I need a tripod for any exposure longer than 1/4s. The problem with my M240 was that whenever I wanted to shoot exposures up to 8s at high ISO, or 60s at low ISO, they effectively became 16s and 2m respectively thanks to dark-frame subtraction. And anything above 60s (low ISO) or 8s (high ISO) was impossible due to Leica's limitations on maximum exposure times. How does a tripod get around those constraints? Also, do you believe that those kinds of constraints are part-and-parcel with Leica's effort to avoid being "one size fits all?" I for one seriously doubt that - this seem more like a technological constraint in the sensors Leica uses for its cameras.
Everyone knows the Leica Ms are lightweight manual focus cameras with very little automation - that's part of the bargain and appeal. It certainly was for me. But the long exposure constraint is one that I discovered myself - I took my lightweight Leica kit out into the back-country to do some astro-photography and realized after a very long hike that I couldn't do it. When I discussed it with the salespeople at the Los Angeles Leica boutique, even they weren't aware of these constraints and were quite surprised. And since there's literally no other camera manufacturer utilizing similar long-exposure constraints, purchasers of Leica's $7000+ cameras are quite likely (like me) to be surprised at such a peculiar omission in capability.
That's an interesting generalization of the Leica M's somewhat narrowed use cases, but I do understand the appeal. I also understand your preference for dedicated tools (one that I vehemently disagree with on video, but no need to debate that point). And I am happy that the Leica M works for you. But let me ask you this - if the M10 offered everything it does now and included video, would you have refused to purchase it because it offered a feature that you would never consider using? ...Show more →
I would have waited like I did with the M 240. They came out with the M 262 and I bought that. As far as using the M 10 at long exposures I have used it that way on a tripod. 60 seconds with a cable release NO PROBLEMS. When I am working on a tripod I always make sure I have cable release.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I would have waited like I did with the M 240. They came out with the M 262 and I bought that. As far as using the M 10 at long exposures I have used it that way on a tripod. 60 seconds with a cable release NO PROBLEMS. When I am working on a tripod I always make sure I have cable release.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I always had a cable release and used it - it's a very lightweight item. The issue isn't whether I can keep the shutter open with a cable release. The issue is that the M240 would not permit exposure of longer than 60s under any circumstance even with a cable release. If you try to run the exposure past 60s, the shutter closes (at 100ISO) and begins a shooting a dark-frame of equivalent duration for noise reduction, rendering your camera useless for another 60s. The higher the ISO, the shorter the maximum shutter speed. On my M240, it was 8s at 800ISO.
Arka wrote:
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I always had a cable release and used it - it's a very lightweight item. The issue isn't whether I can keep the shutter open with a cable release. The issue is that the M240 would not permit exposure of longer than 60s under any circumstance even with a cable release. If you try to run the exposure past 60s, the shutter closes (at 100ISO) and begins a shooting a dark-frame of equivalent duration for noise reduction, rendering your camera useless for another 60s. The higher the ISO, the shorter the maximum shutter speed. On my M240, it was 8s at 800ISO. ...Show more →
My Kodak SLR/C had a similar matrix & mandatory NR programming when you took the ISO down 6, 12, 25 or 50 or ran exposures 1-30 seconds (iirc). Your point regarding the camera "taking control" at a certain point and you having no control over it is noted. Because of the inherent matrix programming with / equal time NR processing, I never really could use the uber-low ISO's (which were really emulations anyway) the way I would have liked for long exposures.
Not many folks are aware of how the SLR/C functioned with the mandatory / equal NR blackout time. I'm guessing some folks aren't aware of what you describe as being an actual function of the camera, thus they don't follow how / why it would be a concern. I realize that my SLR/C isn't a Leica ... but, the programming approach (and mandatory equal NR programming) sounds similar.
I'm not surprised that the Kodak SLR/n and /c cameras had such constraints. I never owned a 1Ds but it may have had them too. But that was 2004 - over 15 years ago. As I recall those cameras were barely suitable for long-exposure astrophotography anyway - that didn't really become a thing until 2010-12, with the 5D Mark II, Nikon D700, D3x, D3, and D800.
I'm not aware of any camera contemporaneous to the release date of the M240 (2013) or M10 (2017) that has similar constraints - other than of course the two Leica cameras in question. I've read that the M10 at least increases the maximum exposure duration to 120s at low ISO - an improvement over its predecessor but nothing close to what cameras from pretty much any other manufacturer can do in this specific area.
RustyBug wrote:
My Kodak SLR/C had a similar matrix & mandatory NR programming when you took the ISO down 6, 12, 25 or 50 or ran exposures 1-30 seconds (iirc). Your point regarding the camera "taking control" at a certain point and you having no control over it is noted. Because of the inherent matrix programming with / equal time NR processing, I never really could use the uber-low ISO's (which were really emulations anyway) the way I would have liked for long exposures.
Not many folks are aware of how the SLR/C functioned with the mandatory / equal NR blackout time. I'm guessing some folks aren't aware of what you describe as being an actual function of the camera, thus they don't follow how / why it would be a concern. I realize that my SLR/C isn't a Leica ... but, the programming approach (and mandatory equal NR programming) sounds similar.
Arka wrote:
I'm not surprised that the Kodak SLR/n and /c cameras had such constraints. I never owned a 1Ds but it may have had them too. But that was 2004 - over 15 years ago. As I recall those cameras were barely suitable for long-exposure astrophotography anyway - that didn't really become a thing until 2010-12, with the 5D Mark II, Nikon D700, D3x, D3, and D800.
I'm not aware of any camera contemporaneous to the release date of the M240 (2013) or M10 (2017) that has similar constraints - other than of course the two Leica cameras in question. I've read that the M10 at least increases the maximum exposure duration to 120s at low ISO - an improvement over its predecessor but nothing close to what cameras from pretty much any other manufacturer can do in this specific area.
"Barely suitable" for astro ... hmmm, that's a stretch.
I liked my SLR/C a lot. Particularly for its no AA & its RGB value display (way better than a histo, imo) ... but, it was a one trick pony at base ISO 160. Okay, may 320 in good light, but forget 800 or 1600 in dark / underexposed applications.
I had hoped that I could go "long & low" like I used to with low ASA film (reciprocity failure notwithstanding), but alas it never panned out like that. Even so, it was my main FF body until about two years ago.
IIRC the SL also has mandatory LENR. Not sure about the S-series cameras. Leica finally got the message with the SL2 and at least allows the user to disable LENR.
Another camera I had with LENR similar to Leica was the M-mount module for the Ricoh GXR. Mandatory LENR that locks out the use of the camera for an immediate dark frame subtraction is very 2000s technology.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
There's an interview on YouTube with Dr. Kaufmann where he's asked about future Leica products he'd be interested in making, and he mentioned (along with a watch and a smartphone) wanting to make a "Leikina": a stripped-down digital video camera. That, I could maybe get on board with. The watch and cell phone... not so much. He acknowledged that Leica has lagged in this field and foresees Street Videography and reportage-style documentary filmmaking as fitting within the general ethos Leica is about. I'm also really confused by why they dropped video from the M10, and suspect that it was much more about tech than about maintaining the bloodline, but none of us will really ever know the whole story there. ...Show more →
From what I've read (not necessarily from official sources), in order to make the M10 thinner, there wasn't sufficient space for effective heat dissipation in order to provide appropriate video capability. That said, the M10 does support live view... Elsewhere I read many M customers asked Leica to drop video.
I have the M240 and have shot some video with it; my impression about the quality of the footage was not that great. I prefer the footage out of my Canon 1DXII. It's better in respect to controlling color and tonality. I don't like the M240's SOOC Jpeg color to begin with and forget about the film emulations for video because those are way too high contrast, at least for my liking.
You learn something new every day. In all the years I've been shooting digital I have never needed a shutter speed at 100 ISO longer than 60 seconds. In fact I think the the only time I used it with film was large format and then you had resiprocity failure or as Adams called it the resiprocity effect to deal with. And that could be different with different emulsions. I think for the majority of M owners this is a non issue just like no video is a non issue.
Heat dissipation ... something most folks never want to consider the need for it. All the while when they want more, bigger & faster (power / heat) attributes, it does have to be contended with in engineering design.
airfrogusmc wrote:
You learn something new every day. In all the years I've been shooting digital I have never needed a shutter speed at 100 ISO longer than 60 seconds. In fact I think the the only time I used it with film was large format and then you had resiprocity failure or as Adams called it the resiprocity effect to deal with. And that could be different with different emulsions. I think for the majority of M owners this is a non issue just like no video is a non issue.
I would agree that the majority of folks don't get an M for the long exposure attributes. Kinda like most folks don't buy a convertible to haul lumber either (although, it can be done).
RustyBug wrote:
I would agree that the majority of folks don't get an M for the long exposure attributes. Kinda like most folks don't buy a convertible to haul lumber either (although, it can be done).
Really...? Took quite often long exposure shots with my M6 in recent past. Works as well as with any other camera (on film of course considering the reciprocity factor). Taken with TMax 400 film, exposure times between 1 to 3 seconds. I haven't used my M-series cameras with 10-stop ND filter, but I certainly could do so. I have also used it with IR film and dark R72 cutoff filter leading to exposure times well above 3 seconds without issues.
airfrogusmc wrote:
retrofocus I picked the M for street work which is very fast paced. Nothing better for that and fast candid work in my opinion.
It seems to be made for that kind of work.
I am using my Ms sometimes for this purpose, too - advantage here is that the cameras in general are not very conspicuous and now blend in by having a sort of similar look to other MLC brand cameras. That they are relatively small including the lenses made and makes them desirable in street photography. But they are by far not limited for this purpose. I am using my Ms even for low light scenic photography, landscape, portrait, and architecture photography. Long exposure is simply applied whenever needed or a situation for it comes up - as I said, no biggie, I just need a tripod and cable release.
Really...? Took quite often long exposure shots with my M6 in recent past. Works as well as with any other camera (on film of course considering the reciprocity factor). Taken with TMax 400 film, exposure times between 1 to 3 seconds. I haven't used my M-series cameras with 10-stop ND filter, but I certainly could do so. I have also used it with IR film and dark R72 cutoff filter leading to exposure times well above 3 seconds without issues.
The only things where the M-series has issues with is for macro and action photography IMO.
I should have been more specific ... digital M's for long exposure aren't likely the main reason most folks buy digital M's.
Of course any film camera (it's just a hole in a box) can shoot long exposures ... i.e. film is, ummm, film dependent ... not body dependent. Whereas digital, the "film" is now dependent upon the body with the sensor (i.e. capture media) inherently built in.
RustyBug wrote:
I should have been more specific ... digital M's for long exposure aren't likely the main reason most folks buy digital M's.
Of course any film camera (it's just a hole in a box) can shoot long exposures ... i.e. film is, ummm, film dependent ... not body dependent. Whereas digital, the "film" is now dependent upon the body with the sensor (i.e. capture media) inherently built in.
Don't quite get how the camera - no matter if film or digital - itself should make a difference for long exposure or not. They all can do long exposure shooting! Timelapse is maybe a different story, but this wasn't mentioned here. I have taken long exposure with my DSLRs, my MLC, my 35 mm, my 6x6 and 6x7 medium format, and my 4x5" large format cameras. The principle was always the same. I can't see how the sensor plays a critical role here either. Maybe for long exposure noise reduction? All digital cameras have something like this.
retrofocus wrote:
I am using my Ms sometimes for this purpose, too - advantage here is that the cameras in general are not very conspicuous and now blend in by having a sort of similar look to other MLC brand cameras. That they are relatively small including the lenses made and makes them desirable in street photography. But they are by far not limited for this purpose. I am using my Ms even for low light scenic photography, landscape, portrait, and architecture photography. Long exposure is simply applied whenever needed or a situation for it comes up - as I said, no biggie, I just need a tripod and cable release. ...Show more →
I use my M 10s and M 262 mostly for my pro work. My MM mostly for persoanl work. I recetly photogrpahed a cleints large car collecion 70 + cars which is going to be a coffee table book and I used my Ms for that. Large 10 X 30 foot soft box overhead with 4 4808 Blackline Speedotrons with 4 heads each.
I would say about 40 % of what I shoot includes formal or environmnetal portraits. I sometimes shoot at very shallow DoFs with my 90 f/2 summicron APO wide open. Or sometimes my 50 1.2 Nokton and my 35 Lux FLE. I find focusing manually in low light with say my 90 2 or 50 1.2 a lot more consistant and faster than auto focus. But I have had decades of manual focus experience. I find rangefinders are easier than manual focusing a SLR and a lot easier than a DSLR.
For street work I usually just set the ISO to 1600 or 3200 ISO use DoF scales so I am prefocused (no auto focus is faster than that). I have the cameras exposure pre set. All Id do is compose and push the shutter. Just wait of the moment to happen like many of hte greats do/did.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I use my M 10s and M 262 mostly for my pro work. My MM mostly for persoanl work. I recetly photogrpahed a cleints large car collecion 70 + cars which is going to be a coffee table book and I used my Ms for that. Large 10 X 30 foot soft box overhead with 4 4808 Blackline Speedotrons with 4 heads each.
I would say about 40 % of what I shoot includes formal or environmnetal portraits. I sometimes shoot at very shallow DoFs with my 90 f/2 summicron APO wide open. Or sometimes my 50 1.2 Nokton and my 35 Lux FLE. I find focusing manually in low light with say my 90 2 or 50 1.2 a lot more consistant and faster than auto focus. But I have had decades of manual focus experience. I find rangefinders are easier than manual focusing a SLR and a lot easier than a DSLR.
For street work I usually just set the ISO to 1600 or 3200 ISO use DoF scales so I am prefocused (no auto focus is faster than that). I have the cameras exposure pre set. All Id do is compose and push the shutter. Just wait of the moment to happen like many of hte greats do/did.
I don't contradict this at all - the point raised by RustyBug was that M-cameras wouldn't be as suitable for long exposure photography to which I replied to. It doesn't mean that rangefinder cameras can be used for all kind of different work.
I think I said something like I didn't think that most that choose Leica M 60 sec ot longer exposures or long exposure in general would be a priority. I still think the majority of Leice M owners know exactly what Leica Ms are good at and usually buy them to preform those tasks. They are clearly not for everyone and are certianly not a one size fits all camera which I am grateful for. Retro, I agree that they are and can be used very efectlvely for long exposures.
retrofocus wrote:
Don't quite get how the camera - no matter if film or digital - itself should make a difference for long exposure or not.
"it" being the camera body.
For film, "it" has no bearing.
For digital, "it" has significant bearing.
If that isn't readily obvious (to the point I kinda feel silly even pointing it out), then I suspect you'll not be able to understand the point(s) that have been trying to be made regarding the LENR process inherently applied in some cameras.
For film, "it" has no bearing.
For digital, "it" has significant bearing.
If that isn't readily obvious (to the point I kinda feel silly even pointing it out), then I suspect you'll not be able to understand the point(s) that have been trying to be made regarding the LENR process inherently applied in some cameras.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see in any of your earlier threads here that you brought up LENR related to Leica (I only see it when you mentioned some Kodak SLR). Do you have personal experience with any Leica rangefinder camera?
