YYV_146
Well-known
I agree. CMOS sensors seem to struggle with green, and Sony sensor typically have severe red channel overflow. The M9's greens are vastly better, but I'm not sure if I like the M9 CCD's weak reds to Sony's.
But you learn to work around those things. It's one of the reasons I loan/borrow cameras for my work - I try to step back from files I've probably used too much and grown accustomed to.
Personally I find the wide angle lenses I use tolerable on the A7 (21lux, 35lux asph and CV 12mm 5.6). If I really wanted to do critical landscape work, I think I'd go for a WATE/A7r combo instead of buying an M9 or M type 240. The 21lux is plenty sharp from f2.8 onwards, but I find the field curvature and sharpness flux across the frame undesirable unless I shoot at f5.6-f8.
YYV_146
Well-known
Sony's imaging department is posting a profit. At the very worst, they'll break away from the consumer electronics and become a standalone camera maker/cmos FAB. You need to understand that Sony is like a small country - the internal bits don't really work together or even communicate with each other, and share very little except the four-letter name. Fine with me.
And of course, nobody in the camera world is doing well these days. Canon makes a profit on underinvesting in research, Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic have all seen sales decline.
I'm not affiliated with Sony in any way, but their camera branch in China sends me equipment to review on very generous loan cycles. So I like the company, but nothing more.
Really? I don't anyone is jealous of anything here. The OP doesn't say that Leica cameras automatically suck - just that the sensor is outdated. In a previous post I applaud Leica for building their cameras like tanks and paying attention to every design detail, but frankly, the only reason I'm not holding an M right now is Leica's sub-par sensors.
I enjoy RFs and good quality mechanics - but that is subjective. What the OP is arguing for - and perhaps rightly so - is an objective question. There is no "opinion" in the question "is a sensor good or not". It has nothing to do with handling, very little to do with what kind of images you can make with the camera, but important to some of us, because we need to deliver images at a certain quality.
I've been told that the car analogy is tiresome, but here it is again: the OP is saying that a car is fuel inefficient, has some flaws in design and build. You are saying that the car is a great car and the OP thinks it's a bad car. But an inefficient or flawed car is not a bad car. You and you can determine if the car is a good car to you, but the OP can nonetheless be quite right in pointing out the car's problems.
When I got my first Sony E-mount camera in 2010 it took me all but five minutes to figure out how to use it. The operations and designs of Sony bodies is amazingly consistent. Use one of the more recent Minolta SLRs, and you can see how similar it is to the latest A mount camera. The E-mount bodies used to have quirky menus, but now the system is unified between the two mounts, and if you have used any Sony camera since their DSLR days, IMO you wouldn't need to go through the manual to use an A7.
And the notion that Sony has little legacy support is, frankly, nonsense. The Minolta 85mm F1.4 I used to own works perfectly on the A7. I get state-of-the-art AF, full manual override, A/S modes - as much functionality (if not more) as I would get from using the lens on a film Minolta SLR. Maybe not as much legacy support as Leica, but the A mount is relatively young compared to the M mount. Compared to Canon which left most of its pro users in the dust when they ditch FD and Nikon which has an extremly confusing legacy system, Sony's approach is nothing short of beautiful.
It takes two steps to use any old minolta lens on an A7. Mounting the (one available) motorized adapter and mounting the lens, and you get full functionality with any Minolta lens since 1985.
Lss
Well-known
Depends on what you mean by image quality here. If you are talking about sensor quality, I agree. If you are talking about the quality of your final image, I could not disagree more. The Leica M9/Monochrom/M may or may not be a good choice for any individual.
I am quite happily using my M8, and it usually matches or exceeds what I get out of my Sony RX1R. There is little doubt which camera is significantly ahead in terms of sensor performance. Therefore the RX1R image should always outdo a corresponding M8 image with a 24-28mm lens, right?
YYV_146
Well-known
Frankly, none of these are really "dark" locations. The people are static except for the boxer shot (which is amazing, BTW), and you aren't using extremely fast lenses - I would guess F1.4 and slower? The boxer shot is what I would consider "very good" light - you have flood lamps directly on the subject, which is a luxury by available light standards.
