ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I do have the M lenses and an M8 upgraded but even buying the Canon at £UK 1675 and three prime lenses 28mm f1.8 £360, 50mm f1.4 £289 and 100mm f2 £369 total £2693 I walk home with £2257 saved over the M9 price of £4950.
I can buy the Canon, three primes and a used M8.2 instead of the M9. To me that's not "very little difference".
Is there no chance of another M mount digital non Leica coming to market ?
BTW thanks for the comparisons, it's usually the D700
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
I do have the M lenses and an M8 upgraded but even buying the Canon at £UK 1675 and three prime lenses 28mm f1.8 £360, 50mm f1.4 £289 and 100mm f2 £369 total £2693 I walk home with £2257 saved over the M9 price of £4950.
I can buy the Canon, three primes and a used M8.2 instead of the M9. To me that's not "very little difference".
Is there no chance of another M mount digital non Leica coming to market ?
BTW thanks for the comparisons, it's usually the D700
Yeah but if I had a 5D MkII I'd also just have to have:
EF 16-35 F2.8L @ £1129
EF 24-70 F2.8L @ £973
EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM @ £1775
EF 50 F1.2L @ £1203
EF 24 F1.4L @ £1262
EF 35 F1.4L @ £1072
EF 85 1.2L @ £1665
EF 135 F2.0L @ £856
All of those plus 20% vat and you can see what I mean
No point using cheap lenses on a highend digital sensor when I could use my zeiss lenses, which are superior, on an M9. Thats how I look at it. And I know you are going to say I can't use zoom lenses on my M9 but if I have a 5dMKII, then I may as well use it to its full capabilities and will require the zooms to do that.
swoop
Well-known
Those are the exact 3 lenses I own. I dropped and broke my M9, and while waiting for a replacement I purchased the 5d Mk2 and those 3 lenses. They do the job very well. In fact I'm almost inclined to stick with them over the M9. But the M9 is a much smaller package to tote around. The only trade off is a bit more processing time.
And while the basic Canon USM prime lenses are relatively cheap. They're still great performers. And the L lenses are too big and heavy to carry around comfortably.
HenningW
Well-known
I have and use both cameras. They are both very good, and they are quite different. The Canon works better with the 300/2.8 and 17TSE, the M9 works better with the 21 and 50 Summilux.
I can't get the same optical performance with the 50's on the Canon as I can with the 50 ASPH on the M9, but then I can't replicate the performance of the 300/2.8 on the Leica.
As far as colours and white balance are concerned, cameras have to be profiled, otherwise it's a waste of time discussing the topic and white balance is, as mentioned before, marketing and/or personal preference. Judging 'performance' of white balance when the lighting is of unknown quality is truly pointless. 'White balance' is not truly defineable with lighting with a spectral distribution that's different than daylight, and the further it deviates, or, as in this case, is even discontinuous, the less it means. Then there are the influences of the TV and colours of reflective surfaces. The best thing to do is shoot RAW and adjust as it pleases you. 'Accuracy' is unachievable.
In any case, under ideal conditions the performance of both cameras is excellent. The files from the 5DII generally need a little more work with respect to sharpening and curves than the M9 files, but the result is generally equal. Optics, handling and application are not equal.
Henning
I can't get the same optical performance with the 50's on the Canon as I can with the 50 ASPH on the M9, but then I can't replicate the performance of the 300/2.8 on the Leica.
As far as colours and white balance are concerned, cameras have to be profiled, otherwise it's a waste of time discussing the topic and white balance is, as mentioned before, marketing and/or personal preference. Judging 'performance' of white balance when the lighting is of unknown quality is truly pointless. 'White balance' is not truly defineable with lighting with a spectral distribution that's different than daylight, and the further it deviates, or, as in this case, is even discontinuous, the less it means. Then there are the influences of the TV and colours of reflective surfaces. The best thing to do is shoot RAW and adjust as it pleases you. 'Accuracy' is unachievable.
