Getting the M9 itch again... somene talk me out of it.

In the brave new world of the X100

In the brave new world of the X100

In the brave new world of the X100, Leica M prices are way way out of touch with reality. When I bought my M8 in 07, $4,700 was expensive and it still is. I paid that for a used Noctilux 2 years ago and I would NEVER pay what people want now. They are (NVTS Mel Brooks History of the world NUTS! The M9P is what the M9 should have looked like from the beginning and should not be more than 7K. Realistically, any M9 new should not be more than $5400 USD. Look at the printer from Epson you can buy for the price of an M9. I would rather have a cheaper used M9 or M8 and a great printer than the latest overpriced offering from Leica to show off at some black tie event!

The X100 is a bargain if you are buying it for the lens alone. Eventually we will see other full frame options for M lenses at reasonable prices. I cant wait for that, especially with today's economic realities!
 
Ben Z said:
But it's hard to imagine that the M9-P will sell anywhere near the numbers of the M9.
Click to expand...

Never implied any such thing. I think absolute M9-P sales are the wrong benchmark; rather it's more appropriate IMO to judge based on Leica's expectations for manufacture and sales. And of course we don't know this, but I'd highly doubt it's anywhere close to M9 sales. The M9 doubled Leica expectations. For the M9-P, we'll see...or should I say, Leica will see.

Jeff
 
eleskin said:
In the brave new world of the X100, Leica M prices are way way out of touch with reality. When I bought my M8 in 07, $4,700 was expensive and it still is. I paid that for a used Noctilux 2 years ago and I would NEVER pay what people want now. They are (NVTS Mel Brooks History of the world NUTS! The M9P is what the M9 should have looked like from the beginning and should not be more than 7K. Realistically, any M9 new should not be more than $5400 USD. Look at the printer from Epson you can buy for the price of an M9. I would rather have a cheaper used M9 or M8 and a great printer than the latest overpriced offering from Leica to show off at some black tie event!

The X100 is a bargain if you are buying it for the lens alone. Eventually we will see other full frame options for M lenses at reasonable prices. I cant wait for that, especially with today's economic realities!
Click to expand...

I think the dollar rate is out of touch with reality.. The things are produced in Europe and the Euro prices are realistic imo.
 
eleskin said:
In the brave new world of the X100, Leica M prices are way way out of touch with reality. When I bought my M8 in 07, $4,700 was expensive and it still is. I paid that for a used Noctilux 2 years ago and I would NEVER pay what people want now. They are (NVTS Mel Brooks History of the world NUTS! The M9P is what the M9 should have looked like from the beginning and should not be more than 7K. Realistically, any M9 new should not be more than $5400 USD. Look at the printer from Epson you can buy for the price of an M9. I would rather have a cheaper used M9 or M8 and a great printer than the latest overpriced offering from Leica to show off at some black tie event!

The X100 is a bargain if you are buying it for the lens alone. Eventually we will see other full frame options for M lenses at reasonable prices. I cant wait for that, especially with today's economic realities!
Click to expand...
Two questions:

Hiw much sense does it make to compare an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera with a fixed-lens autofocus point and shoot, even if the latter does have some manual override?

On what do you base your assessment of what a camera 'should' cost?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Two questions:

Hiw much sense does it make to compare an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera with a fixed-lens autofocus point and shoot, even if the latter does have some manual override?
Click to expand...

Around the early 70's my M4 with a 50 Summicron cost $600. At the time I had a Konica Auto S2 (a well-built rangefinder with a very decent 45mm f/1.8 lens and shutter-priority auto in addition to manual) which had cost me $75. The price differential existed back then, as did the logical failure in comparing them as though equals.
 
Ben Z said:
Around the early 70's my M4 with a 50 Summicron cost $600. At the time I had a Konica Auto S2 (a well-built rangefinder with a very decent 45mm f/1.8 lens and shutter-priority auto in addition to manual) which had cost me $75. The price differential existed back then, as did the logical failure in comparing them as though equals.
Click to expand...
Putting things in perspective, my new M4 with a 50 cost me a month's salary after taxes. A new M9 with a 50 will also cost a very good month's net earnings. Hmmm... maybe I've been running in place all these years.
 
If you would have asked me a month ago, I would have argued pages, to not go from that M8.2 to a M9 for this kind of money.

I have been on a trip to France a few weeks ago and happened to stumble into a shop with M9 on display.

I love my M8.2, it's my most used camera. I don't do wide - 35 mm on film always has been my most liked most wide.

I shoot ISO 640 + a lot.

I tried the demo M9, shot the exact dark scene in the shop with the same lens and same exposure and could not believe my eyes, when I saw the photos on a computer screen.

While the M8.2 showed already banding in areas, as underexposed as 2 stops, the M9 was free of banding and showed a much milder noise.

I decided quickly. I bought a M9 and since then have found, that the camera is also better in a few other aspects.

For me, money on a new M9 is worth the upgrade just for the higher ISO speeds. IT is definitely more than one stops, maybe 1 1/2, I am not sure.
The M9 files definitely push better in post, they are more robust, but also less sharp than M8 files.

If you have a M8.2 and no personal attachment to the camera (I won't sell mine), go and swap in for a M9.
 
menos said:
The M9 files definitely push better in post, they are more robust, but also less sharp than M8 files.
Click to expand...
This chance remark tells me you should have a very good look at your sharpening workflow, especially the capture sharpening part. Basically the M9 files should appear sharper, as they are at a higher resolution at the same image size. But - due to the thicker IR filter on the M9 there is a slight difference in sensor rendering, which will show up if you process them as if they were M8 files. I would strongly recommend that you get the book by Fraser and Schewe, "Real Life Image Sharpening" to help you finetune your workflow. The improvement of your prints will be dramatic.
 
I find this a really difficult one too, and respect the opinions on both sides.

In January I wnet back to digital Leica, getting an M8.2. I'm really happy with it. One of the reaosns I am so happy wityh it is that I realised, having had, then sold, the M8, that it is not a perfect camera for everything (and such does not exist). Using it within its limitations, and for what it is good for, however, it is a wonderful tool.

Before getting the M8.2 I started a new love affair with film, and mainly 35mm film rangefinders. I try to use one or two every other day. I enjoy using film so much, including the fact I don't shoot so liberally. I did not want the M8.2 to replace my film RFs and it has not, it has complimented them.

Very recently I bought the X100. I was impressed with the reviews and wanted something I could always carry, which worked well for street shooting and with high isos (wher it out performs both M8 and M9). Again it is far from a perfect camera. It has a fixed lens (and if you are going to only have one, it has the right one). And although in some respects (the ability to use AF, close up and macro work, and high ISOs) it outpefroms digital Leicas, and the image quality and lens are wonderful, I am glad to say I still generally prefer the look of stuff I shoot on my film or digital Leica Ms.

I am very happy with my kit, which involves far too many cameras, precisely because I enjoy using different cameras for different purposes. If I was a full time professional I should not indulge this luxury. But for an enthusiast, my problem with the M9 is this...

Much as I would love one, I would feel the price means I would have to use it all the time, either exclsuively, or at least mainly, to the detriment of my other cameras. And I don't want to do that. I would just as much like to use the beautiful old M3 I picked up the other day. That's what holds me back with the M9. If money meant nothing to me (rather than less or more than it shuold) I would get one and just use it once a week. But that seems such a waste.

On the other hanbd I would gladly trade my mamiya 7 and lenses (including the 43mm) for it. Yes the M7 is a fine camera, but it is just too bulky for a walk about/travel MF kit for me, and so I bought the Mamiya 7 and lenses, which is for more compact, and which usually alsways travels with me. So if anyone wants to sway a Mamiya 7 and 3 lenses for an M9 I am in!
 
Less sharp or megapixel mush as we say

Less sharp or megapixel mush as we say

Interesting that the M9 files appear in some cases less sharp than M9 files. Many who have Nikon and Canon feel this as well. This is what I call high megapixel mush and the M9 seems to suffer this as well as Canon and Nikon. Why? Sensors at high megapixel are beginning to outperform lenses designed for 35mm. I would say the M9 is at the limit and Leica should not go further. High ISO performance should be Leicas next goal in the M system. I tested an S2 the other day and the files are very sharp for the high megapixel range . Why? Unlike 35mm , this is medium format with all of it's advantages. More importantly, the lenses were designed for the sensor itself, hence the great sharpness with high megapixels. Future lenses by leica may be designed to get more from a larger megapixel sensor and eliminate the mush problem. If you use older and classic Leica lenses, the megapixel range of the M8 may be better combined with better high ISO.
 
