Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Tina: > > 3600 for the Canon? Do you mean 3200? I can't see that 3200 is anybody > than 1600 underexposed by a stop, so I now longer use 3200. > > What I have found is that the same sharpness I could get with my M6 + 35mm > at 1/30th of a second requires 1/60th of a second with my 5D for a single > shot. Rangefinder vs. SLR. Advantage, Leica. > > What I have found is that with careful technique, I can usually get a > sharp > image at 1/30 or 1/15 with my 5D if I slowly squeeze off several frames in > a > row. Advantage, Canon. > > With my Leica, if I could see it, I could focus. And shoot it. Not quite > so easy with the 5D. Even with a 35/1.4 lens and the non-default focusing > screen that makes focusing faster lenses easier. Advantage, Leica. > > Somebody had posted comparison shots between the M8 and 5D over on > photo.net > that favored the M8 by using a slow shutter speed and shooting wide open.. > The $3400 35 'lux beats the $1100 Canon 35/1.4L wide open. The thread has > since been deleted, but it did illustrate there certain times when the > Canon > high ISOs don't make up for mirror slap and lesser lenses. Eric, these are all good points, and the other thing I would say, is that at the high ISO's, the canon images always look as if they have been already given a noise reduction filter. The noise is less, but the image looks a bit "smooth". When I have taken a very slow shutter speed with the M8, a message comes up on the screen about applying noise reduction, so I presume most manufacturers are doing this? Cheers