I currently shoot an aps-h (1.3x) so that transitioning into a m8.2 would at least be similar focal view. Just entertaining the thought..a M9 purchase would basically equip me with like one lense so thats pretty hefty . What would the m8.2 be comparable in high ISO to on say a Canon body? and does it still require the IR filter on every lense?
whoa ISO 640?.....thats a bit of a push.. I tend to use ISO6400 quite often... this maybe a deal breaker. I know I can handhold alot slower on the Leica's b/c of weight but if 640 is the limit even with heavy massaging in LR3 then I may have to put this idea to rest.
crazeazn wrote:
I have a question for recent M9 switchers, how does zeiss zm lenses compare to the respective summarits/crons...I'm actually entertaining a crazy thought about selling all my gear and going the Leica route, given my style of shooting...Of course cost is pretty prohibitive..would one even entertain a m8.2 (the prices have dropped down so substantially)
Extremely oversimplified but Leica-Ms tend to be better wide open and have better aberration control while Zeiss ZM tends to be better stopped down, have less field curvature and a more consistent performance across the frame. Leica lenses show greater variation in rendering style while Zeiss is more uniform across the product line. Ultimately however you'll have to decided on the basis of the individual lenses.
In terms of build quality, compared to Zeiss ZE/ZF, Leica-M is a bit better and Zeiss ZM is a bit worse.
crazeazn wrote:
whoa ISO 640?.....thats a bit of a push.. I tend to use ISO6400 quite often... this maybe a deal breaker. I know I can handhold alot slower on the Leica's b/c of weight but if 640 is the limit even with heavy massaging in LR3 then I may have to put this idea to rest.
The M9 is about a stop behind the 5DII in noise performance. So at ISO1600 you get the noise levels on the M9 you'd get at ISO3200 on the 5DII - which incidentally is what I consider to be the limit of the usable.
It's a bit more complex though - unlike Canon and especially Nikon the M9 applies very little in-camera noise reduction. It's up to you to clean it up and how well that works will depend on a lot of factors.
Luka - excellent B/W series from the US. I really like the Monument Valley shot. You should have done a pano there, bet that would look great! Also liked the perspective you got at Horseshoe Bend
najibs - great captures. #3 is my favorite from the set
crazeazn - I say if you are thinking about Leica go M9 and skip the M8. There are many advances that were made with the M9 other than just full frame vs. crop. I honestly don't mind the 1.3 crop much but the M9 files are far superior than what comes out of the M8. If you like the M8 you will unquestionably upgrade and yes, it is well worth it. As you see the ISO isn't the best on the M9, but as you say you can hand hold shots with the M9 at speeds you only dream about with the 5D series. You gain a couple of stops there but then lose some in the processing of files as Luka mentions above. If you shoot a lot at ISO 6400 then I would say stick with what you have. If you can manage to shoot at the equivalent of 1600 to 3200 on the Canon I say give it a shot.
Re: Zeiss glass. If you don't need f/1.4 speed then yes, the Zeiss glass is almost as good if not superior to Leica in some lengths. For instance, the ZM 18 and ZM 25 rival if not better the Leica glass that is 3x as much. The ZM 50 Planar is also an excellent lens and I preferred that over the 50 Cron. The 35s are a little tougher, the 35 Biogon is going to be better stopped down (a lot better actually) than the 35 Cron ASPH but wide open the nod goes to the 35 Cron ASPH. I honestly haven't used other ZM glass but those four mentioned above are excellent choices.
50 Lux ASPH:
I want in here but they it blocked off at every corner
Ryan, really nice shots!!! Excellent PP'ing particularly #1,2 and 4. #4 stands out for me
crazeazn, the question of comparing ISO of the 5DII and M9, IMO is not a direct comparison. The M9 with good technique, hand held shutter speeds in low light of 1/12s with a 35 or 50 FL is very achievable. With the M9, technique is all important, and really depends if you like the RF method of framing and shooting. I personally prefer it to the DSLR, but I do miss the live view at times
Luka - WOW! I don't hang many of my own prints but that one would definitely be on my wall if I shot it. Heck, I could have a wall with some of your work on it . WOW! What a scene
rsolti13 wrote:
Luka - WOW! I don't hang many of my own prints but that one would definitely be on my wall if I shot it. Heck, I could have a wall with some of your work on it . WOW! What a scene
Luka, very nice B&W shots. Love the composition and tones on the 2nd shot, Death Valley. Beautiful. That pano is awesome! Color version please?
Ryan, another nice set. Weather is not as warm now, I guess? I like the construction site barrier and ladder shot best!
Dierk, nice set, I like the 2nd and 4th shots.
----- crazeazn wrote:
I have a question for recent M9 switchers, how does zeiss zm lenses compare to the respective summarits/crons...I'm actually entertaining a crazy thought about selling all my gear and going the Leica route, given my style of shooting...Of course cost is pretty prohibitive..would one even entertain a m8.2 (the prices have dropped down so substantially)
Can you elaborate what is your style of shooting? I think the others have mentioned, you should definitely try out the M8 or M9 or at least do more research before deciding. If you shoot ISO6400 and a lot of flash photography or night shots, you can forget about the M8. ISO640 tops. With the M9, ISO1600 is decent (depends on who you ask) but you would probably still need a fast glass such as f/1.4 for those low light shots.
As a supplement to your DSLR or other cameras, a M8 is nice. As a main (or only) camera, the M8 may not be such a good idea because of the issues mentioned.
I've realized that almost 90% of my photos are of people on my 1D3 (usually my friends/family, etc). Typically my shots are indoors or past dusk so hence my question about the high ISO/shutter handhold. After buying some Contax Zeiss glass recently, I've almost exclusively shot alt. glass, only the past couple months leaving my autofocus Canon glass feeling extremely lonely. I have shot on an aps-c prior and purchased a 1D3 b/c I absolutely hated the outer point AF..ironically now I don't even use AF, as the EC-s screen is an absolute godsend. I have played with the rangefinder style before and I don't mind it. Also having using a GF2 for a weekend, I've really enjoyed having a camera that weighs next to nothing. Lastly, I rarely print above 20x24 so the extra resolution to me is moot. I've always been a proponent of glass first, camera later hence why I'm asking about the feasibility of the m8.2. (My camera store has some ZMs available)
Ryan, I don't hang photos either, but I am sort of curious how they would look printed on some type of silvery B/W paper...
Joe, the color version is rather boring - it was shot mid-day so the colors are washed out.
John, I'll have to agree with Ryan, if you can swing it, go for the M9 and don't bother with the M8.2. Full frame is of huge benefit particularly when you shoot portraits. The reason is that with a cropper you remove all the lovely things going on at the edges and you get a rather flat look. The m8.2 isn't all that cheap to begin with so I think it is definitely worth to pay a bit extra and get the real thing. Glass first is a fine policy when it comes to consumer camera and lenses. However when you start using good prime lenses, one should have a body that can take full advantage of them.
-----------
Something completely different now. There was an article in the last number of LFI discussing aliasing and it got me thinking. The primary cause of colored moiré is that a digital camera uses a Bayer array to separate colors. The Bayer array is simply a grid of red, green & blue filters that remove all the other wavelengths. Under the Bayer array is the actual sensor that is monochromatic. So when you ultimately get a pixel in your image file the color is an interpolation of the neighboring pixels. Now this is not a problem when the detail is low enough that you don't resolve things that are the size of one pixel.
However, the M9 with no AA filter can actually resolve things at that resolution so if you are unlucky you can get a detail with one color projected on one pixel and another projected on the neighboring pixel. Subsequently when the RAW engine does the averaging of the colors to produce the final pixel you get the moiré. With a camera that has an AA filter on the other hand the light gets diffused and you don’t run the risk of getting pixel level resolution which messes up the color averaging.
Anyway, that’s the theory. So I thought that since this is a question of the color channel only that it could be solved in LAB mode rather easily. By softening the a & b channels you would lose the colored artifacts while you’d still have your full resolution in the L channel.
So, I tried to find an image with moiré in it, which of course I had great difficulties with, as predicted by various Murphy’s laws. In the end I picked one that I knew from before showed moiré.
And here’s the bad guy Mr. Moiré himself:
The fix is really quick in PS:
1) Go to LAB mode
2) Select a & b channels
3) Make a selection of the offending area – the selection doesn’t have to be precise
4) Apply a Gaussian blur (I used a 6px radius but other values will work as well)
The knowledge on these forums is unreal. Thanks for that Luka. I try to avoid CS3 at all costs and stick with my simple LR3 processing, mainly b/c I have no time these days. However, this looks to be a 10 sec fix...I can work with that . That is even easier than Ron's desaturate/recolor trick
Well I did it.......sold the nikon bag. Everything..... I am jumping in with both feet. 35 Lux version 2 should be here next month and then its M9 time. Then order the 50mm 1.4 and another 6 month waiting list. So worth it though. I really want to thank everyone on this thread. Your work daily blows me away and has helped me get where I am now.
. What would the m8.2 be comparable in high ISO to on say a Canon body? and does it still require the IR filter on every lense?
WOW! 
