Tim Gray
Well-known
An M9 at $7k is cheaper than an M8.x at $5k PLUS new lenses to adapt for the crop PLUS UV/IR filters. However, it's still damn expensive.
Maybe I've been shooting film too long, but the results at 1250 and 2500 look perfectly usable to me. Sure it's not in the class of the D3, but I don't care. I can use my M and LTM lenses and keep the package small and I can still shoot an RF. If I had the money, I'd think about getting one.
All this hyperbole about M's being all about available light and shooting in the dark, etc., makes it sound like that's all they are they for. They aren't. Digital took that from the M a long time ago, especially if you want to shoot color. And I shoot film primarily at 400 and 1600, so it's not like I'm one of these ISO 50 guys.
We all use RF's for different reasons, and for the most part, it looks like the M9 trumps the film cameras in almost all departments. It uses the same lenses and provides the same field of views. It lets you change ISO on the fly. The quantitative quality at any of those ISOs is pretty much better than what you'd get with film - minus the film look, but sharper, less noisy, able to take bigger enlargements, etc. It lets you shoot faster and longer than on film. And on and on. And it's not THAT much more expensive than a new film M in the big picture. For now, the M9 is basically the camera we all wanted since the advent of digital. It just has lost some of its shine since D3/D700/5D, etc have come out.
For the record, I still shoot film. Though I'd love an M9 (someday).
dfoo
Well-known
I don't know about you, but I get very good fairly noise free 25 mega pixel digital images from my CS 5000 (with the right film) 
cole
Established
Very, very well put, Tim.
ashrafazlan
Established
That's just it though, what about those who are new to the M series and don't have any Leica lenses? We'd still have to buy a lens on top of the insanely high price of the M9.
I guess what i'm trying to say is how secure is the M9's future? We've all seen the "long term" upgrade plans for the M8 (discontinued!) and when one pays that much for a camera body, it's hard to swallow the fact that in 1-2 years it'll be outdated.
Thats the problem I have with Leica right now, they've made it impossible for new, young photographers to get into the M rangefinder experience, which in the long run will only hurt their future. As a student still in University, the only viable option seems to be getting an old M8 (which is still quite expensive)
Oh and film really isn't an option for me, there's hardly any shops selling them.
dfoo
Well-known
Why not? Black and white film is very easy to obtain, and develop yourself, and even print. You can always contact print if you don't have access to an enlarger.
Every digital is going to be outdated eventually, Leica is not alone here.
As for film Leicas, there is a classified section here that usually has plenty of variety at lower prices than shops.
ashrafazlan
Established
I wish it was over here. Us malaysian's usually have to pool together and bulk order film..it's just that hard to find.
I understand that, but other companies don't charge 7k..so upgrading won't burn that big of a whole in my wallet
Every digital is going to be outdated eventually, Leica is not alone here.
As for film Leicas, there is a classified section here that usually has plenty of variety at lower prices than shops.
I understand that, but other companies don't charge 7k..so upgrading won't burn that big of a whole in my wallet
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I still shoot film. I got into Leica for about $1500 (still a lot of money) with an M6 and a 50 Summicron. I could have done it for cheaper had I went for an M2 or something and an older 50 Summicron or CV or something.
I can't imagine a digital Leica is a smart move for a student. The costs are just way too high. Hell, I think the current crop of full frame cameras are too expensive for a student. $2000 is a lot of money no matter how you cut it. Actually, I don't think Leicas were ever cheap and probably once you factor in for inflation, were totally out of the grasps of students.
Regardless, a full frame camera that gives you decent quality at 1250-1600 should be able to last you a good long time. Sure newer cameras will come out, but that doesn't mean your camera will suddenly be useless.
If you can't shoot film and must shoot digital, just shoot something else other than a Leica. You'll get great images from just about any of the cameras out there today, so find something that is supported in your country and is in your price range.
I can't imagine a digital Leica is a smart move for a student. The costs are just way too high. Hell, I think the current crop of full frame cameras are too expensive for a student. $2000 is a lot of money no matter how you cut it. Actually, I don't think Leicas were ever cheap and probably once you factor in for inflation, were totally out of the grasps of students.
Regardless, a full frame camera that gives you decent quality at 1250-1600 should be able to last you a good long time. Sure newer cameras will come out, but that doesn't mean your camera will suddenly be useless.
If you can't shoot film and must shoot digital, just shoot something else other than a Leica. You'll get great images from just about any of the cameras out there today, so find something that is supported in your country and is in your price range.
peripatetic
Well-known
I'm a little surprised that no-one has mentioned the DXOMark.com comparisons. As far as I know they are the only objective sensor tests available.
Comparing the M8 to the 5DMkII (which I now use) setting to the A4 print option. It seems to me that the 5DMkII has perhaps a general 2-3 stop advantage over the M8. I have no reason to doubt Leica that the M9 is one stop better - that seems to be what Sean Reid's pictures show too. So reducing the disadvantage to perhaps 1-2 stops. That's very close to the 5D MkI, perhaps only half a stop behind, and not too shabby at all.
In low light I almost always convert to BW anyway. It should be fine for my purposes. the M8's relatively poor low-light performance and the extra expense of the faster wide lenses gave me real pause, but now that one can use the faster lenses again at a more modest cost and a stop better ISO. It is now "good enough" in low light. And in good light? Oh my!
I will be waiting for production samples though, and the DXO tests. It's not like the cash is burning a hole in my pocket just at the minute. It will take me a little while to finance, even though I think being able to just have one set of lenses and camera will not cost me more in the long run. In the short run the sticker price of the M9 with a couple of lenses is a little steep.
Comparing the M8 to the 5DMkII (which I now use) setting to the A4 print option. It seems to me that the 5DMkII has perhaps a general 2-3 stop advantage over the M8. I have no reason to doubt Leica that the M9 is one stop better - that seems to be what Sean Reid's pictures show too. So reducing the disadvantage to perhaps 1-2 stops. That's very close to the 5D MkI, perhaps only half a stop behind, and not too shabby at all.
In low light I almost always convert to BW anyway. It should be fine for my purposes. the M8's relatively poor low-light performance and the extra expense of the faster wide lenses gave me real pause, but now that one can use the faster lenses again at a more modest cost and a stop better ISO. It is now "good enough" in low light. And in good light? Oh my!
I will be waiting for production samples though, and the DXO tests. It's not like the cash is burning a hole in my pocket just at the minute. It will take me a little while to finance, even though I think being able to just have one set of lenses and camera will not cost me more in the long run. In the short run the sticker price of the M9 with a couple of lenses is a little steep.
ashrafazlan
Established
Yeah, but one can dream
You're right though, most FF dslr's are great, I own D700 myself, although sometimes I do wish I could get rid of the bulk.Spyro
Well-known
Hmmm leica for shooting low light... I dont know, personally the type of artists that got me onto these cameras didnt even seem to shoot in low light. Mermelstein, Parke, Cohen, Gilden, Bresson, Winogrand, Frank, Meyerowitz, Manos, Economopoulos etc etc I cant even remember one single low light shot of theirs at the moment. Actually the "elevator girl" by Robert Frank seems somewhat low light but a little blurred, it looks like mid iso film and slow shutter. Maybe a few more low light shots but very few and far between. But these artists are just my preference, you guys might like others.
Re the m9, Leica has obviously decided that its low light performance is adequate, otherwise they wouldnt even launch this camera. But adequate for what exactly? Is it good enough for me? Spending $7k without knowing exactly what you're getting is ehm... not recommended, but online chimping is no way to assess if a camera is good for what you want to do either. To find out if it is good enough for what you want it for, ignore the online comparative tests, they are irrelevant. Wait until you see an artist who makes with this camera the type of photo you want to make. If you like what you see, who cares if it's noise reduced, tungsten light, noisier than camera X or not up to today's standards? If this guy can do what you like with this camera, then you can do it too and the camera is good.
wow 2nd post, I'm rolling
Re the m9, Leica has obviously decided that its low light performance is adequate, otherwise they wouldnt even launch this camera. But adequate for what exactly? Is it good enough for me? Spending $7k without knowing exactly what you're getting is ehm... not recommended, but online chimping is no way to assess if a camera is good for what you want to do either. To find out if it is good enough for what you want it for, ignore the online comparative tests, they are irrelevant. Wait until you see an artist who makes with this camera the type of photo you want to make. If you like what you see, who cares if it's noise reduced, tungsten light, noisier than camera X or not up to today's standards? If this guy can do what you like with this camera, then you can do it too and the camera is good.
wow 2nd post, I'm rolling
vish
Newbie
Hi All
First post here, but a longtime G2 user and just picked up an M9 ten days ago. I have to say, I'm starting to like high ISOs on the M9 in B+W, especially with the Zeiss 50mm, as there's a lovely quality of detail and tone that's missing from my 5D/II captures.
I know it might sound like I'm trying to justify the expense, but the noise is quite considerable (compared to zero at ISO 800 on the 5DII, blown up to A1+) and in colour it's a bit nasty, but in B+W the tone of the image is excellent.
Image below at 2500, 1/60th, underground club/bar, London over the weekend.
But I do think the camera is brutally overpriced, but it's the only game in town right now. Covered with gaffer tape, it's as unobtrusive and insignificant as carrying a newspaper, so far...
First post here, but a longtime G2 user and just picked up an M9 ten days ago. I have to say, I'm starting to like high ISOs on the M9 in B+W, especially with the Zeiss 50mm, as there's a lovely quality of detail and tone that's missing from my 5D/II captures.
I know it might sound like I'm trying to justify the expense, but the noise is quite considerable (compared to zero at ISO 800 on the 5DII, blown up to A1+) and in colour it's a bit nasty, but in B+W the tone of the image is excellent.
Image below at 2500, 1/60th, underground club/bar, London over the weekend.
But I do think the camera is brutally overpriced, but it's the only game in town right now. Covered with gaffer tape, it's as unobtrusive and insignificant as carrying a newspaper, so far...
Attachments
ampguy
Veteran
nice photo
nice photo
Seems like the M8 images at 2500, 1/60th (see my blog for a photo I just posted with those settings, but cropped 300%).
I agree that at 2500 (at least with the M8), and even 1250, b/w is better. Have you tried 1250 with color?
nice photo
Seems like the M8 images at 2500, 1/60th (see my blog for a photo I just posted with those settings, but cropped 300%).
I agree that at 2500 (at least with the M8), and even 1250, b/w is better. Have you tried 1250 with color?