scott_turner2

<p>Nevermind. Did some further googling with a different set of key words. Appears to be an issue with the lights, not the camera. Thanks!</p> <p>Scott</p>

<p>Hi all, strange thing happened here today with my XT1. I've noticed recently that in certain fluorescent light, there is a flicker in the viewfinder like when you take video of a TV screen and the frame rates don't match. Strangely, it never showed up in the pictures until today. I'm guessing that there is some kind of frequency thing with the viewfinder that causes this.<br> Anyway, it looks to me like an uneven white balance across the frame, that shows up as a huge orange band across the picture. Even weirder, it only happens with my 35mm f/1.4 lens. When I put my 18-55 on and took the same shot at 35mm, the problem went away. Even weirder still, I can't get it to repeat consistently. The camera is under warranty still, so I'm not terribly worried. But still, this is a little weird. I've attached a photo below, anyone ever seen anything like this before?</p><div></div>

<p>Ray-<br> Of course, both make incredible files. It's horses for courses :) Glad you are enjoying the benefits of the 240. I do miss those framelines!<br> Scott</p>

<p>Ray-<br> Sorry I never checked back on this thread. I just shot a large project using the M9 and I'll add a few more thoughts:<br /> The M9's dynamic range is more limited than I'm used to after using (in this order) Canon 5d3, Leica M240, 35mm Film (Portra 400), and finally the M9. The highlights clip really hard, and the shadows tend to be darker than what I experienced with the M240. No doubt you have seen this with the M9. So that being said, if you like a larger dynamic range, then the M240 would be a better fit. Personally, I equate this to paying more attention to the light I shoot in. I prefer flatter, softer light anyway, so for me its just a matter of 1) Finding this light 2) Making sure harsh light sources are over my shoulder and not behind the camera.<br> FWIW, I find (upon revisiting the M240 files) that the shadow detail captured on both is comparable, meaning that you can pull about 2 stops out of the shadows on both cameras (though on the M9, that's pushing it, pun intended ;) ). The main difference being, on the M240, my unscientific opinion is that there is more highlight detail that can be recovered and a wider range between shadow and dark.<br> I see them as two stylistically different cameras with regards to rendering; the M9 is like slide film and the M240 gives you a closer feel to color negative (though still not as easy to shoot :) ). YMMV. Personally, I love the bite in the M9 files, and when needed, I can pull the shadows up a stop or two. The M240 feels "digital" and "plastic" to me (that's from personal experience, not from reading other blogs), where as the M9 files give me a certain "air" that I've only been able to find in film, with added ISO flexibility and very high resolution. In comparison of M9 files against film, I find personally that on a well exposed/scanned negative of 400 ISO (My preferred film is Portra), the grain is comparable to 800-1000 ISO on the M9. That's pretty damn near all I ever need, and 1600 ISO still looks better than pushed/underexposed Portra IMO.<br> Don't know how to explain it, but I just love the render. If you can live with the ISO/DR capability of the M9, and the other quirks in operation, it's the camera to stick with IMO. Sounds like you feel the same, just wanted to add this for any future readers.<br> Cheers!</p>

Arthur- thanks! John- interesting. I suppose when you have a multi million dollar budget, the attention to detail does get quite fine! It's little details that the average person doesn't notice, but all add to the "feel" that the cinematography is responsible for. I suppose that the difference with modern SLR systems is that the lenses are all made by the same manufacturer within a period of time that is much shorter, so the contrast differences are much less noticeable. That being said, even between older and newer L glass from Canon, there are some differences. But, the rendering is still similar. That's probably why Leica folks seem more picky-there are too many options from a much wider array of years! As an update, I picked up a V3 cron 35mm. It's still a little more contrasty that my 50 from the same era, but the look is pretty consistent. It looks fantastic on my M9! Only thing I didn't expect-the corners get pretty soft at f/2, which for portraits is fine....not so much when you're trying to get more "editorial" image in low light (for me anyway). No matter. It's a stunning lens, and one I'll be happy with for a long time :) Cheers!

I would go for the M. The screen on the M is plenty good, and unless a frame line selector is worth the money, you're getting the same camera with a fancy paint job (albeit a much more desirable one IMO). I've no experience with the M-P, but I did have an M and sold it. It's a mighty fine camera, and leaves little to be desired.

<p>M9/35 Cron V3</p>

<p>M9/50CronV3</p>

<p>Try <a href="https://www.google.com/nikcollection/products/silver-efex-pro/">this link</a>. It's available as a download. I think you have to get the entire collection, which is $150. But I could be wrong about that.</p>

<p>Ray-</p> <p>My experience with Leica digital (M9 and M240) is that you really have to hammer the blacks hard in post to get a contrasty image, and the M9 more so than the M240 (depends on the light of course). Most of them are pretty flat right off the SD card, though lens selection will have something to do with that. I've found personally that even for color work, with older lenses, the image is still extremely flat, and requires some effort to get right. While my experience with it is pretty limited, I'd recommend Silver Efex Pro. That, or VSCO Film's presets, which use some toning curves to get a nice TRI-X or HP5+ look. I've had some good success with VSCO in achieving a nice Tri-X look. Trying to upload samples but it wont' let me.....</p> <p>Personally I like the leeway that the flat files give me for converting to B&W. Much like film, I'd rather have a flat negative to work from in the darkroom. It gives some more options for later, though if you are after the Trent Park Dreamtime look, or Jacob Aue Sobol or Moriyama look, it may be more difficult to achieve. Hammer the heck out of it in PS/LR on the tone curves. I'm personally going to buy SEP because I really liked the tonal control it provided.</p> <p>Hopefully that is helpful. Cheers!</p> <p>Scott</p>

<p>I used to have an M240 and sold it, only because I had to pay the bills (and it paid the bills for months :) ).</p> <p>Recently, I've acquired an M9, and while I'm fresh with it, I prefer the ergonomics of it over the M240. It's lighter, more compact. After shooting film M's for 6 months, I much prefer the size of the M9 as well. I have to say though, I find it much harder to focus than the M240, or my M6 for that matter, especially with a 50. The rangefinder on the M240 is quite spectacular, and obviously it's different than the M9 with the LED framelines, etc. I do miss that from the M240. The shutter on the M9 is annoying, but not a deal breaker. Still quieter than a DSLR which is good enough for me. It's no film M though in that regard. And I also miss the LCD, but again, after shooting film for 6 months straight, it's not a big deal.</p> <p>They are both spectacular cameras, but there is something about the CCD sensor of the M9. It really is spectacular. I'm trying to upload a few samples, but for some reason it won't allow me....I can send you a few RAWs if you want to play around :)</p> <p>Cheers!</p> <p>Scott<br> www.scotturnerphoto.com</p>

<p>David and Arthur- Thanks for the feedback. I think I understand what you are saying Arthur, in that you can only reach maximum definition, or accurate definition. The only problem with that, is that the camera itself is unable to record all of the tones present that our eyes see, especially on digital. So, the reduced contrast can help in high contrast situations. However, it can also make it harder to shoot silhouettes lol. <br> I think I've decided on the classic route, I like the way they look, and well, I can't afford the more expensive lenses anyhow. I think for what I'm shooting, they will do just fine. Thanks for the help!</p>

<p>Mukul- Yes, it is for a series of photos, and for creating a consistent look. I'm trying to create some consistency across my images in general, but yes, these will be used for a specific project. I was more just looking for experience from various folks as to which lenses had similar characteristics. I'm aware (from actual usage) that the older Leica lenses have a different character to them than the newer ones. I'm just looking to get some affirmation from people with more experience than I have to narrow it down a little.</p>