Leica M9... Legendary vs Nothing

[Ben Z]

my early impressions of the M9 are not making me reach for my wallet.

Me too, except in my case it's the price plus early memories of the M8 (not to mention my experiences with an early M7) that are holding me back. The price is close to 1.5X what I paid for my M8 new, and nobody can convince me it won't drop in a similar manner when (not if) Leica rolls out an M10 in another 3 years. Also, if the M9 proves to be bug-free from the get-go, it will be the first Leica camera to do so in a long time.

A one-stop improvement in high-ISO sensor noise might be a huge thing to some people, but to me who has only rarely cranked the M8 to 640, and mostly shoots 160 (which is the base of the M9 BTW, the 80 is a "pull" similar to the "LO" setting on my Canon), it's not a huge thing.

Full-frame likewise is a huge thing to some, but not to me. I have lenses down to 12mm (18mm effective on the M8). Unlike a cropped DSLR, the M8 doesn't have a squinty tunnel viewfinder. And I'm more of a tele guy than a wide angle guy anyhow.

The IR filters I still think are an embarrassing band-aid on the M8, but they work. I always did and always will keep a filter on my lenses permanently for protection anyway.

Do I want an M9? Well, if it doesn't turn out to have any major undiscovered bugs or they get worked out, then sure. But I can wait as long as it takes to get a factory demo and put the saved thousands to better use.

 

[peterm1]

I argued something like this a while back and got howled down.

The film Leicas can go on forever. I have a prewar 111a still going strong and kept that way by an occasional service. That's why I was willing to cough up big money for an M body and lenses. I keep asking myself do I really want to buy a digital camera that will be dead as a dodo when you can no longer buy the circuit boards or processors for it in x years time. Hmmm And what's more a camera that might be dropped by Leica for a new "greatest Leica digital M ever" in a couple of years time. I invested in some good Nikon glass - for their DX cameras. Now I am forced to think of selling as it seems evident that they will head down the FX path with their top end amateur models. And if I do not sell them now. I will take a pasting on price when i sell later. Similar dilemmas will face Leica owners to a much greater extent than ever before.

Of course I understand Leitz has no choice - they have to be in the game as this is what people want. But it does change the nature of the game - I like your analogue watch / digital watch comparison which is not a bad one as this fundamentally changed the game for watch manufacturers.

 

[Richard Marks]

Me too, except in my case it's the price plus early memories of the M8 (not to mention my experiences with an early M7) that are holding me back. The price is close to 1.5X what I paid for my M8 new, and nobody can convince me it won't drop in a similar manner when (not if) Leica rolls out an M10 in another 3 years. Also, if the M9 proves to be bug-free from the get-go, it will be the first Leica camera to do so in a long time.

A one-stop improvement in high-ISO sensor noise might be a huge thing to some people, but to me who has only rarely cranked the M8 to 640, and mostly shoots 160 (which is the base of the M9 BTW, the 80 is a "pull" similar to the "LO" setting on my Canon), it's not a huge thing.

Full-frame likewise is a huge thing to some, but not to me. I have lenses down to 12mm (18mm effective on the M8). Unlike a cropped DSLR, the M8 doesn't have a squinty tunnel viewfinder. And I'm more of a tele guy than a wide angle guy anyhow.

The IR filters I still think are an embarrassing band-aid on the M8, but they work. I always did and always will keep a filter on my lenses permanently for protection anyway.

Do I want an M9? Well, if it doesn't turn out to have any major undiscovered bugs or they get worked out, then sure. But I can wait as long as it takes to get a factory demo and put the saved thousands to better use.



Truth be told, unlike some who say they shelved their DSLR after getting an M8, I've continued to use mine as much or more than my M8. Other than for ease of travel (which I haven't been doing as much of in the past couple years) I have always liked reflexes better. Which is another reason putting $7K more into Leicas is not making a lot of sense to me.

Dear Ben

Firstly the ISO thing. Its not so much wanting to shoot at ISO 6400 that is an issue, it is how flexible the files are. With a D700 you can pull them around quite a lot if under exposed and the shadows still show very little noise. This is a great luxury to me after an M8 where one has to get the exposure bang on. Incidentally one other factor regarding the remarkable performance of the D700 in terms of digital noise is that the metering is simply superb. The matrix has become so sophisticated that it is hard to better it with a spot meter. This means there is less processing induced noise at the outset. Clearly the metering in an M is pretty good centre weighted but is never going to compete on metering.

One thing that occurs to me is that I would have been perfectly happy with 12MP full frame, less noise (and probably less costly) than a noisier 18MP higher resolution chip as any potential advantage is lost in noise reduction processing.

The TTL flash in the M was desperately primitive and I have read nothing to suggest the M9 is any different from this viewpoint.

The full frame of the M9 is attractive. I can not explain it but lenses somehow feel different in their 35mm full frame perspective. So that is attractive. Lack of IR filters (if really true) also is attractive.

I too still have to get over the memory of M8 problems and the rather unhelpful dealings with Leica UK. Optical excellence is no substitute for good customer service.

The other issue one has to be aware of is other products. I do not think the Olympus Pen thingy is serious competition yet, but clearly there is action in the compact market. Equally the next Sony /Nikon venture, according to my dealer (who is also tyhe UK's highest selling leica M8 dealer) it is going to be another big advance.

Finally the cost. A H3D including lens is £9K. Also for around this price is a 31MP back for my Hasselblad V series. Admitedly just under 2x the price, but pretty low risk as a highly evolved and flexible product. Not the same i know, but it makes an M9 seem very pricey for what is on offer.

Richard

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]The M9 might turn-out to be a legend in its own time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Once it proves its reliability then the second wave of buyers floods in. If this thing is as good as it’s shaping out to be then the only missing element are the fantastic images that it’ll produce. And I think we’re gonna see lots of very talented photographers using this thing. 😀[/FONT]

 

[victoriapio]

Is the M9 revolutionary? Who cares?

When I need to use a DSLR, I use it. When I need to use the DRF, I use my M8. In fact I just placed high enough in this year's Gulf Coast Wildlife Photography Contest using my Canon DSLRs to put a big dent in the future purchase of an M9.

 

[leicashot]

Dear Ben

Incidentally one other factor regarding the remarkable performance of the D700 in terms of digital noise is that the metering is simply superb. The matrix has become so sophisticated that it is hard to better it with a spot meter. This means there is less processing induced noise at the outset. Clearly the metering in an M is pretty good centre weighted but is never going to compete on metering.


Richard

I'm sorry but I have to laugh when I here all the cr@p about matrix metering and so on. Obviously you shoot in Av, Tv, or P. Most good pro's I know shoot in manual 99% of the time and don't worry about how many stupid zones a camera uses to meter. An exposure is an exposure and no matter how many zones you have it's still just a combination of shutter and aperture.

...and don't get me started on 'exposure compensation'. More like 'user compensation'. So the theory is that, when you know your camera is going to under or over expose, you 'compensate'?

Say what!?!?!?

It defeats the purpose of a camera that does everything for you, right?!?! So now you ask what do I have against using semi-auto features like Av, Tv or P?
1. You can take 10 shots in the same light at different angles and the camera will probably choose a different exposure, because it changes according to what it sees in the background, like light or dark colours, including clothing.
2. When you know the camera is going to be bad, you compensate by dialing in +1/3 etc etc.
3. You then complain on forums like this saying that the metering system in my camera has 5200000000 zones and still doesn't know what exposure 'I want'....plus it doesn't cook or clean!

Let me explain this for those who will flame me. All great photographers who want consistent results shoot or need to shoot in manual. It is a photographer's 'responsibility' to set a correct exposure according to their desired result, say silhouette or not.

If you're working under changing lighting conditions, you need to anticipate potential lighting changes before they happen, calculate the stop difference and change exposure when needed. this way you are 100% responsible for your results and therefor can't blame a camera. Example. You're shooting a wedding and following the bride and groom down the aisle and out the church doors. The stop difference can be as great as 5 stops or so. Som, before the wedding starts, you take a reading outside. Then take a reading inside. Now just before you go out the door, you change the ISO/exposure accordingly to the reading you pre calculated earlier.

This may sound like a lot of work, but, it will guarantee you better, consistent results, and you are responsible for the result, and then won't blame the camera later.

For Pete's sake, we now have digital. At least put it in an auto mode, see what the camera is telling you (exposure/shutter), then use that as a starting exposure. Take a picture and change accordingly from there in Manual mode. How hard is that?

Then you say "well I shoot RAW so I can post process any mistakes I make in the field". My response is "so be it".

Flame away if you must, but this is the advice I give to all aspiring photographers because it's what I've been taught and it has been the most valuable technique one can learn. I know people hate to be lectured like this but I'm sick of seeing people blaming their camera's because it doesn't get it perfect all the time. So, back to the topic, the exposure meter in the M9 is more than enough for those somewhat competent.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Dear Richard,

ROFLMAO


Been readin' the M9 threads much?


I also love that people have their Truthiness already made-up. The M9 hasn't been shipped yet and people already have an opinion of how it handles, how it doesn't handle, how it performs, how it doesn't perform...

Gotta love the Internets.

 

[mhv]

I think I figured out what's the real problem with the M9.

HCB did not use the damn camera. Therefore it's worthless and undue of the Leica badge according to all self-appointed experts.

 

[Pablito]

Leicashot, post #46, I agree with you but have long ago stopped arguing the point cos folks don't want to hear it. I may use fancy DSLRs but I meter with them as thought they were Nikon FM's. Trusting matrix metering is a guarantee of blown highlights as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to worry about any M9, that camera is totally out of my price range.

 

[larmarv916]

The truth is that a M9 & full frame sensor at ISO 100 or what ever setting. Can not produce a better captured image than a film of same ISO when shot with the same lenses..regardless of if it is a M3. Or any other body M body.

If the rangefinder is shorter and lower magnification it is factually less accurate! The is a mathmatical fact..Leica can not alter that reality. "Sharpening" in Photoshop reduces actual resolution. A scanner will produce a better real file and larger than a full frame sensor. SO even on a digital platform a real negative can produce a better digital file.

SO in the end..a M9 with any lens matched up against that same lens on a M3 or M5 or M7 will not produce a better capture...only on that does not require FILM. Maybe a S2 with a Medium format size sensor can outperfrom...but now your talking medium formatt against 35 !

What matter now is can the Leica M9 out perfrom the Nikon D3 or next monster sensor on a Canon DSLR. If you like digital and it impresses your friends...fine but do not it is superior. 4800 DPI or 9600 DPI x 35neg always produces more data in the final image file.

 

[Anupam]

4800 DPI or 9600 DPI x 35neg always produces more data in the final image file.

Yeah, right!

 

[leicashot]

Leicashot, post #46, I agree with you but have long ago stopped arguing the point cos folks don't want to hear it. I may use fancy DSLRs but I meter with them as thought they were Nikon FM's. Trusting matrix metering is a guarantee of blown highlights as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to worry about any M9, that camera is totally out of my price range.

Thanks, I thought I'd feel the daggers before agreement. Smart man 😉

 

[Summilux75]

Vote revolutionary. The M8 was a paradign shift (first digital M), the M9 is another paradigm shift (first 24 x 36 digital rangefinder).

On an M8, the 21 Summilux is an expensive also-ran "28mm f/1.4" to Canon's 24 f/1.4. On an M9 it is a rationally-priced, world-beating "21 f/1.4" unlike any other maker offers.

The cameras that follow after the M9 will be incremental, unless Leica comes out with a "Texas-Leica" based on the S2 30 x 45 sensor.

Which won't be an "M" since the lens mount and image circle will need to change.

 

[larmarv916]

Lets remind "Anupam"....which file has more data points..a 15meg file or a 360meg file. Digital is only a upmarket of same basic concept behind halftone! Yeah your going to hate that idea..but the example is very accurate. A 1meg file looks like crap at 8x10 but we all know how much a revolution a 6meg file was when that happened. We also know that a medium formatt 50 meg file makes a 12 meg file look like "stone age" 150dpi halftone. So now when a scanner takes a ISO 100 negative that has been developed as should be expected the digtial ISO 100 will be the same as it is designed to look like a film ISO 100 image. If that digital capture is only 12 meg then it can never be better by the fact it has less data points! Next Leica's effort is self thwarted by the lower viewfinder performance...again a physical reduction of accuracy. Again a fact. But the M9 is not physically designed to perfrom equal to deliver the manual accuracy of any viewfinder that is .72, .85 or.92! So if your Ok with that then fine. But if you have come to expect better from Leica then they did not deliver an imporved platform! There is a paradign shift but is not in the actual concept or design..but rather denial previous customer expectations. A sensor is just that a reciever and Leica did not design it..Kodak as I understand it . I could be wrong. But Again the M9 is not superior...only more expensive! If that is ok for you then go for it. But do not think that this is a breakthough as the orignal Leica was. What happens if a second rangefinder Digtial from Nikon or Zeiss shows up with a better sensor and higher meg rating that takes Leica M mount lenses...and has a viewfinder that is like the current Zeiss or Nikon S3 or SP which is even better...the how much of a legendary camera is the M9 ?? I own several Leica's, I expect a actual better phyiscally better product not a messaged rationalization.

So in the end when users do not get a better final experience..then what will the excuses be for under perfroming? All the Best...Laurance

 

[Richard Marks]

I'm sorry but I have to laugh when I here all the cr@p about matrix metering and so on. Obviously you shoot in Av, Tv, or P. Most good pro's I know shoot in manual 99% of the time and don't worry about how many stupid zones a camera uses to meter. An exposure is an exposure and no matter how many zones you have it's still just a combination of shutter and aperture.

...and don't get me started on 'exposure compensation'. More like 'user compensation'. So the theory is that, when you know your camera is going to under or over expose, you 'compensate'?

Say what!?!?!?

It defeats the purpose of a camera that does everything for you, right?!?! So now you ask what do I have against using semi-auto features like Av, Tv or P?
1. You can take 10 shots in the same light at different angles and the camera will probably choose a different exposure, because it changes according to what it sees in the background, like light or dark colours, including clothing.
2. When you know the camera is going to be bad, you compensate by dialing in +1/3 etc etc.
3. You then complain on forums like this saying that the metering system in my camera has 5200000000 zones and still doesn't know what exposure 'I want'....plus it doesn't cook or clean!

Let me explain this for those who will flame me. All great photographers who want consistent results shoot or need to shoot in manual. It is a photographer's 'responsibility' to set a correct exposure according to their desired result, say silhouette or not.

If you're working under changing lighting conditions, you need to anticipate potential lighting changes before they happen, calculate the stop difference and change exposure when needed. this way you are 100% responsible for your results and therefor can't blame a camera. Example. You're shooting a wedding and following the bride and groom down the aisle and out the church doors. The stop difference can be as great as 5 stops or so. Som, before the wedding starts, you take a reading outside. Then take a reading inside. Now just before you go out the door, you change the ISO/exposure accordingly to the reading you pre calculated earlier.

This may sound like a lot of work, but, it will guarantee you better, consistent results, and you are responsible for the result, and then won't blame the camera later.

For Pete's sake, we now have digital. At least put it in an auto mode, see what the camera is telling you (exposure/shutter), then use that as a starting exposure. Take a picture and change accordingly from there in Manual mode. How hard is that?

Then you say "well I shoot RAW so I can post process any mistakes I make in the field". My response is "so be it".

Flame away if you must, but this is the advice I give to all aspiring photographers because it's what I've been taught and it has been the most valuable technique one can learn. I know people hate to be lectured like this but I'm sick of seeing people blaming their camera's because it doesn't get it perfect all the time. So, back to the topic, the exposure meter in the M9 is more than enough for those somewhat competent.

I do not need a lesson on metering thank you. I have used everything from 5x4 with my Zone V1 adapted Pentax spot meter to auto anything. I still shoot at least 2-4 rolls of black and white a week and print my own black and white. For weddings I generally use a hasselblad with manual metering and film. To imply that one looses control of the exposure by taking advantage of technology is just plain wrong. It does not mean that one is not aware of metering. However i totally respect your opnion and sympathise with your well entrenched position. I do agree that it is harmful to start photography with auto everything, but if one has a good understanding of basic exposure then why always use the hard toilet paper approach?


Oh and I do not need to be told what pros do. I think you will find many do use automation when necessary and resort to manual when necessary. Generalisation is always wrong (in general🙂) !!
I am not a photographic pro but I am a professional Cardiac Anaesthetisiologist and use a very complex set of monitoring equipment to keep people allive during cardiac surgery. I am used to handling up to 10 simultaneous electronic readouts of patient well being and responding to changes in any given parameter in the order of seconds. By analogy anaesthetists used to monitor patients with just a finger on the pulse and observation of colour 70 years ago because that is all we had. Which would you prefer? I think I can handle an automatic camera without loosing control!

Richard

 

[Roger Hicks]

4800 DPI or 9600 DPI x 35neg always produces more data in the final image file.

More data, yes, but data and information are not necessarily the same thing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mephiloco]

You might get a kick out of this. My father's current hospital is temporarily working out of their old building while their new one is being built. It was built in the 1930's or so, and all the outlets in the operating rooms have those old school locks on them. Same for light switches, lights, etc from when they used to use flammable gasses and had to worry about a spark blowing the whole place up. Also, retrofitted A/C, and as of about a week ago, their first case of swine flu/h1n1. To make matters even better, the US gov't isn't releasing any swineflu/h1n1 medication to health providers for another month, until they only have tamiflu.

But back on subject, you would never use any of the old standards unless it was all you had. After using propofol my father says they don't even stock the stuff they used before it anymore.

I do not need a lesson on metering thank you. I have used everything from 5x4 with my Zone V1 adapted Pentax spot meter to auto anything. I still shoot at least 2-4 rolls of black and white a week and print my own black and white. For weddings I generally use a hasselblad with manual metering and film. To imply that one looses control of the exposure by taking advantage of technology is just plain wrong. It does not mean that one is not aware of metering. However i totally respect your opnion and sympathise with your well entrenched position. I do agree that it is harmful to start photography with auto everything, but if one has a good understanding of basic exposure then why always use the hard toilet paper approach?


Oh and I do not need to be told what pros do. I think you will find many do use automation when necessary and resort to manual when necessary. Generalisation is always wrong (in general🙂) !!
I am not a photographic pro but I am a professional Cardiac Anaesthetisiologist and use a very complex set of monitoring equipment to keep people allive during cardiac surgery. I am used to handling up to 10 simultaneous electronic readouts of patient well being and responding to changes in any given parameter in the order of seconds. By analogy anaesthetists used to monitor patients with just a finger on the pulse and observation of colour 70 years ago because that is all we had. Which would you prefer? I think I can handle an automatic camera without loosing control!

Richard

 

[Anupam]

Lets remind "Anupam"....which file has more data points..a 15meg file or a 360meg file.

What Roger said.

If you think 35mm film produces more detail than current digital sensors, then knock yourself out. No need to cook up some hocuspocus about file sizes for the rest of us. And yes, I own one digital camera but shoot 90 percent of my stuff on film - mostly Zeiss Ikon and Chamonix 4x5.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What Roger said.

If you think 35mm film produces more detail than current digital sensors, then knock yourself out. No need to cook up some hocuspocus about file sizes for the rest of us. And yes, I own one digital camera but shoot 90 percent of my stuff on film - mostly Zeiss Ikon and Chamonix 4x5.

For years I've been trying to gather informed opinions on 35mm/digi equivalence. Of course it's not possible to draw an exact equivalent because film is a random array and digi is regular, but the general consensus, for slow, fine-grained colour film and the camera mounted on a tripod, has been that you need 18-20 megapixels. As soon as you start using faster film or hand-holding you're likely to drop to around 10-12 megapixels before you see a difference but as one software designer pointed out, "It's subject dependent. If you wanted a picture of Art Garfunkel with every hair sharp and no jaggies, I can see you might need 30+ megapixels."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Marks]

But back on subject, you would never use any of the old standards unless it was all you had. After using propofol my father says they don't even stock the stuff they used before it anymore.

Well when doing charity work in Africa I have used very basic kit, but for heart surgery it is as much technology as i can muster. What matters is getting the job done as well and as quickly safely and reliably as possible. Photography no different. pros will use any which way they can to get the job done!

It is intersting that automation in photography generates such hostility. Airline pilots vertainly do not switch to manual for that perfect landing. What matters is the qulity of the picture, and not how difficult it was to capture it.

You know in the 1980's something called the pulse oximeter was developed which tells us how much oxygen there is in the patients blood. Before this we whent just on colour (pink= good, blue= bad white = very bad). The first evaluation of this device compared it to some 'senior consultants'. It was a big shock when they were trounced by the machine. it is now mandatory monitoring.

Now if my equipment fails I can still do 'finger on the pulse'. Perhaps some of the newer doctors who can only use technology would be less sure of themselves. But please in photography lets not reject automatic out of hands. it can be very good indeed. it is simply a matter of knowing the strengths and limitations.

I think I might take the Holga out for a walk today!

Richard