After having checked the comparisons on Reid reviews, I have realized the 007 would be much more suitable to my style. The 006 is like an M9 and the 007 is like an M240. I don't think I will be happy with the low light performance of the 006 especially with the summarit lenses. So now my aim is the 007 which gives me some time until it starts to become widely available and the price slightly drops.
Re: Leica S
Most definitely agree with Edward on that 006-M9/007-M240 comparison. In my mind if I ever bought a DSLR again I'd really consider the S system. Slightly bigger but medium format with great lenses. Not sure what I'd use it for though...but it's certainly a nice niche Leica has carved out for itself like it has with the rangefinders.
I'm also considering the S2 and I appreciate that it renders similar to the M9 but coming from an M9 the S2 is really bulky. I used the camera yesterday and like it but I tend to not buy into the system due to its size and weight. After having used the M9 for more than five years exclusively, an autofocus camera feels really strange. Hard to believe for most of the people who don't own a M.
Continuing with the harsh midday light. While the first picture is shot directly in the sun, the second one shows how dark the shady side of the street is compard to the sunny side. The thing that usually doesn't work in this type of harsh light are pictures at wide apertures in which there are blobs of blown out highlights in the bokeh that take over the picture but, as always, there are exceptions in which photographers can even make that work, but only rarely.
On the discussion of the Leica S cameras they can certainly provide beautiful tonal gradation and deailed resolution but that simply doesn't interest me for my own work because I have always been attracted to what in the film days was called "the 35mm aesthetic". Leica forums used to be full of discussions of how you "shouldn't print over 8x10 inches with 35mm negatives" and that you needed medium format film for larger prints I never bought into that.
Today Leica-M digital cameras can if you want to achieve what was called the "medium format look". My own effort often is to rough up M9 and M-Monochrom shots in keeping with the 35mm aesthetic. Don't get me wrong: I like what I see being done with Leica-S camera; it's just that it's not what I want to do.
M9-P | Summilux-35 ASPH-FLE | ISO 180 | f/8.0 | 1/500 sec Chiang Mai
M9-P | Summilux-35 ASPH-FLE | ISO 180 | f/5.6 | 1/180 sec Chiang Mai
Joakim, Mitch, Edward, Rene....Loving your recent work
I would try an 006 or 7 in a heartbeat. Much more interesting to me than the SL from an image standpoint, though the SL as machine is attractive. But the 240 or M9 seem easily to equal the SL for day to day use.
50 cron. I love the newer cameras, but frankly, not more than this one. It will struggle at times. Then it catches something you never expected. I never had a camera capable of such surprise. So many personalites I still am only sure of what I may see in the most obvious situations.
So far, so good with M lenses on the SL. I have found that each of the M lenses I own works as well or better on the SL as on the M240 or M246. Having the benefit of the incredible EVF on the SL means that I get more accurate focuses with the SL, and this is coming from one who considers himself to be better than average when focusing with a rangefinder camera.
Don't get me wrong, I love the M. Thinking I could do without it, I sold my M-P 240 when the SL was announced, only to replace it after just a couple of weeks. Will the SL ever replace the M in my toolkit? Probably not, but only time will tell. In the meantime, I am enjoying the benefit of having them both.
Here is a photograph taken with VM Heliar ASPH III 15/4.5. This little lens delivers in spades on the M, and it performs beautifully on the SL using the lens code for the Elmarit-M 21/f2.8.
uhoh7 wrote:
...I pushed the M9 hard today...But a pan left moved me into a DR which punished my colors so I took the nuclear option...
I hate to be pushed to B&W when I want color (though my usual preference is B&W). I see that you've shot these at ISO 800. For low light I shoot at ISO 640 (at the lowest shutter speed I can live with) and push in LR I sure you're aware of this technique. The issue then, in mixed lighting particularly, is to adjust the WB to what you want: my feeling is that it's best not to neutralize complete, but to leave some of the color cast of the predominant light source, even if it's tungsten. Sometimes it can be quite an effort in the post-processing. BTW, I love the colors of the shot you left in color and in the middle picture in the post with three portraits.
Hey, the new song is "don't take my M9 away I don't get no satisfaction...with Kodachrome".