"Dark" is when you shoot at ISO 5000 with an F1.2 lens, then push two stops in post to get acceptable brightness. The M9 simply can't do that - I've worked with M9 files - the camera cannot go beyond ISO 4000 in equivalent, everything breaks down to mush when I try to push iso 1600 files that far. I also shoot concerts - and it takes the combined effort of fast lenses and very high performing sensors to deliver prints at shutter speeds high enough to capture motion.
Shot with the NEX-7, ISO 1600, 1/80s with F2 and lightly pushed (~1/2 stops). The A7 did not exist back then but if I had one, I would have been able to use ISO 4000 and 1/200s, which would have made getting this shot a LOT easier. Note that this is a last-gen, 24MP APS-C body, and to my experience it outperforms the M9 in the high ISO department.
YYV_146
Well-known
Yes - I am talking about sensor quality. Image quality has a lot to do with how you see the world through the finder, and how people perceive your camera. One of the reasons I like mirrorless/RF - you get far less intrusive images than if you are blasting away with a DSLR.
People buy M cameras for the experience, and I 100% respect that. It's a good way of thinking about photography, as opposed to trying to argue that the camera one owns is the single best one in the world. If the M240 is cheaper I would definitely buy one to play with the 35-75mm range. But as enamored of Leica as I am, I won't pay $7,000 for it - $3k definitely, maybe $5k, but never $7k.
__--
Well-known
It's quite obvious that you cannot push an M9 file shot at ISO 5,000 two stops because the DR at this speed is zilch, nor is it desirable to push M9 files shot at ISO 1,600. Earlier I provided a link to this thread, which describes the technique of shooting the M9 at ISO 640 and pushing in LR4 or LR5. Within that thread there is a link to Jim Kasson's excellent blog work in testing and explaining why this technique works. The thread also has many examples of the color rendition one can get from the M9 using this technique — and post #31 on page 2 has the steps suggested for shooting and processing for this technique. As in shooting and developing film, technique in shooting digital (obviously) can also matter.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I am always interested in why some people are SO strident in their criticism of Leica, especially the digital bodies. Yes, they're expensive compared to Japanese digital bodies. Leica lenses are outrageously expensive especially compared to modern Japanese glass. But in form factor they have no peer. If you want a digital rangefinder camera, you either pay the price of admission to Leica or you don't shoot a digital rangefinder camera. That's your choice. For me, shooting digi-M bodies (even my M8) is a no-brainer. They work for me. If Sony, Nikon, Canon, or VC made a competing M-mount, full-frame rangefinder body, I might seriously look at them, but they don't.
As far as your technical arguments about sensor engineering, I was shooting tri-x in Leicas when it was rated at ASA 320 and Summiluxes were made of unobtanium. I shot with Summicrons. I know about what it takes to make low-light images. I made sale-able digital images with the Olympus E-10 as my first "pro" digicam. I appreciate the file quality that the M9P gives me. DXo testing is interesting, but it's not making images. I like the quality of the M9 images regardless of how the geeks translate test equipment squeaks and squawks.
Not to be misunderstood; I appreciate the sensor development that is taking place, and one day I may benefit from it again, but the CCD sensor in the M9 is the best I've ever owned, does an amazing job for me, and makes sale-able images for me. Is it the "best" on the market? "Best" is subjective. It works for me. I don't really care what else is out there right now. Affordable VC large aperture primes make up my low-light arsenal. I don't know what more I could ask for. I can make images I'd never dreamed of in my ASA 320 Tri-X days. If Leica sensors don't seem to have the performance you need, then it's not the right tool for you. Go shoot what you think will do the job for you.
And yes, we pay the costs of marketing when we buy Leica, and those costs are spread over fewer units... but I seem to recall Ashton Kutcher hyping Nikon, and Canon has hired shills in the past as well. Again, as long as they're doing what they need to do to continue developing and selling a pro-level rangefinder camera, I'm a happy camper and yes, I'm getting the value out of my bodies I paid for.
Sorry, but I just don't understand what you're on about here, and especially at the volume you seem to be at. If it's that you can't afford to buy one, I can empathize. It is painful to drop that kind of cash on a camera. I know. I have a couple of them, and I had to buy them used.
If it's not that, then please explain what you ARE on about?
Richard G
Veteran
Agree with Hepcat, of course. Just because the manufacturer of a camera I want to own has unattractive advertising policies, doesn't mean their product is not good. Naturally with the Monochrom, they had to think through the markeing pretty carefully. That department must have thought the project developers and Dr Kaufmann were mad. The actual product has no red dot and the only place it says Leica is pressed into the top cover in the same colour. That is not bling. That is not a loud hello from Leica. That is what is called understated. The Monochrom produces astonishing files. It is such an unexpected camera to have existed at all. I forgive Leica any marketing trick they like for making such a bold product.
And then I look at a few of my black and white files in Lightroom and tell myself all over again that it was 'worth it' only to find that those files, some of them, are actually out of the M9. Keith started a thread on M9 black and white here, and more than a few of us began to wonder why the hell we'd shelled out for the Monochrom as well. The M9, whatever, it is, really is a marvellous and another unexpected development in 35mm photography. A month before release there were seasoned experts dismissing the speculation of such a full frame digital camera being possible. Have a look at Hausen's work with both cameras on this forum.
The M9 and the Monochrom are cause for praising Leica not caning them for their marketing indulgences. I still use an M2. I don't mind having 5 year old technology in my digital cameras if it does what I want. I still use my more than 10 year old 4.0MP Coolpix 4500. Still produces lovely images. Progress is not always worth it.
And then I look at a few of my black and white files in Lightroom and tell myself all over again that it was 'worth it' only to find that those files, some of them, are actually out of the M9. Keith started a thread on M9 black and white here, and more than a few of us began to wonder why the hell we'd shelled out for the Monochrom as well. The M9, whatever, it is, really is a marvellous and another unexpected development in 35mm photography. A month before release there were seasoned experts dismissing the speculation of such a full frame digital camera being possible. Have a look at Hausen's work with both cameras on this forum.
The M9 and the Monochrom are cause for praising Leica not caning them for their marketing indulgences. I still use an M2. I don't mind having 5 year old technology in my digital cameras if it does what I want. I still use my more than 10 year old 4.0MP Coolpix 4500. Still produces lovely images. Progress is not always worth it.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
OK. So it doesn't have a truly up-to-date sensor. Does that matter? My only answer would be "maybe".
I know my Canon 5DmkI doesn't have a truly up-to-date sensor. How could it? Yet I can take photographs I like with it. Oddly, some others find they like some of my photographs. Perhaps that's because they don't know it's sensor is obsolete. If so, I doubt that I'll tell them.
In fact, I suffer no psychological pain from knowing that somewhere someone (by now a great many someones) is using a camera with a more up-to-date sensor than mine. Which is fortunate because it's in the nature of the digital beast that the moment you buy a camera it's sensor technology is either obsolete or soon to become so. Yet I see no physical mechanism by which all the photographs taken with now outdated sensors are immediately plucked from their frames, albums or shoe-boxes, degraded, then put back without any disturbance other than their newly inferior image quality. In fact, I just looked at a photo I took with my Canon 300D (aka original Digital Rebel) and it still looks the same to me. (Full disclosure: I used good paper, pigment ink and it lives behind glass.)
...Mike
CrisR
Well-known
Sure is a lot of "stop liking what I don't like" in this thread.
Cameras are like cars, there's a thousand variants for every taste, interest and bank balance. Most are incomparable with each other, even those that appeal to the same demographics.
Lets compare my car to the latest Audi R8 - they're both 2 seater and turbocharged. But mine gets higher MPG and costs less. I win. Audi should be ashamed of themselves and simply produce clones of other company's products because of my highly selective use of stats and opinion
Back on topic? Well, my M9 is the best camera I've ever owned, and nothing else on the market tempts me, from any manufacturer *shrugs* guess I'm all about the bling and Heat magazine.
Cameras are like cars, there's a thousand variants for every taste, interest and bank balance. Most are incomparable with each other, even those that appeal to the same demographics.
