issues, especially the first shot due to the close distance.
p.14 #4 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Braniac,
although the light level is probably low in your pictures, it looks like the faces are often more brightly lit than the surroundings (particularly in the first one), making contrast quite high. This is often the case with artificial light and white faces.
When I'm thinking of low light, I'm generally thinking of much lower contrast with natural light or even diffuse candle light, which is hard to see clearly through a DSLR viewfinder. I do have more luck and find it easier with the LX and the newest screen (from the 2000), but it is much clearer and easier to focus with the Rangefinder.
Of course, with moving, drunken subjects in contrasty light SLR's may well be more of a contender.
p.14 #5 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
You just couldn't get these pictures at all with an M8 for the reasons I have already pointed out: iso, frame rate, and slowness/unreliability of focus-recompose with moving subjects and wide apertures. To have a hope of tracking moving subjects at close range through wide apertures you need to maintain composition at the same time as focussing, and that can't be done on a rangefinder.
You're teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.
Perhaps for your work the 35L would be a wiser choice than the contax then.
Jun 16, 2009 at 07:17 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #6 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
wolfloid wrote:
although the light level is probably low in your pictures...
Some of these are iso12800, f1.4, 1/50th. I consider that low.
...it looks like the faces are often more brightly lit than the surroundings (particularly in the first one), making contrast quite high. This is often the case with artificial light and white faces.
Of course, this raises another problem with the M viewfinder: you can't see flare.
>When I'm thinking of low light, I'm generally thinking of much lower contrast with natural light or even diffuse candle light, which is hard to see clearly through a DSLR viewfinder.
My experience is the reverse: low contrast is precisely where rangefinder focussing becomes extremely difficult. While rf would have worked for the candlelit shot above, it would have been very tricky with the backlit flared shot above, as there is little contrast in the eyes to rely on. That's the kind of situation where the SLR's ability to show focus moving forward from the silhouette as you turn the focus ring provides extra help.
Anyway, it's academic because these shots are outside the M8's acceptable EV range, focussed or not.
p.14 #7 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
I used the M8 & a M8.2 daily over a period of 2 years. I came from a lifetime in Canon SLR and dSLR and have ended up in the Sony camp now with the a900.
All I can say is, for more thoughtful, people centered, relaxed photography the M8 is a wonderful tool. I loved the whole re-discovery of manual photography techniques and single lens perspectives. It is a camera that has limits depending on the subject and speed you're shooting at and is not as versatile as a dSLR system.
However, I can not emphasize enough, the quality and clarity of the files this camera is capable of producing is nothing short of stunning. They are very robust in converters and handle a lot of adjustments.
Leica glass is without a doubt special and contributes so strongly to the end result, many of my personal favorite images are from this system. Leica glass is expensive, the new fast Nocti & Summilux's are outrageously expensive IMO.
I enjoyed my time with Leica, had my problems which were frustrating, but Leica always stepped up to the plate and sorted them out. If it weren't for my poor eyesight and resulting inability to get comfortable with the rangefinder focusing I'd still be using Leica today and very happy with it. I learnt what the camera was capable of and used it to it's and my best ability.
Jun 17, 2009 at 02:10 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #8 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
thrice wrote:
Perhaps for your work the 35L would be a wiser choice than the contax then.
If you mean for the AF, not even the mk3's are accurate enough to focus f1.4 off-centre, and in these light levels AF won't work at all. A really smooth and light manual focus ring with no play is the best way, and that indicates Contax or Oly, not Canon L.
p.14 #9 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Braniac,
Just referring to your last two shots: Your first shot I would never take with any camera (different styles). But if I were to, I can't see a problem with focusing the RF, so long as the guy doesn't stagger too much. I'm sure it would achieve at least that level of sharpness.
The second is much more the sort of thing I had in mind, however, his face is well lit, with good contrast - the sort of situation that makes a good photo, and is generally easy to get sharp. I had more diffuse lighting in mind. Most of my work is in ill-lit temples, houses, shops and markets in India, where peoples' skins are darker and contrasts lower. If I could get that quality of light all the time on the face, I'd be happy.
p.14 #10 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
There's all kinds of low light photography done with Leicas by people like David Allen Harvey, Bill Allard, and many others done with slow film; it can be done by the right photographer
p.14 #11 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
If you mean for the AF, not even the mk3's are accurate enough to focus f1.4 off-centre, and in these light levels AF won't work at all. A really smooth and light manual focus ring with no play is the best way, and that indicates Contax or Oly, not Canon L.