In any case, under ideal conditions the performance of both cameras is excellent. The files from the 5DII generally need a little more work with respect to sharpening and curves than the M9 files, but the result is generally equal. Optics, handling and application are not equal.
Henning
HenningW
Well-known
I should mention that I have a wide selection of lenses (20+) for both systems.
Henning
Henning
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Yea, that is perfectly reasonable but you asked "who cares". The vast majority of people have to make decisions based on what is affordable and in line with disposable income, me included. I generally decide on what I may want and if it is too much I look at alternatives. OTH if I were in a position to have disposable income great enough to allow me to make my choices based simply on what I want, nice position to be in, I might also say "who cares".
Bob
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
tlitody
Well-known
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Surprising there is a big market for zeiss ZE and ZF lenses then
Not really. The difference between great performers and fantastic performers. Merely great is enough for some, fantastic is demanded by others and they are willing to pay for that.
swoop
Well-known
Took both to work today on separate assignments.
5D mk2 at news conference
M9 at a fire
It was great to have the 5D at the conference because it was really tight and being able to autofocus while holding the camera above my head was a godsend as well as the ability to poke the lens through a wall of video guys and get a shot. I've been in the same scenario with the M8 and it's impossible to focus because you can poke the lens through the the rangefinder illumination window is blocked so you can't line up the patches. Very frustrating.
Covering a fire with the Leica is something I've done a hundred times over. Except the M9 seemed to be having trouble getting the exposure right using aperture priority. It was all over the place and often wrong. But it's nice to work with and light to carry. I can even fit an additional lens in my camera bag than I can with the 5D rig.
Each one definitely has its place.
5D mk2 at news conference
M9 at a fire
It was great to have the 5D at the conference because it was really tight and being able to autofocus while holding the camera above my head was a godsend as well as the ability to poke the lens through a wall of video guys and get a shot. I've been in the same scenario with the M8 and it's impossible to focus because you can poke the lens through the the rangefinder illumination window is blocked so you can't line up the patches. Very frustrating.
Covering a fire with the Leica is something I've done a hundred times over. Except the M9 seemed to be having trouble getting the exposure right using aperture priority. It was all over the place and often wrong. But it's nice to work with and light to carry. I can even fit an additional lens in my camera bag than I can with the 5D rig.
Each one definitely has its place.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Precisely. Lightroom 2.0 was pretty miserable in all honesty about converting anything other than canon or nikon raw files. The new 2010 ACR with lightroom 3 seems to be a bit better but definitely still favors the big 2 more.
swoop
Well-known
So I decided to test focus accuracy with all my lenses. I tried doing this outside but there were just too many variable and mosquitoes. So I did it indoors mounted on a tripod about 5 1/2 feet away from target lit with an off camera flash. All images, both M9 and 5D mk2 exposed manually at f4 1/60 ISO 160. Focus point is the light stand in the middle. I realize resizing these images doesn't convey much, but it's a hassle to crop and resize them all. Also, excuse the mess.
15mm Heliar at f4.5 because that its largest aperture. Focus was eyeballed since it's not rangefinder coupled.
25mm Biogon. Very slight backfocus. But acceptable. Very sharp lens though.
28mm Ultron. Moderate backfocus. Seemingly enough to be noticeable in use. Also as some have noted the left side seems to be a bit weird. But in general I think it's a bit of a soft lens.
35mm Summicron v4. Focus is perfect. And a sharp lens.
40mm Nokton. Moderate backfocus that would be an issue on occasion in use. A bit of a soft lens also.
50mm Summilux v3. Very slight backfocus. Like an inch or two. Probably negligible in use. Not tack sharp but sharp enough.
75mm Summilux. Perfect focus. Very sharp.
90mm Summicron. Focus is good. A bit soft.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 28mm f1.8 USM. Kind of an ugly lens. Focus is spot on. Not the sharpest lens but usable.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 50mm f1.4 USM. Sharp lens, spot on focussing. Makes a pretty picture.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 100mm f2 USM. Super sharp and spot on focus.
15mm Heliar at f4.5 because that its largest aperture. Focus was eyeballed since it's not rangefinder coupled.