Lets compare my car to the latest Audi R8 - they're both 2 seater and turbocharged. But mine gets higher MPG and costs less. I win. Audi should be ashamed of themselves and simply produce clones of other company's products because of my highly selective use of stats and opinion
Back on topic? Well, my M9 is the best camera I've ever owned, and nothing else on the market tempts me, from any manufacturer *shrugs* guess I'm all about the bling and Heat magazine.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
When someone points out the issues/problems/concerns about one camera (or another) doesn't mean that person is somehow upset with you personally or your choice of camera brand. If you're getting perturbed when someone points out issues they see with a thing/camera you may use or own, then maybe it's time to distance yourself from that thing/camera a wee bit.
You are not your camera.
Peace,
Dave
You are not your camera.
Peace,
Dave
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I think that most of us are just curious about what would lead someone to be SO far askew about a product that they need to go on a public tirade on a site that caters to specifically that kind of camera. You're right... it's just a camera for heaven's sake! There's a bunch of products out there I won't give a second look to because of the eronometrics, or the native skin tone balance or whatever but I don't feel the need to make a diatribe about that camera or brand.
And that was kinda my point in my posts... if it works for you, great. If it doesn't, find something that does, but do we really need to hear repeatedly how, on paper, it shouldn't work for me either?
Aristophanes
Well-known
I never once said that the M-9 or any camera cannot be used in low light. That is your hyperbole trying to twist the argument.
I said that the laws of physics apply regardless of brand or model and that the M9 sensor is very weak at capturing shadow detail, especially at higher ISOs. The M9 sensor, despite being FF, captures less data than it should because Leica sources their sensors from a behind-the-times manufacturer.
I am glad you can use your M9 as you see fit. That's nice. Issue is a D5200 can do better than your M9. Technical IQ, being a completely finite and measurable quality, is not in the M9's favour. And the D5200 can get more information to the in-camera processor using lesser glass yet STILL retain far more information in the signal. You are working far harder than necessary to get your data. That's what you buy with a digital camera: something that produces data. Your work is excellent. With a superior sensor, I am sure it would be even better.
My argument is that the M-series digital uses sub-par sensors compared to the market average for the price of the system. Unfortunately for Leica users, this means that optimum glass transmits photons to an inferior photodiode system. Technical IQ is only optics + filters + photodiodes + algorithms. One weak link and IQ terminally goes to the lowest common denominator of that sequence.
This whole thread got started discussing the new T Leica model. I was wondering if, in the Blackstone, Hermes, and Saatchi and Saatchi era for Leica, whether they would be able to break free from their pedestrian sensor constraints and get that part of the engineering spectrum rightfully back to where the rest of the engineering prowess is on glass and bodies.
Instead, Leica appears to be doubling down on the status card with the T. They are recycling an older Sony sensor. It is just....odd given the pedigree of the company. If there were shareholders they'd be speaking out, especially institutional ones. The marketing is driving, not the engineering. So Leica can sell the RF crowd regardless because they have no other option, and that crowd will pay full market price for lesser IQ given the breach in the technical IQ chain. IN the meantime Leica really only answers to the bling crowd because they will buy on status regardless.
It's just kind of sad to see such engineering prowess and a long history of excellent filed use get shunted aside for a Blackstone-driven luxury market drive.
CrisR
Well-known
One person's problem with a product (it doesn't go very fast, it doesn't cost very much) is another's reason to buy it. If everyone thought the same way about products, there would only be one car, one camera and one phone and everyone would be happy.
Ah the dreams of utopia...
Ah the dreams of utopia...
Mcary
Well-known
All I can say is I must have taken a huge gulp of Leica Kool-Aid as I have zero interest in owning/using any small format camera but the Leica M series.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Hah!
In my day job I have been shorting and criticizing Sony for years. Well over a decade. No other company in tech or retail has floundered away such an empire and asset base through corporate mismanagement as Sony. It's quite sad, really. Their vertically integrated structure was a tour de force of concept to product. When they ventured into media and became overly reliant on the big hit (Playstation) a once proud company lost its way.
