retrofocus wrote:
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?
I believe others have already been speaking to that. I brought up my experience the the SLR/C to offer up the fact that LENR can be an inconvenient issue for some ... whether it is in a Leica body or otherwise. I believe that was the point that was trying to be made, that some seemed to be having trouble with grasping / following / understanding that it could be a real point of concern for some folks. Just another data point regarding LENR.
RustyBug wrote:
I believe others have already been speaking to that. I brought up my experience the the SLR/C to offer up the fact that LENR can be an inconvenient issue for some ... whether it is in a Leica body or otherwise. I believe that was the point that was trying to be made, that some seemed to be having trouble with grasping / following / understanding that it could be a real point of concern for some folks. Just another data point regarding LENR.
Ok, thanks, got it now. Yes, LENR can be different when comparing newer MLC and rangefinder cameras. I have this function in my MLC and always turn it off. I tried it a few times, and it only slowed down the process when taking long exposures with not much benefit in the end. This might have changed in newer models - it is something I can't tell from my personal experience. I only know that I don't need this kind of function for my personal style in photography - I wouldn't pay much attention to this option when considering to buy a new digital camera. For others who do lots of astro/night shooting, it might be a different story (not my area). To me resolution and DR remain #1 on my list. Also the main reason why I personally did not consider the M10 (didn't want to go back to 24 MP FF).
I guess my point was if the camera is on a tripod and you are working in long times with stationary objects, which is what I think you would be working with in this case, I can't see the extra time being that big of a deal.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I guess my point was if the camera is on a tripod and you are working in long times with stationary objects, which is what I think you would be working with in this case, I can't see the extra time being that big of a deal.
Well, when you're wanting to do a 5 minute exposure, and it won't go longer than 1 minute, or 30 seconds, then that becomes a bit restrictive. You're probably right about the "double time" ... a guy could just get his head wrapped into the process better so that 1 minute = 2 minutes, etc. It's kind of a double whammy on the extra time AND the restriction that makes you yearn for something different after a while.
Alas, that was then.
I've not done any LE for quite some time now. But, that same (arbitrary) 5 minute exposure effort @ ISO 100, should become about 10 seconds @ 3200 with a relatively modern sensor.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I guess my point was if the camera is on a tripod and you are working in long times with stationary objects, which is what I think you would be working with in this case, I can't see the extra time being that big of a deal.
It's maybe not a big deal if you have the time and patience to wait for LENR and nothing is changing in the scene you're photographing. One example of the inconvenience of LENR, from personal experience, is photographing fireworks. Often the shows are only 15-20 minutes. If as an example you were working with 30 second exposures, with LENR you'd only get 15-20 shots and would miss the other half of the show. Once Canon finally dropped mandatory LENR back around 2010 (the cameras let you start another exposure whenever you want), I could effectively shoot an entire show.
If you shoot a lot of that then M would not be a great choice. Not an issue for some and those it is an issue lotsa room to move around with other choices.
To put it in some kind of perspective though the last time I shot anything over 1 minute I was shooting large format 30 years ago.
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.
The majority of M owners and Leica sales personnel aren't even aware that this constraint exists, so yeah, you're probably right. I just got back from an event at the local Leica boutique peopled by pretty senior folks from Leica's NJ office (tech and BD), and when I asked about long-exposure limitations, none were aware such things existed. They promised to get back to me as to whether those issues were eliminated on the M10 - each seemed certain that it would nigh impossible for a camera as good as the M10 to be hobbled in such an absurd way. They're in for a surprise.
I myself "discovered" the constraint when I took my M on a hike to do some landscape photography in the back-country, and decided to also try my hand at using it for night-time work as well. That's not what I bought it for, but I also had no reason to suspect that it was utterly incapable of it. Night time work is often done at ISOs 800 or above, and at these ISOs the M240 closes the shutter after a mere 8s. I was so surprised that I thought there was something wrong with my camera! On that same trip I also tried doing some late afternoon/early evening seascape work at ISO 640 and experienced similarly frustrating ceilings on long exposures. When I took it in to Leica to see if there was something that could be done, the response was surprise followed by more surprise from both me and the support staff - the LENR and timing constraints were hard-wired into the camera.
The particular reason I raise the long-exposure constraint is because (1) it does affect certain edge-cases in my own and others' shooting, as attested to by me here and in other Leica forums, and (2) few if any sales representatives even knew that about it. I was annoyed to discover these limitations in the field, and surprised by those who defend (without invitation or cause) such submarine limitations by simply shrugging that "hey, the camera's not for everyone! you should've known better!" You have said many times that the M camera is entirely suited to your needs. Good, I'm glad! But the Leica customer community is not defined by your needs alone - I also am a part of it and might be a more active member were it not for some of these deeply buried "issues."
Arka wrote:
Night time work is often done at ISOs 800 or above, and at these ISOs the M240 closes the shutter after a mere 8s.
This "matrix" of time / ISO restraints if very reminiscent of my SLR/C. The extra time for the LENR to run the dark frame was one thing, but you had little / no control (iirc, I had a couple choices for some ISO's) over the time ... well, for me ... that matrix thing kind defeated the purpose on many occasions.
Of course, I simply abandoned the notion of using the SLR/C for such work. The bummer to that was the allure of using ISO 6 or 12 for LE work was part of the attraction to the camera for me. Yours is not the specific case of such intended use, but we are always bummed when there is a mismatch between our tools and our expectations. I can feel your frustration. It will certainly be interesting to learn what Leica comes back with.
While I'm not likely to be in the Leica owner ranks soon (someday ) ... I do try to keep some tabs on what they do at times. Every time I go to the optometrist and see the Big Red Dot on his equipment, well (imo) there's a reason it doesn't say SoCaNikon on it. I figure they likely know a thing or two about optics.
RustyBug wrote:
While I'm not likely to be in the Leica owner ranks soon (someday ) ... I do try to keep some tabs on what they do at times. Every time I go to the optometrist and see the Big Red Dot on his equipment, well (imo) there's a reason it doesn't say SoCaNikon on it. I figure they likely know a thing or two about optics.
As I said, I am using Leica lens and Leica film camera gear since now > 5 years. Incentive to me to go with Leica was the small lens size - I owned several years Leica lenses without even using a Leica camera. I used them first only on my MLC before curiosity set in and I got my first Leica M film camera. That's where I am still to this day. I like the M-system since my style in photography does not rely on AF most of the time. Regarding image quality, I don't see much of a difference compared to good Canon, Cosina-Voigtlander, or Zeiss glass. I doubt somebody can tell from photos taken with each kind of gear the difference. On the other hand I can definitely tell a difference when going back in time and comparing it to vintage Leica gear. I can see a Leica image style clearly there. And yes, the red dot - I have hidden it behind gaffer tape on all my M cameras to avoid causing undesired attention.
To me the big advantage these days in digital Leica camera gear is for the rangefinder itself. IMO it is the fastest and most accurate way to focus with manual lenses in distances of > 1 meter. This is it. There is unfortunately no other market option out there. Would this alone justify the hefty price tag? Here opinions will differ. It doesn't for me, but I can see why people go for it.
I think if you are trying to do star trails then Leica M digital is not the tool for the job. I have several friends that have digital Ms and they like me didn't know that this existed but like me for them it's not an issue. I just tried the M 10 at 3200 and it closes the shutter at 16 secs.
Several years back I photographed an imaging scanner that is used in macro nuerosurgery that is used during procedures while the patient is awake so the surgeon can see where he is removing things and can avoid areas that can damage function while removing tumors. That imaging device almost the size of a smart car was Leica and costs about a half million dollars. Most of the microscopes in healthcare are Zeiss or Leica.
Historically, beside the very first Leica they have not been cameras that adopt bells and whistles. How long did it take for Leica M to have a meter and they are now digital and are still manual focus? (thank God). Many of Leicas older lenses designed in the film era out perform many of the digital era lenses and certainly have a different visual signature.
Leica M rangefinders are not for everyone but Leica is one of the few camera companies that sales have been increasing. They are small compared to the big boys and always have been but they have a products that only they make.
No one else makes a dedicated B&W 135 format digital camera. No one else makes a digital camera with no screen. Now one else makes a digital rangefinder like the M 10. Sure those markets are small but there is a market for them. The M 10 had a years waiting list when it was released.
Rangefinders are not for everyone and they do not function like DSLRs or most of the mirrorless cameras made today. So to the OP if you are looking for all the stuff then a Leica M digtial camera is probably not for you. Maybe an SL2?
My idea for the perfect Leica M digital would be a totally mechanical cocking and shutter mechanism. 24 mps is enough but maybe a bit higher ISO performance. The M 10 is usable to about 20,000 ISO really good at 6400 unlike the M 262 same sensor as the M 240 which 3200 is pushing it. I would compare 3200 from M 262 to 12,500 on the M 10. I give the M 10 a 2 stop edge. Another difference in the M 10 is the shadow detail that can be pulled up at highter ISO without the banding that I get with the 262.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Several years back I photographed an imaging scanner that is used in macro nuerosurgery that is used during procedures while the patient is awake so the surgeon can see where he is removing things and can avoid areas that can damage function while removing tumors. That imaging device almost the size of a smart car was Leica and costs about a half million dollars. Most of the microscopes in healthcare are Zeiss or Leica.
Also let's remind ourselves that Leica Camera, Leica Microsystems, and Leica Geosystems are different entities with different ownership. One thing they have in common though besides the Leica original name - they are all expensive.
retrofocus wrote:
Also let's remind ourselves that Leica Camera, Leica Microsystems, and Leica Geosystems are different entities with different ownership. One thing they have in common though besides the Leica original name - they are all expensive.
I am very lucky in the fact my pro work pays for all of my equipment. And that work has put in in a position to be able to buy anything I need to do my job. For me Leica M fits the way I see and work period. Also if I still had a darkroom I would still e shooting film (probably M3 or M2) in some capacity. My clients moved me out of film(kicking and screaming) to digital in 2005. Canon was FF digital (Leica hadn't entered the digtal world yet) so I went Canon.
I would say that the Nicanon pro cameras, give or take, are in the same price range as the M 10. Im old enough to remember when Leica M was twice as expensive as the top o the line Nicanons. BTW I still have my old F-1s. Leica has always been expensive.
If I didn't do this professionally I don't know if I would have Leica M or any of the top o the line Nicanons either. I do think when I retire I will sell my 2 M 10s and mhy M 262 and pick up the M10 mono (depending on what that will look like) and keep my original MM and an CCD M-E. Or if I retire to Northern NM an old 8x10 Deardorff and return to large format.
No one else makes a digital camera with no screen.
Interesting that you mention this. The Fuji boys are busy bashing the Pro-3 for having a screen that is out of view during normal use (yet available for flip down viewing) ... saying this makes no sense to them why Fuji would do such a thing. Imo, they're kinda doing the same thing (for shooting), just with an option to view.
No surprise there. The masses couldn't get their heads around the MM. I remember right before it was released and the rumors were the only real info they were saying it is crazy to release a B&W only camera. It will be the downfall of Leica blah blah and it turned out to be a big success. All the internet and forum experts. ha ha.
I'm sure the Xpro3 will be a great camera and Fuji will do well by it. I shot some with an Xpro1 before I went Leica. I also tried the M 9. I preferred the M9. FF is a must for me because I shoot so much wide angle. Also I prefer the simpler menu's and the handling of Leica but I do think the Fujis are very nice cameras.
airfrogusmc wrote:
No surprise there. The masses couldn't get their heads around the MM. I remember right before it was released and the rumors were the only real info they were saying it is crazy to release a B&W only camera. It will be the downfall of Leica blah blah and it turned out to be a big success. All the internet and forum experts. ha ha.
I'm sure the Xpro3 will be a great camera and Fuji will do well by it. I shot some with an Xpro1 before I went Leica. I also tried the M 9. I preferred the M9. FF is a must for me because I shoot so much wide angle. Also I prefer the simpler menu's and the handling of Leica but I do think the Fujis are very nice cameras.
I remember this - I felt instantly excited about the B&W-only camera when it was announced. Clearly this is where Leica captured a nice niche area which wasn't filled yet. A success for Leica even now you can achieve something similar via modification where the color array is removed on the CMOS sensor (Kolarivision offers it for example and some members here on FM are using such modified A7 series camera).
Even most people (the ones who use Leica and judging from reviews) seem to be a fan of the M9, but I haven't. I had a chance to test a M9 two years ago in a local photo store, but I was not really thrilled by it. I had my M7 with me for comparison which was a good idea. Instantly I realized that my M7 viewfinder was much brighter than the one of the M9 I tested. The time of releasing the shutter and the image being recorded was super long - I didn't see corrosion issues on its sensor (yet), but I walked away and never looked back. I am honestly surprised for how much money the M9 is still traded online.
Same reason for me why I don't look into small-format Fuji MLCs - not going back to APS-C since I am mostly shooting wide.
I do like the files from the M-E but the low light performance and slow buffer can be an issue for some. The M10 is very good in low light, very responsive and the shutter is very quiet. Love the M 10s viewfinder to. The ISO dial on the top right is also terrific in my opinion.
I think the reason the M9 prices remain high is many like the color from the CCD sensor.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I do like the files from the M-E but the low light performance and slow buffer can be an issue for some. The M10 is very good in low light, very responsive and the shutter is very quiet. Love the M 10s viewfinder to. The ISO dial on the top right is also terrific in my opinion.
I think the reason the M9 prices remain high is many like the color from the CCD sensor.
I also thought the VF on the M10, and the ISO dial, are significant improvements to the M10. As is the size.
Also, very good condition M10s are routinely available for under $5000. There was one at the Leica boutique actually, and Samy's LA has one for $4500 in pristine condition. When I saw that one (and the salesperson offered to give me a break on sales tax), I was sorely tempted.
retrofocus wrote:
Even most people (the ones who use Leica and judging from reviews) seem to be a fan of the M9, but I haven't. I had a chance to test a M9 two years ago in a local photo store, but I was not really thrilled by it. I had my M7 with me for comparison which was a good idea. Instantly I realized that my M7 viewfinder was much brighter than the one of the M9 I tested. The time of releasing the shutter and the image being recorded was super long - I didn't see corrosion issues on its sensor (yet), but I walked away and never looked back. I am honestly surprised for how much money the M9 is still traded online. ...Show more →
The M9 is far from a perfect camera. It's big feature is having the first FF sensor stuffed in an M body. Otherwise it's an M8, which was developed in the mid 2000s. I bought a used one online in late 2010 when it was nearly impossible to find them new or used. I had never seen one in person before opening the box. I was immediately turned off by the annoying sound of the shutter cocking motor/gears. Buffer depth was poor and got worse above ISO 640 IIRC, card write speed was slow. If you reviewed images while it was still writing to the card, at worst you risked write failure but the more likely result would be random banding visible in shadow areas. Technically, it was a camera nearly 10 years behind the times. To me at least, it sure felt like a digital 1.0 camera. But I guess that was also part of its charm - the analog origins were still quite present and its quirkiness meant it always seemed like a small marvel/miracle that it even worked at all. Despite all this, the RF experience, the lenses, and the resulting images won me over. Nine years later, I'm still plugging away with an M240. I've tried the M10 and it's definitely an improvement, bringing the M system to pretty much current level technology.
) ... I do try to keep some tabs on what they do at times. Every time I go to the optometrist and see the Big Red Dot on his equipment, well (imo) there's a reason it doesn't say SoCaNikon on it. I figure they likely know a thing or two about optics.