25mm Biogon. Very slight backfocus. But acceptable. Very sharp lens though.
28mm Ultron. Moderate backfocus. Seemingly enough to be noticeable in use. Also as some have noted the left side seems to be a bit weird. But in general I think it's a bit of a soft lens.
35mm Summicron v4. Focus is perfect. And a sharp lens.
40mm Nokton. Moderate backfocus that would be an issue on occasion in use. A bit of a soft lens also.
50mm Summilux v3. Very slight backfocus. Like an inch or two. Probably negligible in use. Not tack sharp but sharp enough.
75mm Summilux. Perfect focus. Very sharp.
90mm Summicron. Focus is good. A bit soft.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 28mm f1.8 USM. Kind of an ugly lens. Focus is spot on. Not the sharpest lens but usable.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 50mm f1.4 USM. Sharp lens, spot on focussing. Makes a pretty picture.
Canon 5D mk2 w/ 100mm f2 USM. Super sharp and spot on focus.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You have your work cut out; those Leica focussing results are far, far below what a modestly proficient user can obtain with a properly adjusted system.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Sorry I'm not very clear about what you're inferring here, based on these small and very low resolution images, you can detect that they would be much sharper had someone, like say your good self had conducted the test? Quite frankly with the size and resolution of the above images, the test could have been made with any 35mm size system and you wouldn't see any difference, if the OP says this lens is sharp and this slightly soft then I have to take his word for it as it's not discernible at these sizes.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have no difficulty seeing the difference - not even on the second-rate monitor I have here - and yes - I have about four years experience with digital M - I think I can judge sharpness differences even on these small jpgs. And it is not about the person- It can as well be the adjustment of lens-camera. And I do indeed doubt that the most accurate focussing method - contrast focussing- was used but would be happy to be corrected on the last.
Last edited:
bobbyrab
Well-known
What is contrast focusing? I'm intrigued.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Once the viewfinder is corrected optimally, there are three methods of focussing, in ascending order of difficulty aka training.
1. The broken line method. Look for a vertical line in the image and bring it together in the rangefinder patch to be continuous.
2. The coincidence method. Look for a pattern in the image and bring it together to coincide. This may lead to errors with repeating patterns.
3. The contrast method. Once you have focus by method 1. or 2. a small adjustment will cause the rangefinder patch to "jump" into optimum contrast. At that point you have the most precise focussing adjustment.
1. The broken line method. Look for a vertical line in the image and bring it together in the rangefinder patch to be continuous.
2. The coincidence method. Look for a pattern in the image and bring it together to coincide. This may lead to errors with repeating patterns.
3. The contrast method. Once you have focus by method 1. or 2. a small adjustment will cause the rangefinder patch to "jump" into optimum contrast. At that point you have the most precise focussing adjustment.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm sorry, I truly not trying to be awkward, just to understand your point as it may be useful. So here's my take on how to focus and you can correct me or explain further the technique. When I focus I look for an area of contrast, typically an outline, an eye, window frame, tie or some such, vertical or horizontal depending on the camera orientation. I then bring the lens to focus so that the ghost image and the main image merge, this is fairly self evident, it either is in register or it's not, quite easy to tell really, one of the strengths of the rangefinder I thought is the ease of accurate focusing. Before the focus areas merge, they both have lower contrasts, once they come together the contrast is unified and stronger, but this is not a different technique it's merely a consequence of merging the images together, in fact with if you are using the full area of the patch, contrast could become full before the images are fully in register, so it could actually cause inaccurate focusing. I think you can become quicker at focusing with practice, but practice is not going to improve your eyesight, you can either see well enough to merge the images or you can't, there's no great mystery about it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, your analysis is correct, but most users stop at coincidence of structure. However, the eye is more sensitive to the change in contrast than to the (resolution) overlap, so the contrast method which you apparently are using without realizing it is more accurate. And no, contrast does not become full unless the images merge 100%.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Thanks, that makes more sense to me now, I'll pay more attention to the contrast in future.....R