Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is a new and intelligent review of the M9. While I can not say that I agree totally with the reviewer, I think well of what he says, probably even more of what he infers.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0911/camera-corner-the-leica-m9.html
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0911/camera-corner-the-leica-m9.html
nksyoon
Well-known
I think the diagram comparing the size of the M9 with a DSLR and large zoom is misleading. He could have made the comparison with a DSLR and 50mm lens and still made his point.
His high-ISO comparison shots (of the lamp) seem to be exposed differently - he says that the images seem to show that the M8 and M9 have lower dynamic range because the highlights are blown-out, but looking at the images it seems that the 5D and D700 shots are underexposed compared to the M8 and M9 ones.
I'm more interested in Bruno Steven's review - wonder if this will be published by Digital Journalist.
His high-ISO comparison shots (of the lamp) seem to be exposed differently - he says that the images seem to show that the M8 and M9 have lower dynamic range because the highlights are blown-out, but looking at the images it seems that the 5D and D700 shots are underexposed compared to the M8 and M9 ones.
I'm more interested in Bruno Steven's review - wonder if this will be published by Digital Journalist.
Pablito
coco frío
But why would a reviewer expose the comparison shots differently? If we accept they were exposed the same, then we have to judge the results and ask why the results look the way they do.
ampguy
Veteran
Wow, I like the 8/8.2's bw over the M9s @ 2500 much better in those examples.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Thanxs for the link.
Calzone
Calzone
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I received a number of “off line” inquiries in essence asking, “What did I really think of the M9?” They could have been on line. I have no secret opinion.
My opinion is, however, that of a working journalist, documentarian, news shooter, whatever you want to call it. It’s not a very lucrative profession for many. A $7000 body is beyond the reach of many, especially when you consider that they are going to need two bodies, not just to use two lenses simultaniously (the varifocals are too slow for much natural light journalism), but in case one breaks or is stolen.
Add to that the cost of lenses which are dedicated only to these bodies, If you are talking about a photographer who doesn’t own lenses that can be ported over from their film days, then we are talking about a very large initial investment.
We are talking about a system that can’t be afforded by most photojournalists and, more important, young people starting out in photography. I think the M9 is an exceptionally good, if somewhat special purpose, camera, but I think it is becoming a conspicuous consumption item and that is, to me, very bad. You don’t buy a Leica because a Wall St. executive or a famous entertainer uses one; you buy it because Gene Smith or Cartier Bresson used one - and that’s getting a little old.
I would also argue with one other statement you hear about the M9, the one that goes “you don’t really need high ISO’s with a Leica because they have high speed lenses, not these f/4 zooms.” Hey, I have f/1.2 lenses on DSLR’s with astro ISO’s, and I use the lenses wide open along with the high ISO’s. It’s a lot nicer than the old days when you shot night time protests on recording pans and souped in Kodak D-11. A minor point, but there are some of us that feel the Leica with it’s bright line finder and rangefinder focusing could be a great available darkness camera and regret that it is not. This was certainly part of the M3-M7 heritage that got lost.
My opinion is, however, that of a working journalist, documentarian, news shooter, whatever you want to call it. It’s not a very lucrative profession for many. A $7000 body is beyond the reach of many, especially when you consider that they are going to need two bodies, not just to use two lenses simultaniously (the varifocals are too slow for much natural light journalism), but in case one breaks or is stolen.
Add to that the cost of lenses which are dedicated only to these bodies, If you are talking about a photographer who doesn’t own lenses that can be ported over from their film days, then we are talking about a very large initial investment.
We are talking about a system that can’t be afforded by most photojournalists and, more important, young people starting out in photography. I think the M9 is an exceptionally good, if somewhat special purpose, camera, but I think it is becoming a conspicuous consumption item and that is, to me, very bad. You don’t buy a Leica because a Wall St. executive or a famous entertainer uses one; you buy it because Gene Smith or Cartier Bresson used one - and that’s getting a little old.
I would also argue with one other statement you hear about the M9, the one that goes “you don’t really need high ISO’s with a Leica because they have high speed lenses, not these f/4 zooms.” Hey, I have f/1.2 lenses on DSLR’s with astro ISO’s, and I use the lenses wide open along with the high ISO’s. It’s a lot nicer than the old days when you shot night time protests on recording pans and souped in Kodak D-11. A minor point, but there are some of us that feel the Leica with it’s bright line finder and rangefinder focusing could be a great available darkness camera and regret that it is not. This was certainly part of the M3-M7 heritage that got lost.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think the M9 is a disappointment to a lot of folks because it really doesn't stand head and shoulders above the other full frame digital cameras on the market from an image quality standpoint. It entered the FF market after Nikon and Canon had it down cold. And a $7,000 "Leica" should be a leader, not a follower in many people's eyes. And it can never catch up, because Leica can't move fast enough without making its customers who expect the M9 to be a 20 year camera very mad.
So it really comes down to whether you want to shoot with a digital RF or a DSLR. The M9 isn't "the best," whatever that means. And many seem to need to believe it the best to justify spending that $7,000 for the body.
So it really comes down to whether you want to shoot with a digital RF or a DSLR. The M9 isn't "the best," whatever that means. And many seem to need to believe it the best to justify spending that $7,000 for the body.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I think I agree with you that a lot of people want to believe that a £5k Leica should be the best thing out there. Of course, it can't be really. The volume and investment required sees to that, but what it does need to do is be very good and be a real rangefinder to use. In that I think it likely succeeds.
Mike
NickTrop
Veteran
If money didn't matter to me, I'd buy this camera. I'm sure it's awesome. However, that's the real downside - the cost. When you look at the drawbacks of this camera, slow write speeds, ISO "only" of about 2400, for the benefit of full frame it seems to me you come full circle. You end up with a digital camera that has a 35mm-sized sensor, like film, with none of the advantages of digital except no need to buy or process film. $7,000 buys and processes a helluvalot of film.
This camera validates to me something I've always thought - rangefinders are for film. Film are for rangefinders. Slap black and white film into an old rangefinder, use the wonderful fast lenses, soup it yourself... And every so often, magic happens that seems to elude digital capture... You even have better dynamic range, probably.
No need to spend 7 grand. The inherent advantages of digital don't seem to exist in this camera... Just buy a film Leica, put Tri-X in it, and soup it yourself... The output and experience of this is inherently outside the digital realm - and that's not a knock on digital, no matter how expensive the camera is...
This camera validates to me something I've always thought - rangefinders are for film. Film are for rangefinders. Slap black and white film into an old rangefinder, use the wonderful fast lenses, soup it yourself... And every so often, magic happens that seems to elude digital capture... You even have better dynamic range, probably.
No need to spend 7 grand. The inherent advantages of digital don't seem to exist in this camera... Just buy a film Leica, put Tri-X in it, and soup it yourself... The output and experience of this is inherently outside the digital realm - and that's not a knock on digital, no matter how expensive the camera is...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't think Leica had to hit a home run with the M9, they just had to do a FF camera to stay in the game. Whatever compromises the M9 might have, introducing it is enough to keep them in the game for a while longer. The FF sensor is what people wanted, so their lenses worked at their designed focal lengths. That is what is important about the M9. Not it's high ISO performance, not it's buffer size, not its ultimate image quality. That FF sensor is what will sell the M9.
nksyoon
Well-known
Yes, but the reviewer hasn't addressed the apparent differences in exposures - the Nikon/Canon shots are overall darker than the Leica ones, he just emphasizes the blown highlights on the Leica ones.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think the reviewer missed the single biggest thing wrong with the M9 and that is price. Had this thread been posted this far after the M8 intro it would be pages long by now with diametrically opposed view points. The limited response to this thread seems to indicate that the vast majority of RF shooters can't get worked up over a camera that most could never hope to afford. From the little I have read on the net, I am left a little under impressed by what it has to offer relative to the purchase price. The linked review does nothing to dissuade me of that opinion but rather confirms it.
Bob
Bob
newsgrunt
Well-known
It's interesting that most of the commenters didn't want video but if you were to ask a photojournalist, they'd love to have that option. Being able to record motion is another tool that is used and can be used effectively. Any new camera coming out that doesn't have this doesn't get much of a look over, to be honest. That's the reality for photojournalists today, not all but quite a few.
It's probably a moot point however as most photographers I know who earn their living with cameras won't be able to afford an M9 unfortunately.
It's probably a moot point however as most photographers I know who earn their living with cameras won't be able to afford an M9 unfortunately.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I could afford an M9, but I'd have to sell a very large part of the digi gear I use to shoot sports in order to fund the purchase. And then I'd be left with one film M and one digi M and no means to shoot sports or the other things I prefer to shoot with a dSLR.
I'm with Bill, Nick, and others. The M9 is just too expensive to consider owning.
I'm with Bill, Nick, and others. The M9 is just too expensive to consider owning.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Nice camera, not perfect, but the price is ridiculous.
I think what is even worse is that there is no alternative, because Leica refuses to build a tiered product line like every other company on the planet. Where is the APS-H or APS-C sensor based digital CL for $2500 - $4000? Leica could even build some 'DX' type lenses for the camera.
Bill is right. 90% of working photojournalists can't afford this camera, let alone two or three bodies and Leica glass to go along with it. Leica gear was never cheap, but this is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the camera will be obsolete and borderline worthless in a few years. I bought my first Leica 11 years ago, a demo M6TTL with a dent in the baseplate. I paid $1850, which was a lot of money back then and a ton of cash for me. I still have the camera, shoot it almost every day and will continue to do so until they stop making film, it breaks and can't be repaired or they put me in a box (with the camera).
And speaking of used gear Stephan Daniel's statement that the entry level / low cost digital M body is a used example, is absolutely ridiculous for several reasons.
First of all if I was the owner of Leica (Mr Kaufmann) I would fire or demote Daniel right there and then. How does the sale of a used M8.x/M9 put money in Leica's pocket? The check up at the service department? That's peanuts and not enough to sustain a company.
In a recent interview Daniel said something along the lines that your first Porsche is a used Porsche. Well, I would expect a statement like that from someone who was ignorant of the digital photography market. Problem is that a Porsche does not have an expiration date, unlike a digital camera. Maybe Stephan Daniel also advocates buying 5 year old personal computers? Who on earth is going to buy a used M8 5 years from now? The camera is already 3 years old and quirky. The M9 is good, but it's still using what is essentially the same sensor from the M8. What are they drinking over in Solms?
That philosophy may have worked in the analog film days, although I still don't understand how advocating the purchase of used gear puts money in Leica's pocket.
Instead we get the X1. A $2000 ($2350 with OVF) POINT AND SHOOT for the Hermes crowd. The X1 is NOT a low-cost alternative to the M9 by any means, no matter how hard Leica marketing may try to peddle that idea.
Watch the interview yourself. Around minute 40 they talk about the CL-D
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/daniel-video-intro.shtml
So, yes. I agree that as a serious reportage tool the M9 is DOA for 90% of the people who would otherwise be using one. It's a shame, but that's the truth. Besides, the damn thing still isn't weathersealed, but then again when was the last time that Seal was forced to shoot in a rainstorm or risk losing his job?
I think what is even worse is that there is no alternative, because Leica refuses to build a tiered product line like every other company on the planet. Where is the APS-H or APS-C sensor based digital CL for $2500 - $4000? Leica could even build some 'DX' type lenses for the camera.
Bill is right. 90% of working photojournalists can't afford this camera, let alone two or three bodies and Leica glass to go along with it. Leica gear was never cheap, but this is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the camera will be obsolete and borderline worthless in a few years. I bought my first Leica 11 years ago, a demo M6TTL with a dent in the baseplate. I paid $1850, which was a lot of money back then and a ton of cash for me. I still have the camera, shoot it almost every day and will continue to do so until they stop making film, it breaks and can't be repaired or they put me in a box (with the camera).
And speaking of used gear Stephan Daniel's statement that the entry level / low cost digital M body is a used example, is absolutely ridiculous for several reasons.
First of all if I was the owner of Leica (Mr Kaufmann) I would fire or demote Daniel right there and then. How does the sale of a used M8.x/M9 put money in Leica's pocket? The check up at the service department? That's peanuts and not enough to sustain a company.
In a recent interview Daniel said something along the lines that your first Porsche is a used Porsche. Well, I would expect a statement like that from someone who was ignorant of the digital photography market. Problem is that a Porsche does not have an expiration date, unlike a digital camera. Maybe Stephan Daniel also advocates buying 5 year old personal computers? Who on earth is going to buy a used M8 5 years from now? The camera is already 3 years old and quirky. The M9 is good, but it's still using what is essentially the same sensor from the M8. What are they drinking over in Solms?
That philosophy may have worked in the analog film days, although I still don't understand how advocating the purchase of used gear puts money in Leica's pocket.
Instead we get the X1. A $2000 ($2350 with OVF) POINT AND SHOOT for the Hermes crowd. The X1 is NOT a low-cost alternative to the M9 by any means, no matter how hard Leica marketing may try to peddle that idea.
Watch the interview yourself. Around minute 40 they talk about the CL-D
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/daniel-video-intro.shtml
So, yes. I agree that as a serious reportage tool the M9 is DOA for 90% of the people who would otherwise be using one. It's a shame, but that's the truth. Besides, the damn thing still isn't weathersealed, but then again when was the last time that Seal was forced to shoot in a rainstorm or risk losing his job?
Last edited:
swoop
Well-known
I stumbled upon this "opinion" of the M9. Nice gallery.
http://johnbuckley100.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/the-leica-m9-after-eight-weeks/
http://johnbuckley100.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/the-leica-m9-after-eight-weeks/
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
To me, this is a major point, and my only real quibble with the basic design of the M8 and M9.
Microphen anyone?
photogdave
Shops local
I won't disagree with any of what H.L. says above except that I don't think the price is any more ridiculous than $8000 for a flagship Nikon or Canon body. ALL digital camera pricing is ridiculous!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The difference is that with a Canon, for example, if you can't afford $8 grand for a 1DS Mk IV, you can still buy a damn good 5D MII for $2,700. With Leica, there is no choice.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
The M9 is "the best." It is the best full-frame digital rangefinder. Nothing else compares. And what it is mostly compared to doesn't always make sense to me.
How can you compare it to a DSLR except to say that it is totally different?
And cost is always raised as an issue. Like everyone else, I would love it if the M9 cost $4k (even better if it was less). At $4K I could swing it and not feel at all bad about it. But cost is always raised as an issue using (IMO) unfair comparisons.
For the hobbyist, it's always along the lines of: "I can buy an M6 for $1,200 and have $5,800 left over for film and dev." The only problem here is that Leica doesn't sell the M6 anymore. A new M7 costs $4,395 from B+H. Throw in a Nikon 35mm scanner (another $1,200 roughly) and you are at $5,595. The M9 is only $1,405 more. That doesn't buy you a lot film and dev if you shoot much.
We would never say something like: "You're crazy! Why would you spend all that money on a Canon EOS-1Ds when you could just buy an EOS 3 for $300?"
I think, with Leica, it's tough to put things in perspective. I'm not sure that I've been totally successful above, but it does make sense to me.
And, at this point, top-tier digital cameras will only be obsolete if you think they are obsolete. Yes something better will come along, but is that any reason to throw out what you've got? People seem to forget that this happened in the days of film as well. I can recall shutter-speed wars.
Just my two cents.
How can you compare it to a DSLR except to say that it is totally different?
And cost is always raised as an issue. Like everyone else, I would love it if the M9 cost $4k (even better if it was less). At $4K I could swing it and not feel at all bad about it. But cost is always raised as an issue using (IMO) unfair comparisons.
For the hobbyist, it's always along the lines of: "I can buy an M6 for $1,200 and have $5,800 left over for film and dev." The only problem here is that Leica doesn't sell the M6 anymore. A new M7 costs $4,395 from B+H. Throw in a Nikon 35mm scanner (another $1,200 roughly) and you are at $5,595. The M9 is only $1,405 more. That doesn't buy you a lot film and dev if you shoot much.
We would never say something like: "You're crazy! Why would you spend all that money on a Canon EOS-1Ds when you could just buy an EOS 3 for $300?"
I think, with Leica, it's tough to put things in perspective. I'm not sure that I've been totally successful above, but it does make sense to me.
And, at this point, top-tier digital cameras will only be obsolete if you think they are obsolete. Yes something better will come along, but is that any reason to throw out what you've got? People seem to forget that this happened in the days of film as well. I can recall shutter-speed wars.
Just my two cents.