Why people still shoot Canon when the D700 and D3 focus better on their fringe focus points than the 1-series and 5Ds do on their center focusing point. I shot so many manual lenses on my 5D because it just couldn't focus in low light.
Jun 17, 2009 at 04:22 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #12 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
One of the results of well exposed shots in very low light is that the picture doesn't tell you just how dark it was. All of these shots I have shown here would not have been focussable with a D700 AF or 1D3 AF. They are too dark and the subjects are too fast moving. AF just doesn't work in this kind of environment, even if you use the STE2, because of movement, wide aperture, and the need for off centre composition.
As regards what good photographers do with their M8's, I really don't care. The M8 simply could not have got these photos as they are, and this kind of image is part of what I get paid for. If you go with an M8 for low light instead of say, a 500D or D700 or 5D2, then you are missing out on at least two more stops of low light fun.
p.14 #13 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
OT: I like these photos Brainiac, correct doses of glam/candid/real.
Jun 18, 2009 at 01:14 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #14 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Thanks Spyro! I handed over 1761 pictures from that night. I try to shoot a narrative rather than a handful of egotographic award winners because that's what I think will give my customers maximum happiness. I would guess that about half the pictures from this event are without flash. With an M8 I would estimate that no more than 10% could have been made without flash, and low light ambient failure rate would be much higher, which would be very frustrating. I would have delivered far fewer. This is why I think the M8 can't reach into the gloom as well as even a 500D with f1.4ish lenses.
p.14 #15 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
To the OP: I'd also consider the E-P1 because it is much cheaper than the M8, because it has BIS, because you can have AF with some lenses and because you can mount practically any lens on it.
Apologies if it was discussed before. I haven't read the whole thread.
p.14 #16 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
Thanks Spyro! I handed over 1761 pictures from that night. I try to shoot a narrative rather than a handful of egotographic award winners because that's what I think will give my customers maximum happiness. I would guess that about half the pictures from this event are without flash. With an M8 I would estimate that no more than 10% could have been made without flash, and low light ambient failure rate would be much higher, which would be very frustrating. I would have delivered far fewer. This is why I think the M8 can't reach into the gloom as well as even a 500D with f1.4ish lenses....Show more →
I also really liked these Brainiac; they do remind of a fashion /lifestyle photoshoot. Very nice work!
I have used the M8 in a low light event, and even though I found it easier to focus than my 5D by a long margin, the sensor just couldn't produce the photos the 5D did. For a working photographer, using the M8 as a proffesional tool would be more infatuation than practicality. In such conditions, the keeper rate just wouldn't be there.
p.14 #17 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Quick question.
Many people I find seem to think that the m8 is faster to focus, beacause they don't. You just put it at f/5.6-8 and prefocus hyperfocal, that way you can lift the camera up and snap away. But that doesen't really work for the stuff I do, I'm looking for a m8 to use with a 35 1.4/50 1.1/75 1.4 combo, for isolated subjects.. is the m8 still fast?
Jun 18, 2009 at 09:56 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #18 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Thanks rocket!
Jun 18, 2009 at 09:56 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.14 #19 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
Quick question.
Many people I find seem to think that the m8 is faster to focus, beacause they don't. You just put it at f/5.6-8 and prefocus hyperfocal, that way you can lift the camera up and snap away. But that doesen't really work for the stuff I do, I'm looking for a m8 to use with a 35 1.4/50 1.1/75 1.4 combo, for isolated subjects.. is the m8 still fast?
The M8 has no greater depth of field than a 1.3 crop SLR. I frequently set my 5D2 lenses at a guessed distance and use f8-11 for leeway. The technique is identical across SLR and rangefinder. Moreover, the 500D's excellent iso 3200 setting and higher crop factor mean that it is a better hyperfocal camera than an M8 because it uses shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view, and you can set a smaller aperture for any given shutter speed. I would guess that the hyperfocal technique is traditionally associated with rangefinders because of the delay that focus-recompose introduces to the shooting process, and the paucity of good focus feedback in RF viewfinders.
p.14 #20 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
A 500D is hardly a suitable solution for very low light photography when you're forced to manual focus with its tiny viewfinder. An M8 likely isn't either, but in terms of focus the 500D is certainly no better.
