M9 vs D800E real world test

3rdtrick

3rdtrick

Well-known
Local time
4:03 AM
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
331
I have been using my M9 along with my D800E for some time now. I use my D800E for long lenses and the M9 is awesome for everything else. Here are some of my real world tests...

M9
L1001429-Edit-L.jpg


D800E
DSC0676-Edit-L.jpg


M9
L1001427-Edit-L.jpg


D800E
DSC0521-Edit-L.jpg


Ha Ha, I know... But this is exactly the way I have been using both cameras. Yes it is my real world testing.
Pete
 
So, basically what you are saying is that they are both great cameras, and in the 500px-800px range, the photographs are virtually indistinguishable? :p

Great subjects btw. :)
 
I keep meeting people who are all upset with Leica going CMOS in the new M. They claim CCDs are sharper inherently. This is so untrue but I just can't convince them that there isn't any magic in a sensor type. Differences do not inherently mean better in every situation! *shrug* With sensor quality what it is today it's all about #1 Vision #2 Glass #3 Processing. If you can't do it with a 5D Classic and a 35L, a Leica M9 and a 35 Biogon, or a D700 and a 35G, you're doing something wrong. Beyond that everything just gets better.

Reading this it sounds like I'm shrugging off new tech, I'm not. I'm saying we're in a really good place right now, gear wise. And I'm happy the older cameras aren't being obsoleted so fast now.
 
I have both the D800 (not the E) and the M9. IMO the D800 is a much better camera (broad term) in many ways. The raw files are easy to work with and very smooth, much broader dynamic range, very clean high ISO, deadly accurate autofocus and on and on. I'm sure you've read others comments and know all about it. By comparison the M9 is stone age. I do like the look of a CCD vs CMOS. I know the arguments but every CCD camera I've owned, 1D Canon, Hasselblad digital camera and the M9 have a look. I believe the color is more true in the CCd cameras. It may just be processing but all three cameras share a common look.

The big deal about the M9 IMO are the lenses. I bought the D800 to use in my documentary work where I shoot under very poor and low light. I often must shoot at high ISO and wide open or near wide open. The Nikon G series glass which is their best at the moment just won't cut it wide open. Corners and edges stink and are pretty much unusable. I purchased thee Zeiss ZF 2 lenses, 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2. They were no better wide open and wound up sending them back to B&H. At this point I figured the only choice was to bite the bullet and get an M9 and some new asph glass. I wound up with a new 24 Elmar, 35 Summilux FLE and 50 asph Summilux plus my old 75 Summlux and 90 Apo ASph Summicron. Like I said it's all about the glass. Stopping down to f8 to get sharp corners isn't an option for my work, the lens must be sharp corner to corner wide open. The 24, 35, and 90 are just that sharp wide open even in the extreme corners. I can actually shoot wide open and not get mush at the edges and corners.

I do really like my M9. It's stone age but I knew that in the beginning. I bought it for what it is not how it compares to any other camera. It's unique and the correct tool for my kind of documentary work. No one has lenses that perform like the new generation of Leica glass. After forty five plus years of using Leica M's it feels and operates like an old friend. I don't even mind the noise at high ISO. High speed film has grain and that enhances the mood of my work. I don't even find the sound objectionable.
It kind of purrs I guess.

I do also love my D800 and would not give it up. Both combined along with my Hasselblad make a superb system. One is no better than the other. they are simply different tools for different jobs.
 
In ref. to the first shot :
There is nothing glorifying in recreating the attire of one of the most infamous units (Totenkopf = skull) of the "third reich" but I guess, most of the spectators didn't know that part of history and just thought "what a great entertainment on a sunny day"
 
icebear said:
In ref. to the first shot :
There is nothing glorifying in recreating the attire of one of the most infamous units (Totenkopf = skull) of the "third reich" but I guess, most of the spectators didn't know that part of history and just thought "what a great entertainment on a sunny day"
Click to expand...

+1 agreed

I dont think the op had any bad intention. But the guy dressed up like that ... really, who would do that.
 
It is a WWII show. You expect them to censor the parts that some people may find offensive? Really?

Perhaps we should censor history lessons in schools as well, eh?
 
X-Ray, that is about the same way I feel. I would not part with either camera as they both serve me in different ways.

Bug, that is the cool thing about tail draggers...

Yes it was a WWII Show with all kinds of re-enactors. I actually felt a bit nervous taking his picture but he turned out to be very nice. It was just a bit of fun with the German pictures from the German camera and the Japanese plane with the Japanese camera. No offense intended in any fashion.
Pete
 
SaveKodak said:
If you can't do it with a 5D Classic and a 35L, a Leica M9 and a 35 Biogon, or a D700 and a 35G, you're doing something wrong. Beyond that everything just gets better.

I'm happy the older cameras aren't being obsoleted so fast now.
Click to expand...

Those 3 cameras are exactly where I feel digital finally met film. Not only in terms of image quality but also with the notion that one camera can last you years. As long as they're serviceable they really are all you'll ever need whether you're a pro or amateur. Anything newer is just adding features to the essentials.
 
x-ray said:
I have both the D800 (not the E) and the M9. IMO the D800 is a much better camera (broad term) in many ways. The raw files are easy to work with and very smooth, much broader dynamic range, very clean high ISO, deadly accurate autofocus and on and on. I'm sure you've read others comments and know all about it. By comparison the M9 is stone age. I do like the look of a CCD vs CMOS. I know the arguments but every CCD camera I've owned, 1D Canon, Hasselblad digital camera and the M9 have a look. I believe the color is more true in the CCd cameras. It may just be processing but all three cameras share a common look.

The big deal about the M9 IMO are the lenses. I bought the D800 to use in my documentary work where I shoot under very poor and low light. I often must shoot at high ISO and wide open or near wide open. The Nikon G series glass which is their best at the moment just won't cut it wide open. Corners and edges stink and are pretty much unusable. I purchased thee Zeiss ZF 2 lenses, 25 f2, 35 f2 and 100 f2. They were no better wide open and wound up sending them back to B&H. At this point I figured the only choice was to bite the bullet and get an M9 and some new asph glass. I wound up with a new 24 Elmar, 35 Summilux FLE and 50 asph Summilux plus my old 75 Summlux and 90 Apo ASph Summicron. Like I said it's all about the glass. Stopping down to f8 to get sharp corners isn't an option for my work, the lens must be sharp corner to corner wide open. The 24, 35, and 90 are just that sharp wide open even in the extreme corners. I can actually shoot wide open and not get mush at the edges and corners.

I do really like my M9. It's stone age but I knew that in the beginning. I bought it for what it is not how it compares to any other camera. It's unique and the correct tool for my kind of documentary work. No one has lenses that perform like the new generation of Leica glass. After forty five plus years of using Leica M's it feels and operates like an old friend. I don't even mind the noise at high ISO. High speed film has grain and that enhances the mood of my work. I don't even find the sound objectionable.
It kind of purrs I guess.

I do also love my D800 and would not give it up. Both combined along with my Hasselblad make a superb system. One is no better than the other. they are simply different tools for different jobs.
Click to expand...

CCDs are more color accurate, that's true. That's why they're so good in digital backs where that kind of stuff maters so much. Much of the performance you're seeing in your Leica glass is probably the rangefinder flange distance advantage. Especially in the wide angles. Glad your cams are working out for you. What are you doing that corner sharpness is so important?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom