35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Repeat - the M9 will NOT make you a better photographer.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Thank you. Most pros shoot jpeg anyway. If you want 8+ burst get a Canon.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Two frames per second is still faster (much faster) than I can shoot with either my M4-P or M7. I think the strong point of a Leica M9 (M8 / M8.2) is not shooting in burst mode, some DSLR can do better ... 
Despite all criticism about the price tag, nobody else was able to produce such a small FF equipped camera with exchangeable lenses of outstanding quality, especially in the short focal range. Kudos to Kodak and Leica.
Despite all criticism about the price tag, nobody else was able to produce such a small FF equipped camera with exchangeable lenses of outstanding quality, especially in the short focal range. Kudos to Kodak and Leica.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
All cameras have their limitations. Those who don't like/can't handle Leicas' limitations (including low maximum ISO, unsuitability for long lenses, and inability to shoot video) don't have to buy Leicas. Those who want the smallest FF interchangeable lens camera on the market, with superb lenses, are well served by the M9.
It's not 'not worthy of a Leica user'. It's 'choosing the wrong camera for your shooting style'. The M9 is not 'latest and greatest' in the electronics department: it's 'smallest and simplest to use'. That's fine by me.
Cheers,
R.
Aurance
Member
M9 Pre-requisites!
M9 Pre-requisites!
I am seeking a small digital 'full frame' camera that I can carry around all day. It is early days relative to the reviews but hopefully the M9 can deliver on my pre-requisites :-
* Top IQ (edge to edge with the Leica 28/50/90 Lenses)
* Sensor - good to at least ISO:800 for image quality v noise
* Easy to read histogram (Easy to check for any blown highlights)
* No Colour Shift
* No Moire
In the UK the M9 body retails at £4,850 and for that price I would expect the above to be delivered?
Regards
Richard.
M9 Pre-requisites!
I am seeking a small digital 'full frame' camera that I can carry around all day. It is early days relative to the reviews but hopefully the M9 can deliver on my pre-requisites :-
* Top IQ (edge to edge with the Leica 28/50/90 Lenses)
* Sensor - good to at least ISO:800 for image quality v noise
* Easy to read histogram (Easy to check for any blown highlights)
* No Colour Shift
* No Moire
In the UK the M9 body retails at £4,850 and for that price I would expect the above to be delivered?
Regards
Richard.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It is a bit amazing - just because this camera is expensive - defensible too for a handbuilt unique product-, there seems to be an idea around that "because it is expensive it should be able to do everything, including whistle Yankee Doodle" In this forum of all forums we should know that a rangefinder is a specialised tool within rather narrow confines, not a Swiss Army Knife. The M9 - and the M8 to a slightly lesser extent- is a rangefinder transported into the digital age, does evrything a rangefinder camera should do and does it excellently as well. If you need a tool that goes outside those limitations - get another tool - as simple as that.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
This is exactly what it does, Richard. Except for i slight touch of moiré in a very limited number of images.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"Thank you. Most pros shoot jpeg anyway."
Most pros I know shoot RAW + jpeg. And even a $700 Canon EOS does it with aplomb.
Seriously, when you are talking about a $7,000 camera, what real difference to the buyer dollar wise would sticking the processer from a Canon Rebel in there be?
Most pros I know shoot RAW + jpeg. And even a $700 Canon EOS does it with aplomb.
Seriously, when you are talking about a $7,000 camera, what real difference to the buyer dollar wise would sticking the processer from a Canon Rebel in there be?
Tracnac
Established
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It might choke on 36 Mb files...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
O.K. upgrade it to the 50D's processer.
jarski
Veteran
what ?! does this mean M9 really cannot whistle Yankee Doodle ?
Richard Marks
Rexel
I thoroughly take the point that rangefinders are not rapid fire machines and that one good killer shot is all that is needed, however I think the issue is that we expect progress in all areas. It is only natural to expect new models to be faster. Its 3 years plus since the M8. It seems increadible that it may be slower. It never would have occured to me that they would re use M8 electronics. It is as if the issue of going full frame has used up all the available resources. Still at least the IR cut out filter issue has been solved. I actually think that is as big as if not a bigger advance than the transition to full frame.
Perhaps the M10 will have the faster processing as well.
One final thought, if the shutter, processor, rangefinder and LCD screen are the same as on an M8.2, why is it so expensive? Are M9 buyers subsidising the S2 project by any chance?
Richard
Perhaps the M10 will have the faster processing as well.
One final thought, if the shutter, processor, rangefinder and LCD screen are the same as on an M8.2, why is it so expensive? Are M9 buyers subsidising the S2 project by any chance?
Richard
Last edited:
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Since 1984, Leica film M's could shoot 3 frames per second for 36 frames with a motor, and they did that while physically pulling film though the camera. Two frames per second for 7 or 8 frames, followed by a major slowdown is an obvious step down in performance vs. M film cameras of 25 years ago. The M9 looks like a fine camera overall, but it really should be better in this respect. For those who depend on their cameras for their work, such little details have consequences.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It was flawed from the moment they decided not to add auto focus and a means to compose through the lens. What were they thinking?
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I have my camera(s) set for "Black + White".
RAW + jpg is necessary to show a b&w preview image on the LCD. When shooting and thinking in b&w, I want to see a b&w preview.
If set for RAW only, the preview is always in color despite the "Black + White" setting.
That's one BIG reason why this user (and reviewer) selects RAW + jpg operation.
RAW + jpg is necessary to show a b&w preview image on the LCD. When shooting and thinking in b&w, I want to see a b&w preview.
If set for RAW only, the preview is always in color despite the "Black + White" setting.
That's one BIG reason why this user (and reviewer) selects RAW + jpg operation.
ashrafazlan
Established
It was flawed from the moment they decided not to add auto focus and a means to compose through the lens. What were they thinking?
You are overgeneralizing, we're not asking for AF or 9fps. All we want is a processor good enough to handle RAW + Jpeg when shooting consecutive shots without too much of a slow down.
Sure, you might not find this feature useful, but a lot of other people do. Be it for BW previewing (as mentioned by AusDLK) or for quick uploads for time sensitive work. Heck, i'd be happy if Leica can make it so that DNG's appear in BW. Is that really too much to ask for?
MikeL
Go Fish
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
To add to my comment above -
I don't think this is a DSLR vs. Rangefinder issue. A DSLR should be slower, not faster, considering that it has to flip the mirror up and down for every exposure. And in continuous AF mode, it has to autofocus continuously while shooting multiple frames. Rangefinder photography isn't inherently slow. An RF user may well want to shoot very quickly for more than a few seconds, if the circumstances provide for enough light and enough depth of field.
Leisure photographers may be perfectly happy with a low frame rate because photography is their leisure activity and speed has little consequence. But working photographers can find a camera with a "slow brain" maddeningly frustrating because it always has the potential to impact on their work and their reputation.
It's popular to make fun of those who desire faster performance as wanting to "machinegun" the subject as with a DSLR — but a faster frame rate and deeper buffer would be very sensible upgrades and wouldn't diminish the camera or make it less "simple". If and when Leica makes an M10 that offers, say, 3 frames per second and a 24-shot raw buffer, leisure photographers will not dismiss it as a "machinegunner's" camera. Instead, they will buy it and they will like it.
I don't think this is a DSLR vs. Rangefinder issue. A DSLR should be slower, not faster, considering that it has to flip the mirror up and down for every exposure. And in continuous AF mode, it has to autofocus continuously while shooting multiple frames. Rangefinder photography isn't inherently slow. An RF user may well want to shoot very quickly for more than a few seconds, if the circumstances provide for enough light and enough depth of field.
Leisure photographers may be perfectly happy with a low frame rate because photography is their leisure activity and speed has little consequence. But working photographers can find a camera with a "slow brain" maddeningly frustrating because it always has the potential to impact on their work and their reputation.
It's popular to make fun of those who desire faster performance as wanting to "machinegun" the subject as with a DSLR — but a faster frame rate and deeper buffer would be very sensible upgrades and wouldn't diminish the camera or make it less "simple". If and when Leica makes an M10 that offers, say, 3 frames per second and a 24-shot raw buffer, leisure photographers will not dismiss it as a "machinegunner's" camera. Instead, they will buy it and they will like it.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
To add to my comment above -
Leisure photographers may be perfectly happy with a low frame rate because photography is their leisure activity and speed has little consequence. But working photographers can find a camera with a "slow brain" maddeningly frustrating because it always has the potential to impact on their work and their reputation.
So may working photographers. It depends on how you work and what you want to do. Sure, I'd like a bigger burst capacity. But these generalizations about what 'working photographers' either need or want are normally presented either by amateurs fantasizing or by professionals who have a highly specific way of working and can't/won't imagine anything else.
Cheers,
R.