I never take my Nikon D1x off of ISO 125. But I use it, never replaced it.
I like the M8. It preserves the "look and feel" of a classic camera more than any of the other Digital cameras that I have used. On my time, I like that.
I like the M8. It preserves the "look and feel" of a classic camera more than any of the other Digital cameras that I have used. On my time, I like that.
DNG
Film Friendly
So, in sum we have this
These tests provide at best, a quick glance of the cameras overall available IQ within the tests boundaries. But, we can't stop there. Glass and the cameras CPU and firmware are also factors that play a roll is the final IQ. Yes, this test involves these too. But the data pulled are a few areas that photographers what to know, or are lead to believe that "This" data is what you decide on to make a buying decision.
I liked the analogy of the film to finished print, and all the steps involved to get there...IF ONE area is lacking in Quality Output, than the final result suffers too.
I'd venture out on a limb here and say that the TOTAL output of a M9 is marginal to most of us. And, a few can tell the difference in IQ because of their higher scrutiny of the different areas of a file..IE: for example: DR 11.0 vs DR 11.9...Maybe 3/4 stop, but, At that level..How fine is tonal separation to be distinguishable by the human eye?
As may have said, it is the final result that counts in the long run.
I believe, as others, that because there is plenty of great fast glass out there, that HIGH ISO IQ is not the biggest selling point, but excellent glass is., so as to use lower ISO. BUT... I have seen some great ISO 2500 M9 images...so maybe the test is relevant on some levels, but not to most photographers who produce images of interest, not, just test images.
High speed glass, can help you gain 3 stops (like f/2.8 to f/1.2 or f/1.1). But, think about. If you are shooting at f/1.4 or faster, your DSLR may not be able to AF, and MF is a drag w/o a RF/Split doughnut and even then, it is may still be darker than a RF VF. The High end DSLRs might be able to, but, just buy an M9 and 2 fast lenses. Like a 50mm f/1.1 Nokton, and a 24mm f/1.4 Leitz, and spend 11k? You'd spend 6k on a D3x and then the Nikkor glass. And spend close the same. The M9 with those 2 lenses are a lot lighter to carry around too.
So, it may boil down to weight and Faster MF'ing. and, knowing the IQ will be there.
Or, just being able to use all that Leica, Canon SM, Nikkor SM and Voigtlander glass you have accumulated over the years.
These tests provide at best, a quick glance of the cameras overall available IQ within the tests boundaries. But, we can't stop there. Glass and the cameras CPU and firmware are also factors that play a roll is the final IQ. Yes, this test involves these too. But the data pulled are a few areas that photographers what to know, or are lead to believe that "This" data is what you decide on to make a buying decision.
I liked the analogy of the film to finished print, and all the steps involved to get there...IF ONE area is lacking in Quality Output, than the final result suffers too.
I'd venture out on a limb here and say that the TOTAL output of a M9 is marginal to most of us. And, a few can tell the difference in IQ because of their higher scrutiny of the different areas of a file..IE: for example: DR 11.0 vs DR 11.9...Maybe 3/4 stop, but, At that level..How fine is tonal separation to be distinguishable by the human eye?
As may have said, it is the final result that counts in the long run.
I believe, as others, that because there is plenty of great fast glass out there, that HIGH ISO IQ is not the biggest selling point, but excellent glass is., so as to use lower ISO. BUT... I have seen some great ISO 2500 M9 images...so maybe the test is relevant on some levels, but not to most photographers who produce images of interest, not, just test images.
High speed glass, can help you gain 3 stops (like f/2.8 to f/1.2 or f/1.1). But, think about. If you are shooting at f/1.4 or faster, your DSLR may not be able to AF, and MF is a drag w/o a RF/Split doughnut and even then, it is may still be darker than a RF VF. The High end DSLRs might be able to, but, just buy an M9 and 2 fast lenses. Like a 50mm f/1.1 Nokton, and a 24mm f/1.4 Leitz, and spend 11k? You'd spend 6k on a D3x and then the Nikkor glass. And spend close the same. The M9 with those 2 lenses are a lot lighter to carry around too.
So, it may boil down to weight and Faster MF'ing. and, knowing the IQ will be there.
Or, just being able to use all that Leica, Canon SM, Nikkor SM and Voigtlander glass you have accumulated over the years.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Not really a Leica though. You know its limitations if you choose to get one because it is limited and different from other cameras - that is sort of the point. You don't go hunting for a Leica while wondering if its going to have less noise at high ISO than a Nikon D3 - you know that information.
Simply, it is an _Eight Thousand*_ dollar camera. Some numbers have more of an effect on purchase decisions than other numbers.
* For perspective, this is more than a year of rent and utilities for me in Cambridge, MA. I'd really like it but its a bit more realistic for me to save for a used M8 (which also does not do so well in the dxomark results mind... but those aren't the relevant numbers driving a purchase decsion here...)
Cheers,
-Gautham
Harry Lime
Practitioner
A few points:
- First the obvious. The M9 is pretty much the only game in town, if you want a digital rangefinder. That right there almost settles it. Take it or leave. Yes, there is the M8.x and RD-1, but there are a lot more compromises involved with these.
- The 5D was/isn't exactly a slouch, even by todays standards...
- Until this test came out everyone seemed pretty content with the M9 performance. It's not a D3s, but it's not exactly crap either.
- Can you live with the IQ of the M9? A question only you can answer.
- Keep in mind that the Canon/Nikon camp more often than not HAS to shoot at +3200 asa, because most people are using a zoom that is no faster than f2.8.
- If you are worried about noise, rob a second bank and buy a Summilux.
Yes, it is disappointing that the M9 is not at the top of the performance heap, given that at $7000 it's at the apex of the market in terms of price. It's even lamer if you put it in a historic context, as Bill has done. But times have changed. Developing a class leading sensor takes an enormous amount of money and expertise. We are still a few years away from a sensor like what is in the D3 series being a commodity item. Until that happens Leica will always be a generation or two behind the best the market has to offer.
So, it comes down to the age old question of 'how fast is fast enough?". Yes, the M9 may not be as good as a D3s, but does it deliver the images you want?
And as always: Content is king. If you make really good pictures, no one will give a rats tail about a little noise.
- First the obvious. The M9 is pretty much the only game in town, if you want a digital rangefinder. That right there almost settles it. Take it or leave. Yes, there is the M8.x and RD-1, but there are a lot more compromises involved with these.
- The 5D was/isn't exactly a slouch, even by todays standards...
- Until this test came out everyone seemed pretty content with the M9 performance. It's not a D3s, but it's not exactly crap either.
- Can you live with the IQ of the M9? A question only you can answer.
- Keep in mind that the Canon/Nikon camp more often than not HAS to shoot at +3200 asa, because most people are using a zoom that is no faster than f2.8.
- If you are worried about noise, rob a second bank and buy a Summilux.
Yes, it is disappointing that the M9 is not at the top of the performance heap, given that at $7000 it's at the apex of the market in terms of price. It's even lamer if you put it in a historic context, as Bill has done. But times have changed. Developing a class leading sensor takes an enormous amount of money and expertise. We are still a few years away from a sensor like what is in the D3 series being a commodity item. Until that happens Leica will always be a generation or two behind the best the market has to offer.
So, it comes down to the age old question of 'how fast is fast enough?". Yes, the M9 may not be as good as a D3s, but does it deliver the images you want?
And as always: Content is king. If you make really good pictures, no one will give a rats tail about a little noise.
Last edited:
kxl
Social Documentary
Given the freedom to select criteria for review, any person, place or thing can be made to look as good or as bad as the reviewer wishes... :bang:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It is not likely that a FF sensor with custom microlenses set up to deal with the oblique light projected by RF lenses will ever be a commodity item.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Compensating for limited ISO capability by using ultra fast glass is all very well but not everyone wants a razor fine depth of field to work within in when it's a little dark!
There's definite advantages in superior ISO performance that go beyond number crunching in some chart ... in certain conditions it's real world and gives a D700 or 5DII an advantage in flexilbility of focus!
There's definite advantages in superior ISO performance that go beyond number crunching in some chart ... in certain conditions it's real world and gives a D700 or 5DII an advantage in flexilbility of focus!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Give me my 5DII with clean high ISO and IS lenses over a Leica in any available darkness shootout. The M9 has some nice qualities, but just about any modern Nikon or Canon with IS or VR lenses can wipe the floor with an M9 in low light. If you aren't a low light shooter, though, the small size might tip the scale the other way, though.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
dseelig
David
Some of us do want razor thin dof. More to the point I do not want the weight and size of 2 5d mk11's a 24 1.4 35 1.4 50 1.2 and a 85 f1.2 over 2 m9s and 24 , 35 50, and a 75 lux. ad no I ma not rich rather a working pro who has found a way to get the tools I want. David
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
And so do I occasionally ... but I don't want to be forced into using it because there's no other option in low light due to to wishy washy high ISO performance!
user237428934
User deletion pending
2 M9s
This is a good one And the comparison of the lenses is absolutely theoretical because no one would carry around all these lenses together.Roger Hicks
Veteran
"My _______ is better than your _______"
For me. You might say the opposite.
For me, huge cameras and lenses are a deal-breaker; I prefer Leicas.
For someone else, poor high-ISO performance and no image stabilization are a deal-breaker.
Most cameras deliver more than adequate quality, though it's true that they may also have a 'look' you prefer. That's why I really don't give a toss about DxO's sensor analysis. Nor do I have (any longer) an irrational attachment to ONLY film. I like film for B+W and digi (or Ektar 100) for colour.
And tom.w.bn: I quite often carry two Ms and four lenses. Not those four, it's true, but the 15 or 18-35-75-135 that I do carry strikes me as the dream outfit, unless I could replace the 15 or 18 with a WATE.
Cheers,
R.
For me. You might say the opposite.
For me, huge cameras and lenses are a deal-breaker; I prefer Leicas.
For someone else, poor high-ISO performance and no image stabilization are a deal-breaker.
Most cameras deliver more than adequate quality, though it's true that they may also have a 'look' you prefer. That's why I really don't give a toss about DxO's sensor analysis. Nor do I have (any longer) an irrational attachment to ONLY film. I like film for B+W and digi (or Ektar 100) for colour.
And tom.w.bn: I quite often carry two Ms and four lenses. Not those four, it's true, but the 15 or 18-35-75-135 that I do carry strikes me as the dream outfit, unless I could replace the 15 or 18 with a WATE.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Yes. 18-35-75-135 makes more sense than 24-35-50-75 where you can easily leave two at home and substitute these with cropping the photo especially if you have M9 and 18 MP.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tom,
To you and to me, yes. But maybe not to David. We're back to what works for you or for me or for David, etc.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
You are absolutely right. At them moment the combination 24/50 works best for me.
thrice
Established
I came from shooting with a 5D Mark II in low light, and requiring f/2.0 to compensate for focus error and ISO1600-6400 to compensate for motion blur.
I now shoot ISO160-800, f/1.1-f/2.8 (depending on lens) and get more usable results with the M9. Don't ask me why, but it just works out this way.
eg.
I now shoot ISO160-800, f/1.1-f/2.8 (depending on lens) and get more usable results with the M9. Don't ask me why, but it just works out this way.
eg.
Turtle
Veteran
I use film and when I get funky out of focus and grainy images I make them work for me with pixie dust in the darkroom.
Actually I am excited about using the 24 lux on my film Ms, but know what my low light kit is? Canon 85 1.2 on Eos and a couple of Leica bodies with F2 or faster wides. Bit of both. I prefer the brand disloyal mongrel approach!
Actually I am excited about using the 24 lux on my film Ms, but know what my low light kit is? Canon 85 1.2 on Eos and a couple of Leica bodies with F2 or faster wides. Bit of both. I prefer the brand disloyal mongrel approach!