eleskin said:
Interesting that the M9 files appear in some cases less sharp than M9 files. Many who have Nikon and Canon feel this as well. This is what I call high megapixel mush and the M9 seems to suffer this as well as Canon and Nikon. Why? Sensors at high megapixel are beginning to outperform lenses designed for 35mm. I would say the M9 is at the limit and Leica should not go further. High ISO performance should be Leicas next goal in the M system. I tested an S2 the other day and the files are very sharp for the high megapixel range . Why? Unlike 35mm , this is medium format with all of it's advantages. More importantly, the lenses were designed for the sensor itself, hence the great sharpness with high megapixels. Future lenses by leica may be designed to get more from a larger megapixel sensor and eliminate the mush problem. If you use older and classic Leica lenses, the megapixel range of the M8 may be better combined with better high ISO.
Click to expand...
I don't think this argument applies to the M8 vs M9, as the pixel pitch is identical.
 
jaapv said:
This chance remark tells me you should have a very good look at your sharpening workflow, especially the capture sharpening part. Basically the M9 files should appear sharper, as they are at a higher resolution at the same image size. But - due to the thicker IR filter on the M9 there is a slight difference in sensor rendering, which will show up if you process them as if they were M8 files. I would strongly recommend that you get the book by Fraser and Schewe, "Real Life Image Sharpening" to help you finetune your workflow. The improvement of your prints will be dramatic.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip Jaap.
I have to mention though, that I am a heavy Lightroom user. I do my complete sharpen and print workflow inside Lightroom and truly love especially the sharpening workflow, which has been maxed a lot with the introduction of Lr3.

My comment was not towards my prints between the M8.2 and M9 - from a pixel quality (and sharpness), they are indistinguishable (I don't print larger than 13x19 regularly, if prints are needed bigger, I let the wizards in the lab handle a tiff file + an A4 proof, I make for reference).

The M9 files are softer on pixel basis and are somewhere in their input sharpening between the EPSON R-D1 and a Nikon D3 - more towards the D3 though most of the times. The M8 files need the least sharpening of all cameras, I used.

As a reference, when I use a sharpening of 35 clicks with treshhold 0.8 and detail 50 with the M8, a similar file from the M9 needs 55 clicks, treshhold 0.9 to 1.0 with same detail for a comparable signature (all sharpening processing for input are made in a 1:1 pixel live view in Lightroom, so these facts are comparable).

Regarding the final print size and actually needed sharpening, the M9 files in fact do not need to be pixel sharp on the same level as the M8 files, as mentioned above, it does have a higher resolution, where a slight lack in per pixel detail will be taken care of by the proper pre print resizing and fitting output sharpening method.

One of my major arguments against a M9 for me, shooting the M8 for motorsports always has been, that the M9 indeed has no resolution advantage for me, as I would have to crop both camera's files to a similar total file size anyway, when I go out of reach of a 135mm lens.

I THOUGHT, that the same pixel pitch in fact will make such files comparable indistinguishable, when viewing cropped shots (need of reach) from both cameras.

I have learned during this years Le Mans edition, that this is not the fact, but indeed cropped files from both cameras do have a slight difference in acuity, giving the advantage to the M8 sensor (in low ISO and mainly for shooting B&W, not dealing with color issues).

Practically though, this is a detail to know about and adjust for (one should choose one body over the other for certain situations, when shooting both cameras next to each other, given the focal length need, ISO speed need and final crop).

I shoot mostly for B&W, so this is a real factor for me between both sensors, making "my old M8.2" every thing BUT dispensable ;-)

I love my M8.2, but equally so already the M9.

Woah, that was long stuff, just about sharpening … excuse that folks ;-)
 
Erwin Puts says that when he tests M lenses he uses film because the M lenses outresolve the M8 or M9 sensors. So I think they have some mp room to go with the next version. or am I missing something?
 
Yes - Erwin Puts'explanation is more elaborate than that. Firstly he says it is incorrect to compare digital and film in this respect
Then he goes on to say that resolution is not a relevant variable to judge lens quality and that all resolution testing like we see in magazines is basically worthless, as long as a lens meets minimum standards (my paraphrase). In his new compendium he has tested many of the more modern lenses both on film and on sensor

On another tack: In both his old and new compendium he argues convincingly that the maximum resolution on film for maximal quality is 40 lp/mm (and not just Erwin Puts. Zeiss and Leica take the same position) For lenses he makes the same argument.
A sensor needs 2 pixels to resolve 1 lp, which means on a ff sensor 3744 pixels wide, as for various reasons one needs to multiply by 1.3,to equal the best lens on the best film in terms of resolution. The M9 has a safety margin as it has 5200 pixels. Some argue 60 lp/mm, and then we come to 5616 pixels which is a minimal (9%) difference with the M9. So it is simply not true that film outresolves digital, in fact both systems have reached the platform of what is needed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation that was helpful. What is the Nyquist limit he refers to?

I'm thinking also of getting an M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom