I would not want to come over that hill Peter and face that row of Canons! Nice shot!
I'm jealous, I wanted a 35 Lux 1.4, but couldn't find one. ever, except a used one at almost as much as new. I did come across a 24mm lux, and decided I'd take care of the wide end first and got it. I do have a 35mm Cron ASPH that is a nice lens of course. A older 90 Cron and a CV 50 round out my M gear.
Right, D800, I think I am riding out the Nikon bodies of old, and bypassing this next round. Still pretty heavily vested in Nikon. But slowly building my M9 setup.
I am starting to phase out of 35mm film and will probably look to buy an M9 once the M10 is announced next year and I can hopefully catch somebody who's anxious to upgrade.
I am curious, though, about what I could expect from anything in the ISO 800-1600 range, but only in B&W. I still shoot a lot of high speed B&W, and so while some sensor noise can be masked in a good conversion to B&W (Silver Efex, etc), I have seen some examples of how the CCD can get ugly starting around 800.
I will probably keep my film camera, either way, but some anecdotes would be helpful.
Martin, very nice surreal shots! I like the effects
Corposant, nice duck
B+W in low light with the M9 is brilliant combined with fast lenses. There is a steeper learning curve to become fully proficient with PP'ing to really take advantage of the RAW files. The main issue with low lighting, is not the absolute ISO needed to get the shot, but more so the quality of the lighting. With very good quality lighting, it is easy to use ISO of 2500.
Cory, very nice examples!
Shuko, nice shots! Favourite is #1
Ash, congrats Very nice look and feel to the shots
Peter, great shot of the cannons!
Thanks Jim - I hope you don't miss your camera too much!
charles.K wrote:
Ash, congrats Very nice look and feel to the shots
Thank you sir. You're definitely one of the instigators of my Leica 'test'
denoir wrote:
Ash, very nice - I really like the first shot!
Ducks and Geometry. You're an easy man to please
However, at least on my screen, that first photo is smashed full of CA. Not something I could fix with LR.
Guys - I'm getting married in Queenstown NZ in 8 weeks and I would like to pick up a second lens to compliment the Summicron 28mm. Any suggestions? I keep looking at the 50 Lux APSH and loving the rendering, plus it will be a reasonable focal length on the M8 for shots of my friends and family. Although, would a 75mm summarit suffice? Much cheaper, which is a strong driver... Trouble is, I just don't see that many images on FM of 50/75/90 Summarits - you all have 'crons and 'lux's. Tough decisions, and not all that much time.
Silken wrote:
I think you will be pleased with high iso performance in that iso range compared to film (although I haven't shot any film in ages), and the key is really a proper exposure and good lighting. That said, I prefer 800 and 1250 to 1600. There was a bit of learning what it likes in the beginning, coming from my Canons which are better in the dark, but have learned how to get pleasing and sellable results. 18MP is higher res than 35mm film, so you also have to consider that the files won't be enlarged as much for the same size print, therefore the noise/grain won't be enlarged as much either....Show more →
LL, thanks
Ash, definitely the 50 Lux Asph first IMO. Probably one of the best lenses, and would give you more than enough effective FL on the M8. The 50 is very easy to focus and makes for a great work horse of a lens, whether its a M8, maybe eventually a M9/10 The 75 and 90's are great, but a lot more unforgiving in terms of focusing and calibration.
Cory, great shots! The MFD being out, is a calibration issue, that can be adjusted. This of course is assuming your M9 is calibrated to spec also. Normally when I get my lenses back after servicing, I test for MFD, mid and far focus accuracy
Edwin--That last one I like
Charles-Very nice portrait with the lux-I am currently traveling and decided to bring the noct instead of the summilux 50. Although I don't regret the images, i am sort of wishing I had taken the summilux for the more compact size. I tend to take the 28 Cron instead just since its SO convenient to carry around.
Thrice - I like the 2nd photo!
Luka-Beautiful explanations and examples
So many great images - Shuko, Peter, Silken, Gary
Brody--nice shots with the 35/1.2, would love to see more of that lens
Here are a few from Mahabaleshwar, a beautiful mountaneous area in India.
#2 and 3 are wide open at .95
I am starting to phase out of 35mm film and will probably look to buy an M9 once the M10 is announced next year and I can hopefully catch somebody who's anxious to upgrade.
I am curious, though, about what I could expect from anything in the ISO 800-1600 range, but only in B&W. I still shoot a lot of high speed B&W, and so while some sensor noise can be masked in a good conversion to B&W (Silver Efex, etc), I have seen some examples of how the CCD can get ugly starting around 800.
I will probably keep my film camera, either way, but some anecdotes would be helpful....Show more →
I think the M9 in B&W at high ISOs is pretty good. There are a couple things though to watch out for:
1) You'll get between 4-7 shots off in a sequence before the buffer fills and the camera bogs down.
2) If when the buffer fills and you're also trying to review images on the LCD, it can possibly cause the M9 to induce banding in random images. In my non-scientific testing, I found that if you filled the buffer and let it clear without shooting any more images and not reviewing any, banding was unlikely. Banding was considerably more likely if trying to force more shots on top of a full buffer, or as single frames became available, and/or reviewing images. Some have also claimed that setting the advance mode to C rather than S is another cause of banding.
My points are more related to the shooting experience than end image quality, but I feel this is aspect is a particular weakness of the M9 if you're used to shooting quickly with a digital Canon, Nikon or film camera.
Ash: I hear the 75 Summarit is a nice lens and on an M8 might give you a decent portrait crop. I agree on a 50, which on the M8 would also be decent for portraits. I'd also suggest considering the Zeiss 50 f/2 Planar. It's a very good all around lens. I agree with Cory about difficulty focusing the longer lenses accurately. I have the 90 Summarit and I'd say it was fairly consistent, but after sending my M9 with the 50 Lux for calibration, it appears the 90 is now back focusing considerably (didn't think about it at the time, but should have sent the 90 in along with the 50 at the same time). I plan to add a viewfinder diopter soon, which based on what I tried at the Leica Store in Munich, should help somewhat. But I'm also considering one of the viewfinder magnifiers... 1.4 would probably be better, but was also hoping to use it with the 50, though I agree with Charles that it's a relatively easy lens to focus in most situations. Definitely easier than the 90 has been recently.
Very nice images lately:
KL, Charles, Gary, Ash, Cory, LL, Martin...
Here's one from the Ostfriedhof in Munich:
M9 & 50 Lux SOOC
Kind of had a frustrating experience with the M9 during this outing. It was the second day in the week that I went out on a wet day. Today it was near freezing with it alternating between snow and rain. The camera got somewhat wet, but not soaked. However, the viewfinder slowly but surely fogged up. First starting with the a patch dead-center behind the front viewfinder window glass (when viewed from the front), then slowly also inside the viewfinder behind the eyepiece. It never fully cleared up while I was out (about 4 hours total) and the condensation behind the eyepiece took a few hours near the radiator to clear... I could still shoot and get clear images because the lens wasn't fogged up, but it was nearly impossible to focus accurately with any lens at or near wide open (it was a dark day). I wonder if it's body heat as the camera is held to the eye that induced the condensation...?
Condensation wasn't a problem the other wet outing earlier this week, where I got totally soaked and the camera pretty wet, but it was a few degrees warmer, which I guess made a difference.
nice shots Charles. Your fiancee is so lovely. She looks gorgeous in that dress and it's such a classy image. (I figured was your wife already, guess I am getting ahead of you, ha)