That said, there are diamonds in the rough. Sony Industrial has been on a tear lately and is the dominant force in photography now. Their R&D and capital spending have been superlative. They've fostered the right strategic alliances and become the critical supply source for a lot of critical silicon. Everyone else is playing catch-up. They've built a solid half decade lead in their products and production capacity.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
I hate when people try to tell me what the lighting situation is in my photographs. YOU WEREN'T THERE. The light looks good at the boxing ring, but it WASN'T. It was DARK. There was some light there, but it looks a lot brighter in photos than it was in real life. That's part of the processing. The people are static? No they are moving. A LOT. That's where technique comes into play. You have to press the shutter release at that perfect moment when they are in between two motions, which is typically less than a half-second of time.
And since when is f/1.4 considered slow? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So you've worked with M9 files? How extensively? I routinely push my M9 files to 6400 or more. When I was young I worked at a Ferrari dealership detailing the cars. I drove hundreds of them around the block. That doesn't make me an expert on how Ferraris handle at high speed any more than you working with a few M9 files makes you an expert on what the M9 can accomplish in truly capable hands.
Which brings me to another point. How many concerts have you ACTUALLY photographed? How many with the M9? I have shot THOUSANDS of concerts in all kinds of venues and all kinds of lighting, from bars to stadiums. I've shot over a hundred concerts using an M8 or M9. Just because you took a Sony in to shoot the local bar band a few times doesn't make you qualified to lecture me on how concert photography is done with an M9.
When you get as much experience shooting concerts with an M9 then come talk to me and tell me what's what. Your opinions on the subject aren't valid because you don't have the experience to back up your claims.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
*sigh*
What's sad is resorting to name calling..
Come on guys - really?
Dave
What's sad is resorting to name calling..
Come on guys - really?
Dave
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
This pretty much sums up what comes to my mind when I consider "sensor IQ" compared to "user interface" and why Leica can command a premium.
New In-Depth Leica T Review
New In-Depth Leica T Review
Aristophanes
Well-known
The data is unequivocal, empirically tested, and definitive.
A Nikon D5300 will capture more data under all circumstances than the M9. Much more, despite sensor size.
The digitization of photography has homogenized the capture of photons.
Technical IQ cannot be "boring". It's all just data points quantified. There is no "character" to a sensor. You either have a certain strength Bayer array or AA filter or you do not. You either have a certain signal to noise ratio or you do not. They are all finite and perfectly quantifiable right down to photon and electron counts. It really is just math.
A person with a much lower priced consumer camera system can replicate your work, and even exceed it on pure data capture. Maybe you have a technique or shooting style that you like and think the Leica RF is worth paying a $7,000 premium for, but it is definitively not giving you better data input than the D5300. If your job is to give clients the best files you can, the Leica is not competitive. This is why Mr. Schulz has spoken about why Leica is no longer in favour amongst photojournalists and why Leica as a brand is actively not pursuing the same market you seem to be working in. You are defending what Leica's main spokesperson is not endorsing as Leica's motivation in product development or use anymore. You can be as fervent at defending your work as you want, but your own brand's spokesperson is actively moving away from your own position.
Leica mechanical engineering= excellent.
Leica lass = excellent.
Digital files = mediocre at best.
Value of all those = not very good.
A Nikon D5300 will capture more data under all circumstances than the M9. Much more, despite sensor size.
The digitization of photography has homogenized the capture of photons.
Technical IQ cannot be "boring". It's all just data points quantified. There is no "character" to a sensor. You either have a certain strength Bayer array or AA filter or you do not. You either have a certain signal to noise ratio or you do not. They are all finite and perfectly quantifiable right down to photon and electron counts. It really is just math.
A person with a much lower priced consumer camera system can replicate your work, and even exceed it on pure data capture. Maybe you have a technique or shooting style that you like and think the Leica RF is worth paying a $7,000 premium for, but it is definitively not giving you better data input than the D5300. If your job is to give clients the best files you can, the Leica is not competitive. This is why Mr. Schulz has spoken about why Leica is no longer in favour amongst photojournalists and why Leica as a brand is actively not pursuing the same market you seem to be working in. You are defending what Leica's main spokesperson is not endorsing as Leica's motivation in product development or use anymore. You can be as fervent at defending your work as you want, but your own brand's spokesperson is actively moving away from your own position.
Leica mechanical engineering= excellent.
Leica lass = excellent.
Digital files = mediocre at best.
Value of all those = not very good.