x-ray
Veteran
Last year about this time after making a big switch in my main digital gear from Canon to Nikon I decided to finally pull the trigger on a new M9 and three new lenses. I had a 90 apo asph Summicron, lovely 75mm Summilux and made a purchase for a new 24 Elmar, 35mm asph Summilux FLE and another 50 Summilux asph (sold the first).
Since 1968 I've been a dedicated M shooter in both my pleasure and work so there was no adapting to the system. I felt comfortable with the M system in every way. I wasn't new to digital either having been fully digital in my studio for the past thirteen years and used digital on a limited basis for a couple of years before.
When I bought the M9 I had expectations Leica had finally debugged the camera and felt I had the best performing glass (wide open performance) on the market. My newly acquired D800 and Hasselblad digital system were the main workhorses for my commercial work but for my documentary work it was obvious the Hasselblad wasn't going to make it with it's slow lenses and limited high ISO. The D800 seemed it might be the answer with a new set of Zeiss ZF 2 primes. I purchased a beautiful set of Nikons newest top of the line zooms but found quickly they lacked what i was looking for wide open. The 36mp sensor of the D800 was brutally honest as to the corner and edge performance wide open. In come the Zeiss primes. I bought new ZF2 lenses, 25 f2, 35 f3 and 100 f2 glass. I had expectations of these lenses performing like my ZM lenses and beating the pants off my Nikkor lenses. Wrong, I can't tell you how disappointed I was with the edge and corner performance of the shorter lenses and the chromatic aberrations in the 100. Of course I was looking at wide open performance. After all anyone can make a good lens at f8. What I found was the Zeiss performed no better than my new Nikon lenses. Back to B&H they went.
The money I put into this set and a good bit more went into purchasing the M9 and 3 lenses. When I had everything in hand I started shooting documentary images under the typically terrible light I work in. I first shot during a two night Pentecostal tent revival. At maximum ISO i shoot typically at f1.4 and exposures between 1/15 - 1/30. I also took my D800 on the second night and jacked the ISO up to 6400 and shot at f2.8 which was wide open.
The results, I was mildly disappointed in sharpness with the M9 and new glass. I was astounded with the D800. The D800 was sharper and the noise was equal or less. Not a good impression on the first go with the M9.
Next I ventured into the world of skin art. I made contact with a woman that had extensive art on her body and had an appointment to get a major piece done on her left leg. Light was mixed fluorescent, tungsten and a window to my left with diffuse sun coming in. I know this is tough for any camera though I didn't let that slow me down. I shot for a couple of hours with all of the lenses from different angles. When I completed and went back to the studio I was shocked to see not only was precise focus missed I had some really strange color on the sides of faces. I felt my lenses overall were back focusing and I had a strong magenta skin color on one side on some images. It came and went under the exact same shooting angle and light. The lens didn't matter and the effect was random. Sometimes it was extreme and others it was not even present. Ok I chalked it up to mixed light and old eyes.
Now I had to do some reference photos for a painter in my studio using a model. I always shoot raw and under studio strobe lighting I would not have expected color issues. I again was wrong, using the studio strobes I've shot with for a dozen years I had a magenta cast in some of the shadow areas in the skin tones. Looking back at my images from the past the magenta almost always was in the lower 1/4 values in the shadowed area of the skin. Shooting at f5.6 with my 75 Summilux I didn't feel the images were particularly sharp either. OK I have a learning curve with the M9, no?
Next I sent my D800 in to NPS to fix a PC connector that had gotten loose. I thought I would use my M9 on a studio shoot with four models for some newspaper ads. Again I was shooting about f5.6 with my 75 and noticed on close inspection during the shoot they weren't sharp at the point of focus, they eyes. The ears were tack sharp but not the eyes. OK, I need to work on focusing this thing I thought. I gave up on the M9 during the shoot and pulled out the Hasselblad and nailed the shots.
Now I think something is wrong. I did the standard ruler test and found all but my 25 and 50 were severely back focusing when stopped down. Wide open they were great but two stops down the were focusing as much as five inches behind the desired point of focus.
Everything I had just purchased was still under warranty so I called leica US and spoke to a very nice lady in the service department and explained the problem and that I use the equipment professionally. On her instruction I packed the gear up and shipped it off. The fix for my 75 and 90 came to nearly $900 and the M9 and three lenses that were new were covered under warranty.
I was expecting about 6 -8 weeks before I would see my gear again and wasn't holding my breath as to it being right. to my surprise three weeks later I got a call and informing me the camera and lenses were on the way back. When they arrived I did my standard ruler test and by golly Leica nailed the focus at every f stop and every distance. Not only did they do the focus right, they replaced a 6 bit Chinese lens mount with a genuine brass leica 6 bit mount and updated my 90 apo asph to six bit. Not only did they do that they disassembled the 90 which I had had
Don Goldberg lube with heavier grease and cleaned his lube out and re lubed it. I had a spot that would bind a little and leica fixed that. It was mechanically a new lens now. In addition they disassembled the older lenses and cleaned them internally. As much as I felt the cost was a bit steep I now felt it was a bargain.
Now to the camera. Leica per their work order said that they replaced the main board and put a new M9P sensor in it. I don't know if there is any difference in the M9 and the M9P but that's what they put in it. They adjusted the RF, cleaned it and basically made it new again. OK it was now time to put it to the test. I took the lenses and camera to my wifes painting studio where there's mixed fluorescent, 3200K and 5000K and north east window light plus a little tungsten. To my surprise my images had no evidence of the magenta color cast in darker skin tones. Focus was dead on too at all apertures. This wasn't enough so I tested on other people and other conditions. I shot under the exact conditions that tripped it up before and didn't have even a hint of color cast.
Now my confidence is up. I've now shot two days on location under semi controlled conditions with mixed fluorescent and studio strobes. I did a shoot under very controlled studio conditions with 8 different people all with distinctly different skin color and tone. I'm vey happy to report, no problems at all. Focus was dead on and color was beautiful. The M9 reproduced the skin color much like my Hasselblad with a CCD would do. Accuracy of color overall was very nice and again much like the Hasselblad.
You might say I'm really pleased now. Several important jobs behind me and I felt confident enough today to leave my backup Nikon in my car. I do custom profiles for each lighting condition and work in lightroom. I take great care with my color and have to say my M9 excels at making beautiful color and very sharp images even with the lenses wide open. This is what I was hoping for when I bought they system. Why Leica can't get it right from the factory I don't know but at least they corrected the problems and responded promptly for a professional user.
Thanks for the excellent service Leica!
Since 1968 I've been a dedicated M shooter in both my pleasure and work so there was no adapting to the system. I felt comfortable with the M system in every way. I wasn't new to digital either having been fully digital in my studio for the past thirteen years and used digital on a limited basis for a couple of years before.
When I bought the M9 I had expectations Leica had finally debugged the camera and felt I had the best performing glass (wide open performance) on the market. My newly acquired D800 and Hasselblad digital system were the main workhorses for my commercial work but for my documentary work it was obvious the Hasselblad wasn't going to make it with it's slow lenses and limited high ISO. The D800 seemed it might be the answer with a new set of Zeiss ZF 2 primes. I purchased a beautiful set of Nikons newest top of the line zooms but found quickly they lacked what i was looking for wide open. The 36mp sensor of the D800 was brutally honest as to the corner and edge performance wide open. In come the Zeiss primes. I bought new ZF2 lenses, 25 f2, 35 f3 and 100 f2 glass. I had expectations of these lenses performing like my ZM lenses and beating the pants off my Nikkor lenses. Wrong, I can't tell you how disappointed I was with the edge and corner performance of the shorter lenses and the chromatic aberrations in the 100. Of course I was looking at wide open performance. After all anyone can make a good lens at f8. What I found was the Zeiss performed no better than my new Nikon lenses. Back to B&H they went.
The money I put into this set and a good bit more went into purchasing the M9 and 3 lenses. When I had everything in hand I started shooting documentary images under the typically terrible light I work in. I first shot during a two night Pentecostal tent revival. At maximum ISO i shoot typically at f1.4 and exposures between 1/15 - 1/30. I also took my D800 on the second night and jacked the ISO up to 6400 and shot at f2.8 which was wide open.
The results, I was mildly disappointed in sharpness with the M9 and new glass. I was astounded with the D800. The D800 was sharper and the noise was equal or less. Not a good impression on the first go with the M9.
Next I ventured into the world of skin art. I made contact with a woman that had extensive art on her body and had an appointment to get a major piece done on her left leg. Light was mixed fluorescent, tungsten and a window to my left with diffuse sun coming in. I know this is tough for any camera though I didn't let that slow me down. I shot for a couple of hours with all of the lenses from different angles. When I completed and went back to the studio I was shocked to see not only was precise focus missed I had some really strange color on the sides of faces. I felt my lenses overall were back focusing and I had a strong magenta skin color on one side on some images. It came and went under the exact same shooting angle and light. The lens didn't matter and the effect was random. Sometimes it was extreme and others it was not even present. Ok I chalked it up to mixed light and old eyes.
Now I had to do some reference photos for a painter in my studio using a model. I always shoot raw and under studio strobe lighting I would not have expected color issues. I again was wrong, using the studio strobes I've shot with for a dozen years I had a magenta cast in some of the shadow areas in the skin tones. Looking back at my images from the past the magenta almost always was in the lower 1/4 values in the shadowed area of the skin. Shooting at f5.6 with my 75 Summilux I didn't feel the images were particularly sharp either. OK I have a learning curve with the M9, no?
Next I sent my D800 in to NPS to fix a PC connector that had gotten loose. I thought I would use my M9 on a studio shoot with four models for some newspaper ads. Again I was shooting about f5.6 with my 75 and noticed on close inspection during the shoot they weren't sharp at the point of focus, they eyes. The ears were tack sharp but not the eyes. OK, I need to work on focusing this thing I thought. I gave up on the M9 during the shoot and pulled out the Hasselblad and nailed the shots.
Now I think something is wrong. I did the standard ruler test and found all but my 25 and 50 were severely back focusing when stopped down. Wide open they were great but two stops down the were focusing as much as five inches behind the desired point of focus.
Everything I had just purchased was still under warranty so I called leica US and spoke to a very nice lady in the service department and explained the problem and that I use the equipment professionally. On her instruction I packed the gear up and shipped it off. The fix for my 75 and 90 came to nearly $900 and the M9 and three lenses that were new were covered under warranty.
I was expecting about 6 -8 weeks before I would see my gear again and wasn't holding my breath as to it being right. to my surprise three weeks later I got a call and informing me the camera and lenses were on the way back. When they arrived I did my standard ruler test and by golly Leica nailed the focus at every f stop and every distance. Not only did they do the focus right, they replaced a 6 bit Chinese lens mount with a genuine brass leica 6 bit mount and updated my 90 apo asph to six bit. Not only did they do that they disassembled the 90 which I had had
Don Goldberg lube with heavier grease and cleaned his lube out and re lubed it. I had a spot that would bind a little and leica fixed that. It was mechanically a new lens now. In addition they disassembled the older lenses and cleaned them internally. As much as I felt the cost was a bit steep I now felt it was a bargain.
Now to the camera. Leica per their work order said that they replaced the main board and put a new M9P sensor in it. I don't know if there is any difference in the M9 and the M9P but that's what they put in it. They adjusted the RF, cleaned it and basically made it new again. OK it was now time to put it to the test. I took the lenses and camera to my wifes painting studio where there's mixed fluorescent, 3200K and 5000K and north east window light plus a little tungsten. To my surprise my images had no evidence of the magenta color cast in darker skin tones. Focus was dead on too at all apertures. This wasn't enough so I tested on other people and other conditions. I shot under the exact conditions that tripped it up before and didn't have even a hint of color cast.
Now my confidence is up. I've now shot two days on location under semi controlled conditions with mixed fluorescent and studio strobes. I did a shoot under very controlled studio conditions with 8 different people all with distinctly different skin color and tone. I'm vey happy to report, no problems at all. Focus was dead on and color was beautiful. The M9 reproduced the skin color much like my Hasselblad with a CCD would do. Accuracy of color overall was very nice and again much like the Hasselblad.
You might say I'm really pleased now. Several important jobs behind me and I felt confident enough today to leave my backup Nikon in my car. I do custom profiles for each lighting condition and work in lightroom. I take great care with my color and have to say my M9 excels at making beautiful color and very sharp images even with the lenses wide open. This is what I was hoping for when I bought they system. Why Leica can't get it right from the factory I don't know but at least they corrected the problems and responded promptly for a professional user.
Thanks for the excellent service Leica!
x-ray
Veteran
I guess I couldn't let the opportunity to go by, Leica what was on your mind when you eliminated the PC connector. Some of us use studio strobes and can't use a 21, 24, or any lens that need an external VF if we are using strobes. We have to use a PC to hot shoe adapter in the shoe and have no place to put the VF. What was on your mind?
swoop
Well-known
I don't think Leica really considered the studio photographer when marketing the M, ever. Its intention from day one was a portable camera to be used in the field. In that environment the PC sync is pretty useless in the presence of a hot shoe.
x-ray
Veteran
The M film cameras were designed to use with both flash bulbs and strobes. Every one of my M film cameras until late models had both M and X sync. Late models including my MP's have X. Flash was used in the early days even by journalists and I've used my film bodies many times in studio with studio strobes. I'm guessing it was a cost cutting measure and speculating the digital cameras would be mostly used by amateurs for snapshots.
Thinking about it you can't even use their hot shoe mounted flash with a supplemental VF. No wides with a flash of any kind.
Hopefully some enterprising company will make an adapter with a shoe on the top.
jberry
Newbie
I'm happy you didnt just give up on your Leica M9, and sell your whole Leica system. I really liked your story, and hoping you get more awesome images with your M9!
jarski
Veteran
thanks for sharing your experience. interesting read.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I think that Michael Bass Designs can help you make a custom solution to the hotshoe problem. http://michaelbass.blogspot.fr/
What is your max ISO on the M9?
What is your max ISO on the M9?
Richard G
Veteran
Good read. Reassuring to see that someone as demanding as you are can be satisfied by this system.
x-ray
Veteran
When I finished posting yesterday I did a search on B&H and found exactly what I needed. It's sort of a clumsy solution but will probably work.
I am pleased now and feel the images have a very similar look to the Hasselblad. Other than the incredanle resolution and inherent sharpness of the Hasselblad the one difference in image look between the two is bit depth. The hasselblad captures in 16 bit where as the Leica does not. There's a richness to the hasselblad images that the Leica doesn't have nor any 35mm based DSLR. It's not extreme and putting ink on paper wont show it but it does exist.
At this point I think the M9 will become a greater part of my daily work.
I am pleased now and feel the images have a very similar look to the Hasselblad. Other than the incredanle resolution and inherent sharpness of the Hasselblad the one difference in image look between the two is bit depth. The hasselblad captures in 16 bit where as the Leica does not. There's a richness to the hasselblad images that the Leica doesn't have nor any 35mm based DSLR. It's not extreme and putting ink on paper wont show it but it does exist.
At this point I think the M9 will become a greater part of my daily work.