–

A number of years ago, Nikon introduced the flagship D3 and changed the face of photography by allowing us to capture images in near darkness.   I remember taking an image indoors late one evening in 2007 and marveling at how clean the image looked at ISO 6400.

Yet, these days when I photograph, I preferentially seek good light, and my ISO requirements with an f/1.4 aperture lens rarely exceed 1600.  Anything more than this, and I’m basically turning nighttime into daytime — which is often undesirable, as it destroys the ambiance of nighttime scenes.

I’ve learned the obvious: good light is good, and no amount of ISO boosting overcomes the disadvantages of poor light or poor lighting.

–

Good light reveals nuances in colours and textures, and generally confers depth to those flat representations of the world we call photographs.

–

That same ISO 6400 image from six years ago, when viewed now with a more critical eye, falls a little short on an aesthetic level, not because the lighting was dim, but because the lighting was poor.

Poor light is not necessarily the same as weak light.  For example, the scant light available after a sunset is “good light”, if one harnesses it properly (with the aid of a tripod and slow shutter speed).  The same thing may be said of incandescent lighting, if it is arranged on your subject in a pleasing way. 

Good light is not necessarily the same as bright or plentiful light.  For example, midday sunlight is often too stark to be desirable for portraiture, but may be perfect if the goal is to capture the interplay of light and shadow. 

Admittedly, high ISO capabilities are desirable for specific applications — for example, astrophotography, where the goal is to “see” the faint light emitted by distant stars but the exposure time is kept to a minimum to “freeze” the stars’ movement (so that stars remain “points” of light in the final photograph).  Or, if the goal is to capture action in dim light, or to record a memory for posterity and lighting considerations are secondary or beyond one’s control, then yes, a high-ISO-capable camera is vital.

If the goal, however, is to create an aesthetically pleasing photograph — even at night — then seek good light.

—Peter.

Matteo writes:

“Dear Peter,

I hope all is well with you!

Finally this 2013 is going to an end… I’ve spent this year mostly in London, with little time for photography.

Far from home and committed to work, I’ve been having a hard time developing my ‘artistic’ side.

However, in a strong effort to keep my eyes trained, I’ve dedicated a bit of time to explore film and rangefinder photography.

Now I’m thinking to jump into digital again (time and flexibility are the main reasons), but I have to save a bit before getting a new camera.  I’m very interested in hearing a little more from you about your experience with the new M240.  It seems you don’t consider it on par (sensor wise) with the new [Sony] Alpha7R and Nikon Df, and I’m curious about that.  I’m still a bit puzzled about the available options, as I never had the chance to test extensively an M9 or any of these new models. I think I will stick to film for a little more 🙂 .

—Matteo”

—

Thank you very much Matteo for writing.

Well, it turns out I may have an opinion about the Leica M240… 🙂

As many of the readers of Prosophos.com know, I’ve written much about it:

• The Leica M9 still reigns supreme.
• About the M240… the image quality is a step down.
• The M9 and CCD sensor.
• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013

…And I have even written an open letter to Leica asking for an updated CCD sensor on a future Leica M model.  So far, over 130 individuals have signed it.

However, to answer your question in a concise manner, I’ll note three things I don’t appreciate about the Leica M240 sensor:

1. Colour signature.  The native Leica M240 colour signature is suboptimal for skin tones, and one has to constantly fight against the default settings to achieve acceptable results.
2. Colour Tonality.  Colour transitions are rendered more coarsely by the M240 vs. the M9.  The M9 renders tones in a more subtle and delicate fashion.
3. Microcontrast.  Although the M240 sensor (24 MP) will objectively out-resolve the Leica M9 sensor (18 MP) at 100% magnification, the M240 files as a whole are more “muddy” and “flat” as compared to the more “crisp” and “3D”-like images generated by the M9.  See here for two examples (see various photo-sharing sites, photography fora, and generally the entire internet for more 🙂 …).

–

As for the Nikon Df and Sony A7/A7R, they are not rangefinder cameras, and so obviously cannot provide the rangefinder experience, which is important to me.   Also, being CMOS sensor cameras, they cannot equal the M9 in Points #2 and #3 above.

That’s basically it.  I hope that answers your question Matteo.

Sincerely,

—Peter.

[Incidentally, Matteo has submitted several images to me that will be featured in a not-too-distant Guest Post.]

–

It’s nearing the end of 2013, and the Leica M9/M-E/Monochrom with the venerable CCD sensor continues to provide the best image quality at base ISO in the 35mm (36 x 24) sensor class.

As predicted here.

The Leica M (Type 240) cannot touch it, the Nikon Df comes close, and so does the Sony A7/A7R… but none of these CMOS sensor cameras can equal it.

Don’t believe me?  Please research it for yourself.

And let’s not even mention the whole rangefinder experience, which these other cameras (with the exception of the Leica M240) lack.

So…

If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.

___

Related posts:

• About the M240… the image quality is a step down.
• The M9 and CCD sensor.
• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013