Be honest do you need a better, brighter camera (M9/S2/X1 whatever)?

Gesture said:

One of the best demonstrations of this was many years ago in American Photographer back in the film heydays. Something like a Day in America from "regular" folks using point and shoots and producing wonderful images.

Click to expand...

It would be great to find that article.

Furthermore, digital, I believe, has been great in reinvigorating photography in general. Less camcorders and one-use cameras at the Grand Canyon; more still photography?

I agree with you there. And it seems that B&W is part of this resurgence.

Andrew

M8Fan said:

As I sit here looking at the recent threads on the new Leica gear I wonder how many of you are really pushing you current gear to the limits. Does the latest gear really mean you will take better pictures or would a more diligent practice schedule be to your advantage? (Of course Leica would like to have you think that you need a newer camera)

Will more than 10Mpixels and a FF sensor really make all that difference - I would be willing to bet that for most of you it will not. It certainly doesn't mean I will.

With me it is the visualisation, composition and processing side that need the practice - no amount of pixel explosion is going to help there. My printer might benefit from improved profiles but if I am realistic it is human inadequacy that renders much of my work below par. It is dedicated practice that will bring about the required improvement.

Apologies if this offends anyone - it is not my intention to do so. I love my M8.

Click to expand...

Andrew, I think you're missing the point. The M8 is absolutely fine from an IQ perspective. My interest in the M9 has nothing do with improved print or pixel quality.

It is all about the perspective that a those amazing Leica lenses achieve on full frame. In looking through thousands of images shot on film and with my M8, I much prefer the aesthetic that my 35/1.4 ASPH achieves on full frame. The same with my super wides. They just don't have the same impact on half frame. A fast Leica 35mm shot as a 35mm and not a 50mm is just so much more pleasing.

PLUS, if we can do away with those miserable UV/IR filters we will be all the better. That additional glass surface is a pest in bright conditions. Flare will be reduced substantially.

Vin

Actually, scale focusing will work properly on the M9 as the hyperfocal distance will match the actual depth of field recorded by the sensor, unlike with the 1.3 crop of the M8.

You seem to be a bit confused here : "the scales should work the same on the M8 as with the M9, but generally speaking a smaller sensor with give greater DOF (with a smaller FOV) for any given aperture than the larger one, so scale focus with the M9 will be less forgiving, albeit only slightly so"

Although near and far focal distances are not effected by sensor size, hyperfocal distance will actually be increased on the M9 vs the M8 for a given (real) lens focal length. Some math for you based on 8x10 final output:

H = (L x L) / (f x d)

Where:
H = Hyperfocal Distance (in millimeters)
L = lens focal length (ie, 35mm, 105mm)
f = lens aperture f-stop
d = diameter of circle of least confusion (in millimeters)
for 35mm format d = 0.03
for 6x6cm format d = 0.06
for 4x5in format d = 0.15

Of course you can scale focus and shoot from the hip with the M8. I do it quite often. It will simply work properly with the M9, like with a film M. Which is a good thing.

Artichoke said:

dasper said:

Two words:

Scale Focus

Maybe I'm just old fashioned but this is the most important thing for me with the M9 and what bothers me the most about the M8.

Click to expand...

I use scale focus often with my M8 without a problem

here is a particularly challenging example taken with the 28 Summicron at f2.4 "from the hip" at 1/22 second shutter speed



I wanted to get the gentlemen in the foreground in focus, setting the scale for the second whose distance I guesstimated

a larger version of this & shooting information along with other examples of scale focus use can be found here ---------> http://www.pbase.com/artichoke/hip in my From the Hip section of my pbase galleries

the scales should work the same on the M8 as with the M9, but generally speaking a smaller sensor with give greater DOF (with a smaller FOV) for any given aperture than the larger one, so scale focus with the M9 will be less forgiving, albeit only slightly so
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Click to expand...

dasper said:

Actually, scale focusing will work properly on the M9 as the hyperfocal distance will match the actual depth of field recorded by the sensor, unlike with the 1.3 crop of the M8.

You seem to be a bit confused here : "the scales should work the same on the M8 as with the M9, but generally speaking a smaller sensor with give greater DOF (with a smaller FOV) for any given aperture than the larger one, so scale focus with the M9 will be less forgiving, albeit only slightly so"

Although near and far focal distances are not effected by sensor size, hyperfocal distance will actually be increased on the M9 vs the M8 for a given (real) lens focal length. Some math for you based on 8x10 final output:

H = (L x L) / (f x d)

Where:
H = Hyperfocal Distance (in millimeters)
L = lens focal length (ie, 35mm, 105mm)
f = lens aperture f-stop
d = diameter of circle of least confusion (in millimeters)
for 35mm format d = 0.03
for 6x6cm format d = 0.06
for 4x5in format d = 0.15

Of course you can scale focus and shoot from the hip with the M8. I do it quite often. It will simply work properly with the M9, like with a film M. Which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I think you are the one a bit confused

I said that the M8 will be more forgiving than the M9 at any given focal length because of the smaller sensor size

you are correct that hyperfocal distance with the M8 will be less at any given aperture than the M9
BUT

this means that subjects in acceptable focus will start sooner and thus the M8 will be more forgiving for scale focus than the M9, which is what I contended in my initial comment to you
the greater the hyperfocal distance, the less will be in focus

I suggest you play a bit with Barnack, a wonderful free applet written by Mikkel B. Stegmann, though the M9 is not yet supported
the link is here ------> http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/
hope this helps you understand what you were incorrectly correcting me about
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Photoworks said:

M8Fan said:

As I sit here looking at the recent threads on the new Leica gear I wonder how many of you are really pushing you current gear to the limits. Does the latest gear really mean you will take better pictures or would a more diligent practice schedule be to your advantage? (Of course Leica would like to have you think that you need a newer camera)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Photoworks said:

Andrew, I think you're missing the point. The M8 is absolutely fine from an IQ perspective. My interest in the M9 has nothing do with improved print or pixel quality.

It is all about the perspective that a those amazing Leica lenses achieve on full frame. In looking through thousands of images shot on film and with my M8, I much prefer the aesthetic that my 35/1.4 ASPH achieves on full frame. The same with my super wides. They just don't have the same impact on half frame. A fast Leica 35mm shot as a 35mm and not a 50mm is just so much more pleasing.

Click to expand...

An interesting point and one that I cannot comment on as my first Leica was the M8 but the the lenses are definitely something else.

Andrew.

As much as it is always a thrill to have the latest, I have more than enough equipment than I can handle....I need practice, practice, practice...but for those that do get the latest...have fun with your new gizmo.
--
http://www.juliussantos.com

In my everyday life I witness to photography done by others, and I often act as an observer, and as an artist suggesting design / compositional ideas. Usually, photography is just one ingredient of my work, usually done by others.

Now, having so little time to spend with a camera myself, I've ended up having just a small Leica D-Lux 3 next to me. I had a Sony Alpha 700 for a few months, because I wanted to do less demanding shots myself, but finally got rid of it for a good cause.

I spend lots of time with D-Lux 3. During my last trip overseas that was my only camera, and it really was a splendid one. However, after reviewing so many pictures taken, I've noticed something that I've already noticed before (and went for a DSLR) -- small cameras like DLux 3 are nice, but they cannot capture the exact moment you want.

They're slow. Shutter delays. LCD delays. Motor is slow. In low light chip is inadequate too. Small, noisy sensor makes some photos you love so much almost impossible to print at a larger size. Day by day, and you learn to live to with such obstacles, but are obstacles like that all you want in your life? Do you want every photo to be posed, and albums full of still nature, flowers and landscapes?

Most photos taken with small cams generally lack that vital ingredient -- magic of a specific moment, a perfect capture so full of energy and life, of emotion, a light reflected so well inside lenses that it produces sheer delight in your soul. A moment you wanted, now eternally yours.

With a camera like M8 or M9 you can claim that moment almost any time you put a glass before your eyes, but with a little one, indeed, you cannot. One in five, one in eight perhaps. You press the shutter, and may only hope for the best.

Is that good enough reason to get a camera like M9? I think it is. It's the magic of the moment, of a memory -- and that's invaluable. Multiply thousands of missed opportunities with a small camera with a value of each moment measured using currency of your feelings and precious memories .. and you'll end up with such a loss in your life.

After all, we people are as good as those memories left behind us. Memories are all we have and only thing we can claim ours.

When you've been shooting full frame for over thirty years it's nice to be able to put a lens on the camera and know what it's going to give you rather than guessing, as any X factor mandates.
--
Dennis
http://dennislee.smugmug.com/gallery/2516942

Artichoke said:

dasper said:

Actually, scale focusing will work properly on the M9 as the hyperfocal distance will match the actual depth of field recorded by the sensor, unlike with the 1.3 crop of the M8.

You seem to be a bit confused here : "the scales should work the same on the M8 as with the M9, but generally speaking a smaller sensor with give greater DOF (with a smaller FOV) for any given aperture than the larger one, so scale focus with the M9 will be less forgiving, albeit only slightly so"

Although near and far focal distances are not effected by sensor size, hyperfocal distance will actually be increased on the M9 vs the M8 for a given (real) lens focal length. Some math for you based on 8x10 final output:

H = (L x L) / (f x d)

Where:
H = Hyperfocal Distance (in millimeters)
L = lens focal length (ie, 35mm, 105mm)
f = lens aperture f-stop
d = diameter of circle of least confusion (in millimeters)
for 35mm format d = 0.03
for 6x6cm format d = 0.06
for 4x5in format d = 0.15

Of course you can scale focus and shoot from the hip with the M8. I do it quite often. It will simply work properly with the M9, like with a film M. Which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I think you are the one a bit confused

I said that the M8 will be more forgiving than the M9 at any given focal length because of the smaller sensor size

you are correct that hyperfocal distance with the M8 will be less at any given aperture than the M9
BUT

this means that subjects in acceptable focus will start sooner and thus the M8 will be more forgiving for scale focus than the M9, which is what I contended in my initial comment to you
the greater the hyperfocal distance, the less will be in focus

I suggest you play a bit with Barnack, a wonderful free applet written by Mikkel B. Stegmann, though the M9 is not yet supported
the link is here ------> http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/
hope this helps you understand what you were incorrectly correcting me about
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Click to expand...

There is really no need to argue about something which you obviously do not understand.

You are ignorantly mistaking equivalent focal length with real focal length.

A 35mm Summilux on an M8 will have a shallower field of sharpness than a 35mm Summilux on an M9. Period. No matter what you say you can't argue with physics.

No need to link to automatic DOF preview calculators of which you have no comprehension.

Look at the math, think about it, ask your neighbor if you have to. Or if you can't do the math simply use the program that you directed me to, I haven't downloaded it but I'm sure it will prove my point.

Artichoke said:

hope this helps you understand what you were incorrectly correcting me about

Click to expand...

Right back at ya.

On second though, so no more space is wasted in the thread with you trying to continue your illogical argument (and confuse others reading who may not familiar with the concept) i'll do the math for you.

Depth of field for a Leica M8, 35 'Lux 1.4 @ 3m:

Near limit: 2.78 m
Far limit: 3.26 m
Total: 0.48 m

Depth of field for a Leica M9, 35 'Lux 1.4 @ 3m:

Near limit: 2.72 m
Far limit: 3.34 m
Total: 0.62 m

0.48

M8 will have a shallower field of sharpness than M9 for any real focal length, using any lens ever invented. Not the other way around as you keep trying to insist.

1. For me, yes.

2. As someone that does not shoot film or even have film Leica(s) or an interest in them, I will now be able to use my Leica 24mm f/1.4 lens as a 24mm "wide lens", and my Leica 50mm f/0.95 as my 50mm "normal lens" --- similar to how I use comparable Nikkor FF focal length lenses on my Nikon D3 and D700. Actually, because of this, I'll likely be using my Nikon gear even less than has already been occurring since I purchased a Leica M8.2 ----- so, again, for my shooting preferences/interests, minimal equipment carry needs, most definitely, yes.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

M8Fan said:

As I sit here looking at the recent threads on the new Leica gear I wonder how many of you are really pushing you current gear to the limits. Does the latest gear really mean you will take better pictures or would a more diligent practice schedule be to your advantage? (Of course Leica would like to have you think that you need a newer camera)

Will more than 10Mpixels and a FF sensor really make all that difference - I would be willing to bet that for most of you it will not. It certainly doesn't mean I will.

With me it is the visualisation, composition and processing side that need the practice - no amount of pixel explosion is going to help there. My printer might benefit from improved profiles but if I am realistic it is human inadequacy that renders much of my work below par. It is dedicated practice that will bring about the required improvement.

Apologies if this offends anyone - it is not my intention to do so. I love my M8.

Regards,

Andrew

Click to expand...

Hurah! (and sorry for repeating myself in this post)

YES!! We need better camera's. BUT: also we need to make better choises in our systems. We are only photographers, and we push buttons.

SYSTEMS:
1- Landscape/Portrait/fine Art: Medium format (film/digital)
2- Action/Stage/Sports/News: Lowlight Digital SLR
3- Documentary/Street/Fine Art: compact/m-FT/Leica M (film/digital)

The M-system fot a professional is not a 'stand alone system' nor is it the Walhalla-camera that some desciribe it to be. What is it for me though, is a way to make photo's without people asking 'How much did that white-rainpipe-piece-of-glass cost?'

For now I keep to my M6TTL, as I do to my 500CM (Portra160VC).

Speedy work (for me: low-light dance photography) is done by my EOS digital-something. They also have some nice (tele-) lenses. I love it. There's no camera that will give me those files. (okay, D700) AF rules!!

There are systems to fit any need. To make an analogue (pun intended): Buy a Lambo: they also make tractors.

There is no M in unobtrousive, but there should've been one.

here is a reasonably authoritative source

"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective)."

from a Cambridge in Colour tutorial which can be found here -------> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

this is because to capture the same FOV with the smaller sensor, you are further from the subject which increases the DOF

therefore the cropped sensor of the M8 will be more forgiving with scale focus than the FF M9
there are many other discussions of this available supporting my contention
I challenge you to cite one supporting your misguided conclusions
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

1. I view it a bit differently; and, haven't liked getting all the digital cameras some of us have in the past, either. But, with the change of photography to digital, it wasn't until the last couple of years or so, and for Leica now, that FF digital has been possible technologically.

2. So, for a lot us us, FF digital, and now FF digital Leica is what we would have had, earlier had it been possible. Now, since getting a Nikon FF camera, I have had no interest or need to purchase anymore DSLR Bodies (and, had the D700 been available before the D3, would not even have a D3). And, now with an FF Digital Leica M Body, there's no telling how long it will be, into the future, before I have need/interest for another camera (other than new iPhones, of course) if, ever, until the current ones I have no longer work and can't be repaired. And, yes for me, it has taken digital photography this amount of time to develop to a stage where I now have this choice.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Julius T Santos said:

As much as it is always a thrill to have the latest, I have more than enough equipment than I can handle....I need practice, practice, practice...but for those that do get the latest...have fun with your new gizmo.
--
http://www.juliussantos.com

Click to expand...

Read my last post. As I said, you have gotten real focal length confused with effective focal length. Your post below argues for effective focal length, in which case your point of view would be correct. Unfortunately for you the discussion began with real focal length.

A 35mm Summilux will have a shallower depth of field on a Leica M8 than on a Leica M9 at any given aperture. You cant argue physics (no matter how hard you seem to be trying).

What you possibly meant to say was that you consider a 28mm lens to be a 35(ish)mm lens on the M8 so that the 28mm lens on the M8 will have a larger depth of field than a 35mm lens on the M9. This is obvious.

Unfortunately for you even with this truth your original argument that the scale focus is more generous on the M8 than it will be on the M9 is completely wrong.

The depth of field recorded by the sensor is LESS than what the scale shows on the M8. It will be (close to) exactly what the scale shows when mounted on the M9.

Epic fail, but I applaud your effort.

Cite a source? The laws of physics.

Artichoke said:

here is a reasonably authoritative source

"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors. The following calculator predicts the required aperture and focal length in order to achieve the same depth of field (while maintaining perspective)."

from a Cambridge in Colour tutorial which can be found here -------> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

this is because to capture the same FOV with the smaller sensor, you are further from the subject which increases the DOF

therefore the cropped sensor of the M8 will be more forgiving with scale focus than the FF M9
there are many other discussions of this available supporting my contention
I challenge you to cite one supporting your misguided conclusions
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Click to expand...

dasper said:

Read my last post. As I said, you have gotten real focal length confused with effective focal length. Your post below argues for effective focal length, in which case your point of view would be correct. Unfortunately for you the discussion began with real focal length.

Click to expand...

the discussion was not about real focal length, but whether scale focus is a disadvantage with the smaller sensor
you cannot revise a discussion so easily when what we said is so obvious

given the same effective focal length (capturing the same FOV) the M8 will be more forgiving with scale focus than the M9 & while not "proper" the error is in favor of more DOF for any given FOV
effective focal length is all that matters in what you capture after all

your calculations of a greater hyperfocal distance with the larger sensor support my contention as well

for the same FOV at the same aperture, a smaller sensor will have greater DOF simply because the distance to subject will be greater
the M8 will be more forgiving of scale focus than the M9

this was my original point & it has everything to do with effective focal length, because that is all that matters in the real world
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

A person becomes a better photographer only by making more photographs. New equipment encourages a photographer to make more photographs. Therefore, new equipment makes you a better photographer.

I'm not saying that only new equipment can make you a better photographer, but it does not hurt.

Buy an M9 or X1 and become a better photographer. This, of course, assumes you are a shooter and not a collector.

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

'It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see...' -- Henry David Thoreau

I don't get it. You're like a Ferrari owner complaining that you really don't need that much horsepower. Or more like buying a Mercedes w/four cylinders. They make them, but why?

If the camera doesn't count, buy a nice Panasonic. Oh, I get it. You wanted a Leica, but performance doesn't count?

the square of 1.333 is 1.78. So at 18M the M9 sensor has the same resolution as the M8, which means the M8 is still current for a form factor of 1.33. If you can buy it at lower price and if you do telephoto most of the time, why wouldn't you buy an M8.2 instead?

Is vanity really that powerful?

M8Fan said:

As I sit here looking at the recent threads on the new Leica gear I wonder how many of you are really pushing you current gear to the limits.

Click to expand...

Come on now. This topic has been beaten to death here at DP Review. What do you mean pushing the current gear to the limit? If the current gear is a cropped sensor, as the M8 is, then the wide angle end is going to suffer, the M9 is going to rectify that.

M8Fan said:

Does the latest gear really mean you will take better pictures

Click to expand...

Yes. Of course. A better camera will take better pictures. For a vast majority of people, the improvement may not be enough to rank them as world class artists, but who cares.

M8Fan said:

or would a more diligent practice schedule be to your advantage? (Of course Leica would like to have you think that you need a newer camera)

Will more than 10Mpixels and a FF sensor really make all that difference - I would be willing to bet that for most of you it will not. It certainly doesn't mean I will.

Click to expand...

If you think you can never improve by improving your equipment, then by all means stick with what you have.

M8Fan said:

With me it is the visualisation, composition and processing side that need the practice - no amount of pixel explosion is going to help there.

Click to expand...

Visualization is not going to make your lens cover a wider angle. You can back up of course, but in tight quarters, that is simply not possible. Technique is one thing, equipment is another. Don't mix apples and oranges.

M8Fan said:

My printer might benefit from improved profiles but if I am realistic it is human inadequacy that renders much of my work below par. It is dedicated practice that will bring about the required improvement.

Click to expand...

Of course your printer can improve your photography. Better equipment can yield better results. It is simple. Arguing the opposite is simply irrational.

M8Fan said:

Apologies if this offends anyone - it is not my intention to do so. I love my M8.

Regards,

Andrew

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. This topic will be repeated ad naseum for years to come. For me, the answer is always the same. Yes, better equipment will make us better photographers. The only real questions are whether a new model is actually better than an old one and whether it is affordable. If it is not affordable, then we are forced to continue using old gear even though the new one could have made us better photographers. If the new gear is not any better, then it is easy enough a decision to just keep using the old gear.