Hi Tim I use the Leica for b&w using Ilford 3200 ISO film. I've used this film from 800 ISO to almost 12800 ISO depending on the lighting. If I take my LX, I use Fuji Press 800 ISO pushed one stop. I do this primarily to distinguish the artist from the background.
I use film almost exclusively when I am seriously shooting these events. I have experimented with the *istDS, most recently I've shot at ISO 3200 with a 1 stop overexposure and this has given me a satisfactory result. Note that I prefer to convert all colour into b&w. My images sometimes tend to be soft because of artist movement, and difficulty in focusing in low light (the rangefinder of the Leica is a great help). Of course, the big grain also does its share in lessening image quality. I'm also foolish enough much of the time to use my older f4 Pentax lenses on the *istDS handheld. I have no idea whatsoever why the club(s) I inhabit have such poor lighting, and then when they do happen to improve on it, the lighting manager or artist lowers the intensity, or plays in the shadows :-) >but why do you change to the Leica when the lighting is extremely bad at >concerts? I have much better latitude with film than with digital, also there is the "noise" issue when shooting at high ISO. Noise doesn't have the same quality as big clump grain which usually is tolerated in bad lighting conditions. I hope this somewhat answers youre question. herb Tim Øsleby wrote Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:32:11 -0800 >This may be a naive question, but why do you change to the Leica when the lighting is extremely bad at concerts? What I have noticed is that my DS has problems when the light is very red. Is this what you refer to when saying this, and does the Leica Fuji press handle this differently?
