Leica M8 & M9 ... and Olympus Pen-F digital?

Let me answer in an oblique fashion. I am inclined to use older cameras as they can be bought more cheaply - which means I can buy and try more of them. I have an M8, an Olympus EPl-2 and a Panasonic GF1. Oh and I should mention that I have an Olympus OMD EM 5 as well which is the camera I carry most often due to its SLR like handling. Obviously all of the first three mentioned cameras are quite old cameras in digital camera terms and that more modern cameras have more competent sensors. But I of course all three are still fine cameras. Of the three perhaps I have a slight preference for the rendering of the Panasonic though it is older than the Olympus. I say this because the images seem to require less work out of camera - Panasonic cameras I have had all seem to render particularly nicely somehow. I bought the EPl-2 on a whim because it was cheap though, at first, I perhaps regretted it a bit. But I found that this was solely because the in camera settings needed careful set up. Thee camera was inclined, for example, towards too much in camera noise reduction which softened images far too much, producing poor results. Once I mastered that it began turning in very nice images. Since you have an E-P2 perhaps you have experience of this already. Would I upgrade to a Pen F? Yes, if one came up at the right price provided its eye level finder is good as I always use that over the rear LCD. I also like the look of the camera and would enjoy using it as an alternative for shooting Leica lenses. I also suspect it would be a step up on any of the above cameras being newer. It certainly has a larger megapixel sensor though as you know this is not always a guide for anything very much. But of course I cannot speak directly about them as I do not yet know. And I it has 5 axis in-body image stabilization. The Panasonic does not and neither does my present Olympus. This counts for a lot in terms of image sharpness and the ability to confidently use non Olympus lenses.

BTW although Olympus cameras have a somewhat quirky menu system, one thing I do like about the Olympus cameras is their quick menu with lots of common adjustments and settings available on screen with the push of a single button. That works terrifically well once you set up the camera to operate this way (and I found even that took some effort when I first got the camera as it was not set up this way by default). But again I imagine you will know this already if you have an EP-2.

As to M43 cameras I never intended to go down this path at all originally. I wanted to buy Sony kit. But at the time Sony had very few native lenses. That is what got me started with M43. What has kept me shooting M43 over time is that their lenses tend to be extremely good and relatively inexpensive (the latter with a few exceptions). I now am stuck as I have several - 30mm f2.8 Sigma, 60mm f2.8 Sigma, 45mm f1.8 Olympus, 60mm f2.8 Olympus, 75mm f1.8 Olympus, 25mm f1.4 Panasonic from the original 4/3 system and AF adapter (and ditto for the Pana/Leica 14-50mm f 2.8 zoom form the older 4/3 system) and a MF Rokinon 12mm f2. All are hellishly sharp and render very nicely. The M43 issue of having a small sensor and larger crop factor in general does not wrry me much as I tend to longer lenses anyway. The only real issue I notice is slightly less competent low light performance than full frame or Sony NEX cameras. So I tend to carry my m43 cameras in situations where I otherwise would have used my Nikon DSLR. For example when traveling and weight is a limiting factor. I cannot speak highly enough about this system's image quality.
 
The discussions here encourage me to postpone any purchase now. Until I figure out which digital camera I want to buy,
I may look for a clean 120 back for my SWC instead. I enjoy the photography and not the cameras. I expect back my M9 with the new sensor soon, and I can always bounce back to film photography.
 
The SWC is currently my favorite pick for photography. I use a 120 and a 220 back. It keeps everything simple and basic. There is one lens only. Hardly any need to focus. See things as squares.
 
Hi Raid, my wife Simo modeling when I tested my friend's Pen F, iso 400 lens was 17/1,8 full open.
And do not forget that the camera is a beauty!

med_U3692I1514638819.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Raid, I just picked up a used A7s to use with my M lenses (the prices are starting to finally come down) The body is small, so far I prefer the color balance it gives me but then my other camera is a RX-1. Plus the high iso performance is only a plus, and then you have the silent shutter setting. A close friend uses M4/3 and he came from M9's and his pictures look just as good, I really don't thing there is any bad camera out there these days. Enjoy what ever you pick it's all about having fun anyway.
wbill
 
KoNickon said:
I'm curious about your dislike of m4/3 -- can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

In my case I can't stand the native aspect ratio.

Second, internal optical finders are unavailable. I can't use a m4/3 camera as I use to use an analog RF camera. I enjoy seeing what's outside the frame.

A less important issue for me is the system lenses have to be large unless you don't miss using wide apertures. Besides the obvious impact on DOF, in low light wide apertures deliver more total signal. In low light both the total signal level and the noise level determine perceived image quality. The problem isn't the noise level, its the signal level. This also affects shadow region reninding in normal light levels.

Larger sensor surface areas require larger lenses to produce a useful image circle. However looking at relative lens sizes for fast 4/3, APS, and 24 X 36 mm cameras indicates the the lens surface area is less important as sensor area increases.

At any rate, there is no free lunch. A system's maximum S/N depends on both the lens area and sensor area. Overall, S/N increases as the square root of the sensor area increases. So the only way to match the low-light performance of larger sensors is to increase lens surface area (i.e. size, weight and cost).

Here's some data comparing low light performance for different sensor areas. These results show the newest Olympus sensors do very well.

Her's a comparison of analog dynamic range vs sensor area. This assumes the photo-site sensitivities are identical.
 
Buy a M4/3 camera made after 2014 that HANDLES well and FEELS good in hand, then you are good to go. The specs are good enough.
 
robert blu said:
Hi Raid, my wife Simo modeling when I tested my friend's Pen F, iso 400 lens was 17/1,8 full open.
And do not forget that the camera is a beauty!

med_U3692I1514638819.SEQ.0.jpg
Click to expand...

Thank you, Robert! Thanks to Simo for modeling for you!
Yes, the Pen-F is beautiful indeed. It may be the main reason why I was attracted to buying it (maybe).

The posted image looks good.
 
willie_901 said:
In my case I can't stand the native aspect ratio.

Second, internal optical finders are unavailable. I can't use a m4/3 camera as I use to use an analog RF camera. I enjoy seeing what's outside the frame.

A less important issue for me is the system lenses have to be large unless you don't miss using wide apertures. Besides the obvious impact on DOF, in low light wide apertures deliver more total signal. In low light both the total signal level and the noise level determine perceived image quality. The problem isn't the noise level, its the signal level. This also affects shadow region reninding in normal light levels.

Larger sensor surface areas require larger lenses to produce a useful image circle. However looking at relative lens sizes for fast 4/3, APS, and 24 X 36 mm cameras indicates the the lens surface area is less important as sensor area increases.

At any rate, there is no free lunch. A system's maximum S/N depends on both the lens area and sensor area. Overall, S/N increases as the square root of the sensor area increases. So the only way to match the low-light performance of larger sensors is to increase lens surface area (i.e. size, weight and cost).

Here's some data comparing low light performance for different sensor areas. These results show the newest Olympus sensors do very well.

Her's a comparison of analog dynamic range vs sensor area. This assumes the photo-site sensitivities are identical.
Click to expand...

In my case, I would ask if your evaluations of M 4/3 photography would be different if you almost only shoot in sunny situations where no high ISO is needed. I usually take photos at 200-400 ISO.

Else, I get your points.
 
I bought an Olympus Pen when they first came out. Nice camera, I liked it, but decided I needed something better in the M 4/3 format so upgraded to an Olympus OM-D (EM-5). I still have that camera and use it frequently, liking the small size and weight and auto-focus. Main downside is its poor performance at high ISO’s (though I imagine the latest generation OM-D cameras are better).

I also have a Leica M240, which is my go-to digital camera. It is much bigger and heavier that the Olympus, but the full-size sensor makes it worthwhile, image quality is better than the OM-D. Plus I like the 35mm format-like depth of field of the Leica.

For me, one camera compliments the other. They both have a place in my photo arsenal.

Jim B.
 
Thank you for your assessment, Jim. I am currently using a loaner M240, and I like it, but it is big and heavy when compared with the M8 or M9. This is at least what I feel. Maybe I am wrong. The M cameras give me more flexibility than my M 4/3 cameras do. I will check out online some material on OM-D cameras.

Here is what B&H has on a OM-D & zoom for $549:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...gOrEAYYAiABEgI4zPD_BwE&is=REG&m=Y&sku=1179112

The Pen-D looks more beautiful though :) I am not being practical!
The GX8 has 16MP, and it is inexpensive.
 
I just found this thread this morning. I've actually got my M8, M9 and a few other things listed in the classifieds now, and am ordering a Pen F and 1.8/17mm as soon as B&H comes back online. I love how Leicas handle - all film cameras, really - but I think I'm getting to the age at which autofocus and image stabilization are useful.

I like the UI (UX?) of the Pen. For instance with the 1.8/17mm you can just pull the focus ring back on the lens to engage manual focus. I had a Sony A7 and could never get comfortable with the interface.

I'll always keep at least one Leica, but I think the Pen will be a great everyday shooter.

(Also - the Pen and select lenses are on sale right now. $200 off the body, $150 off lenses.)

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom