I was discussing before very specific circumstances with moving subjects, low light and manual focus that calls for some dof liberty, hence stopping down to say f4, so you dont have to chase people around with a razor thin dof. Thats the only application I can think of for extreme high iso, otherwise I'm generally with you.
A lot of us like to shoot in dim light without flash. I'm one. 2500 would usually be enough, if 2500 wasn't so blotchy here. I do end up shooting at f/1.4, ISO 3200 every once in a while to get shutter speed I need for hand holding.
ovredal73 wrote:
Are you being ironic or is it a serious test to be trusted? Where is it?
Serious test, very scientific polish site. You can use google translate but the MTF plot for 4 different cameras is at the bottom and very legible to english speakers. The Sigma macro (if you weren't aware) is likely a higher resolving lens than a 50 'cron, as amazing as a summicron can be.
Before moving up from M8 to M9, I want to make certain that the IQ between the two cameras is consistent. From what I've seen, so far so good.
I've really liked the look of my M8 images from the past several years ... and developed a comfort factor in what I'm shooting. Rangefinder shooting feels good for some and not so good for others. But, if does feel good to you, the M9 is a significant step forward for Leica. It's an incremental, yet necessary evolution. For me, the form factor is the same as the M8 and I can now get extra resolution, full frame, and a stop to a stop and a half in extra ISO. Bottom line, I'm very excited.
thrice wrote:
Serious test, very scientific polish site. You can use google translate but the MTF plot for 4 different cameras is at the bottom and very legible to english speakers. The Sigma macro (if you weren't aware) is likely a higher resolving lens than a 50 'cron, as amazing as a summicron can be.
Very interesting. At first look it seemed the M9 is noisy from 80 ISO onward, but then I realised it's the only camera that actually resolves the texture in the print label. Impressive!
I guess it is the lack of AA-filter that gives it an edge in detail from 80-800? or something like that. I'll bring with me a SD-card to the store and test the d700 and m9 against each other from iso 100/80-2500 on tuesday I think.
Wunderbar! As long as you don't need: AF, affordable SuperFast lenses, SuperTeles, ultimate hi ISO, hi FPS, reflex viewing, LCD confirmation of ultimate focus, etc, etc. The M9 appears to be a camera in search of a owner in search of just the right (limited) conditions for a M9 to excel. Otherwise a M9 is certainly finely crafted jewlery for "The Leica Man." And yes, I would like to have one too!
SoundHound wrote:
Wunderbar! As long as you don't need: AF, affordable SuperFast lenses, SuperTeles, ultimate hi ISO, hi FPS, reflex viewing, LCD confirmation of ultimate focus, etc, etc.
... but if you want the highest resolving 35mm FF camera, you've got to go with an M9 (of course, preliminary from the comparison samples). Sacrilege. And then the S2....
These guys are thinking outside the box. Seems the dentists, lawers, doctors, and all those poor rich guys everyone moans about on here have more clout with Leica than the whole FM board does with Canikon
SoundHound wrote:
Wunderbar! As long as you don't need: AF, affordable SuperFast lenses, SuperTeles, ultimate hi ISO, hi FPS, reflex viewing, LCD confirmation of ultimate focus, etc, etc. The M9 appears to be a camera in search of a owner in search of just the right (limited) conditions for a M9 to excel. Otherwise a M9 is certainly finely crafted jewlery for "The Leica Man." And yes, I would like to have one too!
Let's see... Would prefer RF to AF. Could buy Voigtlander for fast lenses. Don't use SuperTeles. Never go above 1600 ISO anyway. Sure don't need high FPS. Wouldn't need LCD confirmation of ultimate focus if the RF works right. Hmmmm
Still can't afford one
Jim
ffs, all the whiners just buy an slr? No one is making you like rangefinders or buy Leica which have never been cheap, who honestly expected them to price on par with canon/nikon etc? Ridiculous.
It's 1k more than the M8.2, I class that as a great deal. Don't compare used prices to new prices.
Oh and focus confirm is dubious at best, a rangefinder is more accurate to manual focus by eye anything wider than ~50mm and equal until beyond about 90mm.
Rangefinders are not for everyone. I happen to like them.
I can see myself getting an M9 plus a 28mm and a 50mm lens and leave it at that. I would keep the A900 for the "other stuff", like macro, and for the gorgeous 135/1.8 lens plus dSLR convenience. They compliment each other well.
But then I snap out of that day dream and realize what ELSE I could do with the money, instead. If I committed I could make it happen in a few weeks time but it would leave me shirtless with "broke" smeared over my torso, written in blood from my wallet, bled dry from the purchase. I would be standing there with the Leica hanging from my scrawny neck (scrawny as I could only afford three meals a week) hitching a hike to go somewhere and make good use of the M9. Well... ...a man can dream though. If the M9 had been released two months earlier I could very well have been an early adopter as it was around that time I broke off from the Canon camp.
But seriously: for traveling and hiking I would definitely "get by" with an RF camera, a 28 and a 50. It would be an amazing little package.
Also, it would go well with my scarf when I slip down to the coffee shop to have my decaf Latte and I would bring a little velvet pillow for it to "sit" on while I sip my Latte. (Last part not to be taken seriously )
thrice wrote:
ffs, all the whiners just buy an slr? No one is making you like rangefinders or buy Leica which have never been cheap, who honestly expected them to price on par with canon/nikon etc? Ridiculous.
It's 1k more than the M8.2, I class that as a great deal. Don't compare used prices to new prices.
Oh and focus confirm is dubious at best, a rangefinder is more accurate to manual focus by eye anything wider than ~50mm and equal until beyond about 90mm.
Fair enough. But wouldn't you be happier if this camera cost $3000 instead of $7000? I think all the complaints in this forum is for Leica to know that they will sell more cameras if they lower the price........ but of course, that's not gonna work........ but we try anyways!
I'll test mine against my 5D-II when I get the M9 in a month or so (waiting lists).
