- Location
- Switzerland
- Name
- Matt
Okay, to sum up my observations from the sideline: IQ is there (colour, resolution, DR - all good), control over file properties is there as well, in spades; AF is at least as good as in the original, though certainly not class leading (though I'd think it'd beat the Fuji X100F from what I've seen - at least in reasonable circumstances); deploy times are impressively fast, built quality is not quite on the same level as the original, but still very good. Add I.B.I.S./dust removal and touch functionality (if you care for the latter), and you've got the GR III in a nutshell - oh, not to forget, it's even smaller than the original ... It's becoming ever harder for me to resist, to be honest.
I'd really like to see more low light images if someone can be bothered to provide some - from RAW, preferrably. I don't need crazy high ISO values - solid images up to ISO 3200 would suit me fine. To put my interest into some kind of perspective: The original delivers up to ISO 1600 in my eyes, though colours are already pretty problematic at that point; high contrast b&w makes it possible to go one or two steps up - as is to be expected, since the same is true for a camera as old as the Leica M8.
M.
I'd really like to see more low light images if someone can be bothered to provide some - from RAW, preferrably. I don't need crazy high ISO values - solid images up to ISO 3200 would suit me fine. To put my interest into some kind of perspective: The original delivers up to ISO 1600 in my eyes, though colours are already pretty problematic at that point; high contrast b&w makes it possible to go one or two steps up - as is to be expected, since the same is true for a camera as old as the Leica M8.
M.