Canon 5D MK II vs Leica M9

Colin Corneau said:
You can't possibly compare the sensors in the 5D MkII and the M9.


Both are good cameras. The Canon has, by far, the more advanced sensor. Leica is behind the game from the start with its current sensors...

They're both fine, there's no way a working professional would choose the M9 over the 5DMkII. Better files, less than half the cost...seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that the Leica M9 sensor seems to be a generation behind. But last generation worked amazingly well. I think the current offerings from all manufacturers is past just getting it right and is at the point of refinement. ISO's are getting higher, and the megapixel factor has plateaued. They're starting to realize the importance of dynamic range. Now it's software fixes. Soon it'll be genuine.

And I'm a working professional and I used the M8 & M9 on assignment often. And yeah, I got crap for it from some of the other photographers but after the joshing the truth is most of them really envied the lightweight package. The only drawbacks were the price and some couldn't get past the different way of focusing, and then there's the lack of long tele's. Which I do without just fine.

I will admit that since my M9 went dead the other day and I've been using the 5D mk2 for work I've come to appreciate its strengths. The images are sharp. Autofocus is quick and accurate in daylight. Except when there's a lot to decipher but the full time manual focus of the USM lenses makes fine adjustment easier and the files take less time to edit.

Also my whole system, the 5D Mk2, 28 f1.8 USM, 50mm f1.4 USM and 100mm f2 USM And the lenses I plan on adding to my kit, the 20mm f2.8 USM and 200 f2.8L USM cost less than the M9 alone.

The only trick is finding a new camera bag. My Domke F-6 held my M9 with 1 lens attached and 4 additional lenses.

With the Canon outfit I can only fit three lenses and the body in there. And it still weighs more.
 
I don't really need a Nikon or Canon for low light... M9, Summilux 50 asph @ 1.4, ISO 1600, 1/16th handheld:

molen-1.jpg
 
Don't I remember these arguments, size/weight/fast focussing/long lenses/ do pros use/ when it was between an M series and an EOS/F Nikon ? Only then the sensor:- film, was the same :)

Why can't we acknowledge that in some circumstances a screwdriver is a better tool than a hammer and vice versa ?

There is not even a definition of "best" to work to.

This thread is three weeks on from a "light touch" (get the pun ? ) comparison so many of us, me included, are driven to make. Has anyones mind been changed ? Do we know anything at all we didn't know three weeks ago (about these cameras and lenses) ? Will I be posting this identical text again very soon?

Shall I set up a poll to find the answer or do we really know that the image is the message, not the gear it was produced with ?

Sadly, I have to say, from that lofty, exalted position I have read every post in the thread :D
 
This has been my trouble with my 7D. I love to do death my m-mount stuff (I have an R-D1, so I'm the poor man's version of this thread) and would love lenses with more 'character' for my canon (specifically a 35). I like the 35L, but it doesn't move me to buy. Maybe the announced 35 1.4 distagon will be a good match.



rwchisholm said:
I find that when arguing about differences in image quality between the M9 and 5d2 ( I have both), we are truly discussing lens choices. Both sensors at low to moderate iso levels are outstanding. The Canon has the edge at higher values. Everything else is just lens choice. The strength of the rangefinder system is the sheer amount of boutique lenses available, each with its own unique signature. The canon system certainly has standouts, the 85 II and 35 L lenses coming easily to mind. I find with the M9 it is not always the sharpest lens that I choose, but the one that gives me a certain look. And I love 50's. On the canon I shoot the sigma 50 but on the M9 I choose between my hexanon for clarity and pop, my 1.1 nok for dreamy wide open and low light, the 1.5 nok for old school summilux look, etc. I like the choices available on the M9 system, and I don't see such dramatic look variation on the canon system. Rob
Click to expand...
 


Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS on Canon 5D2




Nikkor 400 2.8 IF ED AIS on Canon 5D2



8mm 2.8 Canon 5D2








50 1.0 AF with Polarizer on Canon 5D2














50 1.0 AF on Canon 5D2








For a time I had a Canon 5D2 to get my feet wet in Video. I took a couple of still shots as well. I have since sold the Canon for a M7:p. Anyway, the only Canon lens I had was the 50 1.0 AF which was every bit as good as the Noctilux I now have. Different but a really a great lens. Being able to mount my Nikkor AIS glass on the Canon (with adaptors) was very cool.
The high ISO was really excellent with the Canon.

I love the Leica M system. However picking one over the other is kind of silly. There differnt systems and are bestr at what they do best. Im hoping that I can get a M9 this year.
 
Last edited:
Hey Tom Do a search on the 50 1.0 for more info. There is plenty of information out there. Most of it telling how the lens isnt sharp. And than te lie get repeated as fact... OO . Posting these shots in this thread kind of make me regret trading it for the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and 14-24 2.8 but at the time I really needed a fast wide prime and wide angle.













Canon 50 1.0 on 5D2





If I could find a Leica M9 to buy in Canada I would. After testing on I really liked it. As far as the M9 vs the 5D2 , I dont one think one replaces the other and vise versa.
 
Last edited:
I just got my 5DII back from repair after water damage. I agree, neither can replace the other. I enjoy both the M9 and the 5DII, for different reasons. I notice that in the market place here I can stand and take images with the M9 and after a shot or two no one notices me any longer, unless they run into me. :^) One combo the M9 can't do is the 5DII and the 200 f2. That combo I love, what a fantastic lens! It's all good. :^)
 
Wait, the argument was about which files look better straight out of the camera?

You mean people actually release digital images right out of the camera? Really? Huh...
 
Nikkor AIS said:
Hey Tom Do a search on the 50 1.0 for more info. There is plenty of information out there. Most of it telling how the lens isnt sharp. And than te lie get repeated as fact... OO . Posting these shots in this thread kind of make me regret trading it for the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and 14-24 2.8 but at the time I really needed a fast wide prime and wide angle.
Click to expand...

I'm seen some stunning images from the 50mm f1.0L as well as yours - it truly looks like an amazing lens (even if 99% of the internet forum congregation says its bad without even trying it)

I had a similar situation with the canon 50mm f1.2L - one of the best superspeed 50mm lenses I've ever used - awesome in every way, and yet it somehow has a bad reputation on forums...
 
:confused: Ah - I see what you mean - it is too large to be chroma noise - I'll look at it at full res on my decent monitor at home.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
:confused: Ah - I see what you mean - it is too large to be chroma noise - I'll look at it at full res on my decent monitor at home.
Click to expand...

:) Yep, please post a full res somewhere.. (btw I'd love to have an M9, also if it would be noisier than others)
 
Well, there is noise and noise. Nowadays with LR3 or CS5 most M9 users will shoot up to and including 2500 (aka Canon 3200) without much trouble. maybe noise, like sharpness, is a bourgeois concept ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom