jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Sheesh- what a nonsense poll. These thing get used more and more to keep a thread at the top of the board, as it jumps up each time somebody "votes".
Leica M9... Legendary vs Nothing
- Thread starter mdspace
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 238
- Views 5K
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Leicashot, the M7 has autoexposure. The M9 has autoexposure. Not matrix, but AV mode none the less.
Unless you've used modern matrix metering, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's very, very good.
As for aperture priority, you can either dial in exposure compensation in auto when the light changes or fiddle with aperture and shutter speed when the light changes. On my 5D's, exposure compensation is a dial under my thumb that I can spin without taking from eye from the viewfinder. For me, it's faster than manual. Horses for courses.
Unless you've used modern matrix metering, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's very, very good.
As for aperture priority, you can either dial in exposure compensation in auto when the light changes or fiddle with aperture and shutter speed when the light changes. On my 5D's, exposure compensation is a dial under my thumb that I can spin without taking from eye from the viewfinder. For me, it's faster than manual. Horses for courses.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well said!
I think the problem is in some ways ebracing technology for digital capture but then wanting a digital RF to feel just like an M3 and make images just the same except digitally. You can not get a quart out of a pint pot!
I do not see why the M9 could not have been a bit more daring. Yes I know the M5 bombed but things are a little diferent now. I would really like to see a modern ramgefimder with a bit more imagination. The M9 is just a full frame M8.
Hasselblad took a lot of flack and huge risks in developing the H system but they have maitained their dominance in this area. Much as I love the v system I can see why they took radical steps for a new system from the ground up. Personally as long as the Leica glass does not change iwould be prepared to think outside of the M mold to get some contemporary features on board. Just my opinion.
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well I am not sureof your price range. But if applicable why not see for youself. Set a D700 on matrix set the d lite to auto and see how you go.
I ll bet you very rarely blow high lights.
I did not want to believe just how good this is. It hurts to be bested by a computer.
Richard
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Interesting idea -- the M5.2
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Roger
I still think Leica were very innovative with the M5 unfortunately their devoted fans were less than complementary just because it was different. Originality in itself should not be grounds for penalty.
If you look at the leep that hasselblad made, they got away with it on the strengths of the new product. Just think back, they side lined the legendary V system and also Carl Zeiss lenses partnershipp of some 50 years. I thought I would never forgive them, but if we accept the digital bit then an H system is always going to be better handling than a 1950's style v system with the latest digitla back tacked on the rear. If we are embracing digital technology, we should not just accept some of it.
Regards
Richard
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Richard,
Absolutely. The size and weight of the M5 may, however, have had more to do with its unpopularity than the fact that it was innovative.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Dictionary definition of revolutionary ...
1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.
2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.
3. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the American Revolution or to the period contemporaneous with it in U.S. history: Revolutionary heroes; Revolutionary weapons.
I'm surpised that this option has garnered most of the vote ... I have to suspect blatant poll rigging. Obviously 'Dubya's' influence here runs deeper than I supected! 😛
I love my M8 (most of the time) but I would hardly call it 'revolutionary' and after all, the M9 is really the same camera with a full frame sensor shoe horned into it and some minor hardware/software changes ... not to mention the whole contraption is based around a design from the early fifties.
Revolutionary. 😕
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well said.
Actually the M9 is more evolution than revolution. It may yet be culled by natural selection, but if DRF's do continue, then I propose that the revulutionary development was actually the Epsom RD1.
Richard
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
Uhh.. S2 is made of alloy and is weather sealed, what else it's missing?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I hadn't thought of that and good point ... the Epson was the revolutionary design! Everything else along this path must therefore be evolutionary.
What a slap in the face for all Leica DRF owners! 😀
leicashot
Well-known
Soery guys i can't agree that auomation in photpography is the 'way'. While it may have it's place for some people, it is cheating, and a photographer shooting manual and know's his stuff will aquire more consistent results than one using auto. Any good experienced photographer will tell you that.
The M7 and M9 with auto is only a marketing gimmick for those incapable of understanding how to shoot manual. Whay would someone capable of shooting manual trust a camera to guess exposure, then have to compensate when they believe the camera will get it wrong? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.
For those that don't get what I am saying, ask yourself this question: Why 'do' I shoot in semi-auto?
The reason is that you're scared of missing a shot by changing settings, or making a mistake with exposure.
My answer is that you need to be confident. There is nothing to be gained from be worried about missing shots. It's those shots you miss that make you better next time. You can't get everything, but at least you that that 'what you did get' you did out of your own competency, and you can only blame yourself if you missed it or got the exposure wrong...and you'll LEARN SOMETHING and be better next time.
Don't think for a second that being a good photographer is being able to be creative and photoshop. It's about the whole package.....and if you disagree, then keep shooting semi-auto and the next time you blame the camera, think twice. There is nothing learnt from shooting auto, period.
The M7 and M9 with auto is only a marketing gimmick for those incapable of understanding how to shoot manual. Whay would someone capable of shooting manual trust a camera to guess exposure, then have to compensate when they believe the camera will get it wrong? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.
For those that don't get what I am saying, ask yourself this question: Why 'do' I shoot in semi-auto?
The reason is that you're scared of missing a shot by changing settings, or making a mistake with exposure.
My answer is that you need to be confident. There is nothing to be gained from be worried about missing shots. It's those shots you miss that make you better next time. You can't get everything, but at least you that that 'what you did get' you did out of your own competency, and you can only blame yourself if you missed it or got the exposure wrong...and you'll LEARN SOMETHING and be better next time.
Don't think for a second that being a good photographer is being able to be creative and photoshop. It's about the whole package.....and if you disagree, then keep shooting semi-auto and the next time you blame the camera, think twice. There is nothing learnt from shooting auto, period.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'd love to see two separate photographers go to a scenario where they have X amount of time to capture X amount of images ... one with an MP and the other with an F6
I'd back the F6 to come home with the most amount of correct exposures every time ... technology does work ... but agreed, you don't have to use it!
I'd back the F6 to come home with the most amount of correct exposures every time ... technology does work ... but agreed, you don't have to use it!
leicashot
Well-known
Sorry but if the light isn't changing much, the F6 will change expsoure according to the brighness of colours in the scene as it cannot read, nor understand ambient light reading.
An experienced photographer shooting the MP will achieve a more accurate exposure because they will set it and leave it, consistent....and should like change they will know, 'ok that 1/3 stop, 2/3 stop and change accordingly.
How can technology argue with experience, seriously? Auto is for those who cannot and will not care to learn how to read light, it's a lazy part of photography that is blatently ignored by many who think that technology will provide better pictures.
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Unfortunately you are at something of a disadvantage as you clearly have not used a recent DSLR with modern matrix metering. 'Technology vs experience' is not the issue. I am advocating technology and experience together. Technology with experience can beat experience alone.
Enough said.
Richard
Last edited:
markgay
mark
Between those who say the M8/9 is a paradigm shift.. and those who ask what happened to Leica the pace setter.. I agree with the latter.
One poster said he went back to his R-D1s. Now that was innovation.
I love my M's, 7 and 8, but it how can a company truly innovate that dare not change the shape of its camera?
(Yes, I may feel the ire of the ususal suspects for suggesting this.)
I agree that there is beauty in combining the latest technology with the shape of a timeless masterpiece. But what good is beauty if it holds back the medium.
People are bemoaning the loss of glass, of counter, of finish.. but that was all because of the need to meet price constraints within the straightjacket of the M look and shape (not the system, note).
You can't complain about that. It's a consequence of sticking with the M shape. (Well, you can complain but it's a bit like arguing with Santa).
Mark
PS. Can you be revolutionary and legendary at the same time? I suspect the legend comes later.
One poster said he went back to his R-D1s. Now that was innovation.
I love my M's, 7 and 8, but it how can a company truly innovate that dare not change the shape of its camera?
(Yes, I may feel the ire of the ususal suspects for suggesting this.)
I agree that there is beauty in combining the latest technology with the shape of a timeless masterpiece. But what good is beauty if it holds back the medium.
People are bemoaning the loss of glass, of counter, of finish.. but that was all because of the need to meet price constraints within the straightjacket of the M look and shape (not the system, note).
You can't complain about that. It's a consequence of sticking with the M shape. (Well, you can complain but it's a bit like arguing with Santa).
Mark
PS. Can you be revolutionary and legendary at the same time? I suspect the legend comes later.
Last edited:
parsec1
parsec1
Matrix metering is wonderfull on my Nikons one of the reasons I shall be keeping and using mine despite the M9s . As you so correctly say horses for courses although when I lift an M into the face of a tribal elder its just not quite as intimidating for him as a D3 and 16 to 85 or whatever . I reckon I can expose properly with the M9s metering and 35 years of professional experience.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Agreed I am sure your metering with the M9 + experience will do a grand job. In fact on occasion I just shoot with my contax IIa and no metering at all and with print film it is surprisingly good. All I was saying is that we should not diss technology and just because one uses metering does not make one an amateur or inferior photographer. It is knowing how to use any tool properly that counts. Metering is one area of the M series which is becoming ncreasingly primative compared to the alternatives. It is less of a problem for film than it is for digital.
Well I am very jealous of your Africa trips. I have done quite a bit of Charity work in Africa and China and I have some very memorable pictures (all film stuff) but with 2 young children I am grounded for the forseable future. I look forward to seeing your M9 images though. Insurance is not going to be too cheap!!
I agree a D3 with a big zoom is intimidating. Id shove a 35 1.4 and 105 2.5 on a D700 (not at the same time) and it is really not that intrusive. Incidentally I think Steve McCurry is using D SLRs and also Hasselblad in the sticks!
best wishes
Richard
leicashot
Well-known
It's only an exposure. I can't possibly fathoms how technology can help me with exposure. Using auto modes is NOT using experience, so technology (for exposure) is for lazy photographers, ask any experienced professional who knows what they're doing. Auto expsore is for those that 'need' a 'lot' of post processing. Try working for a large agency where you have editors working on your images each day and rely on consitency. They have no time to be constantly correcting for auto exposure mistake, ie. 'your mistakes'....and they would know immediately that you're using auto-exposure no matter how good you may 'think' it is. It doesn't read ambient and can't adjust for ambient changes, therfor it is not as good as experience and never will be, except for remote cameras where lighting is changing.
Clients who hire photographers want consistent imagery and they want it yesterday. Getting shots 'right' out of camera is not only a 'no brainer' but the work of an experienced and good photographer. This can only be achieved in manual, regardless of how many trillion zones of metering it has.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
So, leicashot, you drive a Model T Ford? It's only a car, after all.