5D mkII owner with general questions on m8/m8.2/m9

A

animefx

Established
Local time
6:35 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
77
Hello. I'm new to the forums and have been reading up on Leica's m8, m8.2, and m9 series of cameras.

I had a few general questions about them.

- I've seen several comments on this forum from people saying that they wish the m8/m8.2/m9 had the "color" reproduction of a Canon 5D. I am a 5D mark II owner and I think everything, including color generally looks superior on the Leica m8/m8.2/m9. The except would be ISO noise which is probably about 2 stops better on the 5D mark II. Anyway, is there a really an issue with color I should know about? If someone could show me some specific examples I would like to see. Actually, I think that Leica photos for color looks pretty similar to Canon's, more so than Nikon (which is a bit exaggerated).

- I am frustrated with the 5D mark II's autofocus... both the AI Servo tracking and one-shot are almost pathetic. I'm thinking about selling ALL of my DSLR gear and getting an M9 along with a Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH, that way I know if the shot is out of focus it's MY FAULT and not the camera's. The 5D does pretty well in well lit scenes but if it's too contrasty, not contrasty enough, or too dark, the auto focus will simply hunt or miss focus all together.

- Selling my DSLR gear would come at a hefty price... I think I could get about $6,300 for all of my gear and the rest I have saved up for the m9. the 50 Summilux would need to go on credit, so I would have to make due with 1 lens for awhile. But some of the greatest photographers mainly used 1 lens, so I'm kind of up for that challange. Having said that, what would be the most comparable lens to the Canon 135mm f/2L on Leica? I've heard the 75mm and 90mm lenses are amazing, but what kind of bokeh can I expect out of these lenses? Also, is there a site I can see what the minimum focusing distance is for each lens? I'm not really interested in the Leica 135mm lens because manual focusing would be too difficult but 90mm would probably be close enough for me.

- How much processing do you guys do on your photos? I'm a little suspect on some of the images I've seen posted here that look AMAZING for color, contrast, and sharpness. I would REALLY like to download some Leica m8 and m9 RAW DNG files from people here and see what they look like before Photoshop or Lightroom is applied.

I would specifically like to hear from people who have switched from a DSLR system to Leica range finders and what they like better and what they miss.

Thanks,
Bryan
 
Last edited:
Buying a Leica lens on credit is beyond me. Why not get a cheaper lens first? There are plenty of alternatives.

martin
 
Perhaps you should subscribe to Reid Reviews and read what Sean has to say about the Canon 5D Mark II and the Leica M9. I found the essays very helpful. -George
 
Well, I've considered getting the Voigtlander 50/1.1 as my first lens since it's quite a bit cheaper than the Summilux 50/1.4

I would like to see the Voigtlander 50/1.1 compared to the Canon 50/1.2 which I owned for a short time and returned because it was so-so.

As for focusing on the dark with the Leica, it seems like it would be just as easy as daylight as long as there was some kind of light on the main subject.
 
Each time I look at an M9 file, I think, "This is like the best of [colour] film."

Sure, I do a little post-processing in many cases (far from all). Rarely much unless I've screwed up on exposure. And I very much prefer film for B+W.

I find an RF vastly quicker and easier to focus in poor light, and the better the lens, the better the image (for me, for the kind of pics I'm taking - and 'better' can include a 1938 Thambar). In other words, the 'best lens' does not have to be the latest APO: my standard 35 is still my 30-year-old Summilux.

But, as ever, YMMV.

Cheers,

R.
 
Just spent nearly two weeks in Rome with my M8u and two zeiss lenses - 25/2.8 and 35/2. Was astounded by the number of people I saw with 5DII and 24-70 zoom. That combo is huge! Very happily walked around all day with my setup. I'm so glad I did not take my Sony A900.

Ok, so no zoom, no image stabilisation, no video, no full frame. Also no back or wrist ache. No big bag of big lenses and no worrying about standing out.

Max ISO used 640 is very dark rooms, handheld 1/15.

Very very happy.

Not saying my images are any good, just saying that I could do my thing and take a camera with me and not worry about lumping kit. Never had a second thought about taking camera anywhere.

How about trying an M8, I know its not fullframe but it would give you a great idea about whether a digital rangefinder does what you need.
 
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the color of a 5D was better than a 5D mark II, from my experience the 5D's color is excellent. The color of a 400D is better than a 450D, too, imo. Every sensor's different. If you don't like the mark II, try a plain ol 5D.

I think it would be nuts to trade your Canon gear for a Leica, they have a serious technical problem with the flange to film distance of their bodies and lenses. They could have solved it by keeping the M8 sized sensor and designing lenses for it, but they moved to fullframe instead, now they're screwed.

But that's just my opinion, man, and I've never used one. Film's better anyway, lol.

;)
 
- If you have a need for AI Servo....forget a manual focus camera.
- I have a M8 and have to invest much more time per photo to get the colour I like, compared to a 5D (used C1, Lightroom)

My opinion: a RF is a really nice 2nd camera.
 
The M8 files are so sharp and colour is very accurate. however have you ever used a rangefinder? its very different than using an SLR. For portrait, landscapes, street photography they are fantastic but its not a sports or wildlife camera (not impossible of course but theres better tools)
Id suggest hiring an m8/m9 for a day and see how it goes.

BTW i sold all my canon gear two weeks ago and now have an m8 and absolutly love it
 
Just to muddy the waters: With the M9 and a 50/1.4, you will have to make sure the two pieces of machinery are calibrated to one another. I have an M8 and a 50/1.4 Asph and the lens's focus is off by 2 cm at the near focus limit. The camera works fine with my 50/2 and 50/1, so I know the issue is with the lens. Leica NJ wants to have the camera and lens for 2 months to adjust them! So don't assume that spending vast amounts of money on this spiffy new gear will mean fewer headaches. The tolerances for focus on a flat sensor are _very_ demanding and the mechanical cam-roller arm linkage that transfers focus information into the M9 viewfinder . . . let's just say it has its own quirks. Highly recommend you rent one for a couple of weeks prior to purchase, if you can.

Ben Marks

P.S. I actually love the M8; I'm just annoyed I can't use it with all of my lenses without spending additional dollars on minute tolerance adjustments.
 
animefx said:
- I am frustrated with the 5D mark II's autofocus... both the AI Servo tracking and one-shot are almost pathetic. I'm thinking about selling ALL of my DSLR gear and getting an M9 along with a Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH, that way I know if the shot is out of focus it's MY FAULT and not the camera's. The 5D does pretty well in well lit scenes but if it's too contrasty, not contrasty enough, or too dark, the auto focus will simply hunt or miss focus all together.
Click to expand...

Does the 5D mk II have some derivation of this?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068

I was *this* close to buying one of these, and then this came out. I'd take the not great 5D's AF over that mess any day. If I actually NEEDED really good AF, it would be Nikon.
 
I'd definitely try before you buy.

Also, plan your potential lens choices based on what focal lengths you use the most. If its all 135mm and 24-70, an RF might not be a good choice. If you shoot mostly with at 35/1.4 or 50/1.4, an RF might be a more reasonable decision.

I switched from a DSLR to a film RF about 4 years ago. I really like it. Mostly the smaller size, but the nice lenses are a big bonus.
 
Ranchu said:
Well what? Have they fixed the goofy flexing-with-temperature-changes AF mirror?
Click to expand...

Some say there is a problem some they there isn't. Canon still sells those cameras and pro's are using it successfully for sports events. So is there a dramatic and substantial problem with the AF of the Canon 1? I think the complaints are at the same level as those reviews that came to the conclusion that you can't use the M8 for real photography.
 
I can think of a lot of reasons to go with an M9 instead of a 5DII but focus accuracy surely isn't one of them. The center spot on the 5DII is pretty decent and surely more accurate than your eyes with an M9. When it's too dark for the AF you can either use an ST-E2 or just use manual focus. You can even put a split screen in it if you like.
 
I'll try to answer some of the questions.

I've never owned a dSLR to make a direct comparison, but I think the main complaint from those who are familiar w/the 5D, D700, etc. is that the M8 & M9's auto white balance is inferior. In my experience, the M8 & M9 do seem to have problems w/mixed artificial lighting, especially the ugly mix of street lamps (mercury vapor?), fluorescent, & incandescent that you get on your typical city street @ night. Yes, you can fix a lot in post, but it would be nice to get something that's closer to what your eyes saw.

animefx said:
- I've seen several comments on this forum from people saying that they wish the m8/m8.2/m9 had the "color" reproduction of a Canon 5D. I am a 5D mark II owner and I think everything, including color generally looks superior on the Leica m8/m8.2/m9. The except would be ISO noise which is probably about 2 stops better on the 5D mark II. Anyway, is there a really an issue with color I should know about? If someone could show me some specific examples I would like to see. Actually, I think that Leica photos for color looks pretty similar to Canon's, more so than Nikon (which is a bit exaggerated).
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think a 75 or 85 or 90mm lens is really comparable to a 135, but that said, you can find out the minimum focusing distances from the manufacturer's web sites (I know Leica & Zeiss have downloadable PDF data sheets that include that info). Boke is too subjective for me to bother describing, so I'll let somebody else weigh in. Also, I only have experience w/the 75/1.4 Summilux & vintage 85/2 Sonnars, Nikkors, etc., not the current Leica or Zeiss fast short telephotos.

animefx said:
what would be the most comparable lens to the Canon 135mm f/2L on Leica? I've heard the 75mm and 90mm lenses are amazing, but what kind of bokeh can I expect out of these lenses? Also, is there a site I can see what the minimum focusing distance is for each lens? I'm not really interested in the Leica 135mm lens because manual focusing would be too difficult but 90mm would probably be close enough for me.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you quantify post-processing, but I do about the same amount of post w/digital files as I do w/scanned film shots.

animefx said:
- How much processing do you guys do on your photos? I'm a little suspect on some of the images I've seen posted here that look AMAZING for color, contrast, and sharpness. I would REALLY like to download some Leica m8 and m9 RAW DNG files from people here and see what they look like before Photoshop or Lightroom is applied.
Click to expand...
 
Shortly after my twins were born, I sold my 5DMk2 and lenses, including the 50/1.2. The camera was simply too large when you have to carry other things, like diaper bags and strollers, not to mention bottles, food, etc. for the kids. I ended up with a used Leica M8, a couple of Voigtlander lenses and a used Summicron 50/2 (Type 4).

I liked the 5DMk2, and the results I got--especially from 30/1.4 and 24/1.4 lenses. 50/1.2 was definitely a disspointment as it also had some "back focusing" issues I had to adjust in 5DMk2. Canon lenses I've owned tend to create over saturated photos, which I personally don't mind and in some instances, liked these results.

M8, on the other hand, with with various Voigtlander lenses I own now, produces less saturated colors than the Canon, but I think the colors are closer to the colors I see. Recently, I shot with a friend's Zeiss Planer 50/2 lens and I was blown away by the consistent color repro and great contrast. IMO, I got far better photos with M8 with Zeiss 50/2 than I've ever had with 5DMk2 and any of the "L" lenses I owned. M8 isn't small like Olympus E-PL but it's not giant like 5DMk2. I like the size. But, best of all, I like the small lenses--although VC 50/1.1 is huge (sold it to get Voigtlander 40/1.4 and used Summicron 50/2 Version 3).

That said, I also recently purchased a Canon T2i as my second digtal camera, becauseM8's high ISOs are terrible--especially compared to the 5DMk2. (I also missed the ability to shoot movies). Also, I don't yet have the skills to focus super quickly on the M8-- many of the shots of my kids were out of focus because they could never stay still and I couldn't focus quick enough. AF on 5DMk2 is faster but, RF cameras will give you a better focus as long as the subject isn't moving too fast or you're very skilled as focusing on RF cameras.

And, yes, I do post-process many of my photos because I shoot RAW.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soelin/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom