rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #12 · Using Leica together with other camera brands? | |
Arka wrote:
Whoa. Is that an original 1Ds? I remember drooling over those almost two decades ago! 11MP full frame in a weather-proof body seems utterly insane. How the world changes!
rico wrote:
Yeah, 1Ds, the camera that buried Hasselblad AB.  Was my front-line studio machine for 10 years, and I adapted all kinds of crazy lenses. Weighs a freaking ton but the handling was divine. Still own it, too.
Arka wrote:
It was a machine that I really wanted but could never justify that $8000 price tag. Closest I got was the 1D Mark II (which is a camera I dearly loved and used for over 8 years before switching to Nikon for the wides).
I got the original 4MP APS-H 1D back at the end of 2001 and it had a very distinctive 'look' thanks to its color profiles (crushed shadows to hide shadow noise - just like the M9 and M240 10 years later!) and CCD sensor. I remember having a chance to use a 1Ds at a Canon event when it was released and the color response from its CMOS sensor was totally different. I actually liked it a lot better than the 1D, which I didn't like color-wise, until I started using Capture One for RAW conversions. But I also couldn't justify the cost; the 1D was already a bit of a stretch at CAD 7,200 with Canon Canada CPS pricing, back when that was still available.
I immediately added the 1DII when it was released to benefit from 8MP, but like the 1Ds, its CMOS sensor had a totally different look from the 1D and it was a bit of a pain to shoot both at events because of the extra work in post to get consistent color/tonality. The 1DII's CMOS files were definitely more malleable than the 'brittle' 1D's CCD files but the II's AA filter must have been way more aggressive because unsharpened SOOC images just looked soft compared to the 1D, which was complained about by some.
Anyway, my foray into Leica was a direct result of not liking Canon's wide angle lenses during the pre 2010-2012 era. One of the big issues I was having at events was AF focusing wide angle focal lengths on something higher contrast directly behind the intended point of focus. And this was very difficult, if not impossible, to see in the OVF. I thought about adding Zeiss ZE wides, but focus would still be hit or miss due to the nature of the focusing screen and focus assist feature. And the ZEs were generally huge and heavy metal lenses. I didn't want to add even more bulk and weight to my kit. Canon's 1DIII AF 'debacle' resulted in even less shot to shot focus consistency, which I compensated for with 'spray and pray' for everything I covered. Instead of a lateral system switch to Nikon (the only real DSLR option at the time), I opted for Leica because of the small, sharp lenses and the inherent accuracy of manually focusing wide angle lenses with a rangefinder. IMO it's the only focusing system that is fast and easy to use with high accuracy/repeatability when manually focusing wide angle lenses (mirrorless is now superior for wide angle AF accuracy, most of the time). The other appeal of the M system was that it was totally different from DSLRs and something new to play with that no one else in my area was using.
I was happy that I finally got consistently in focus wide angle photos with the M system, but it being the M9, there were a lot of quirks that were part of the deal, like image banding, lock ups, very small buffer and potential image loss. An annoying one was edge color shift requiring use of Corner Fix, or similar, to remove from most of the suboptimal non-digital wide angle designs available at the time.
I'll be honest - because mirrorless has pretty much addressed all of the focusing shortcomings with DSLRs, it's difficult for me to keep using my M240 along side mirrorless *while* shooting client events. Yes, there are certainly times when working intimate events with a more discreet camera like the M is enjoyable, but swapping between systems on the fly breaks the flow and worse, adds time in post to unify the divergent Leica and Canon color responses (IMO Canon's is better in mixed artificial lighting conditions).
So now the M is for me more about a carry solution that slots between phone camera and full mirrorless kit, for the times I want 'real camera' image quality in a smaller package and at a more leisurely, considered pace. Honestly, any camera system can do that kind of work, so for me it's more about the fun I have with the 'Leica experience' on such outings.
|
