M9 vs DSLR

<Insert Standard Answer Here>

What you really want is a Leica. For some reason you feel you need to justify that decision, so you ask the question on a forum where you are likely to get the answer you want. If your heart wants a Leica, buy the Leica. Even if anything else is the perfect camera for you and blows the Leica away for image quality, you will NEVER be happy with it until you've owned that Leica.

<End Standard Answer Here>
 
Ronald M said:
SLR have better high ISO files but slower lenses. Slr have better weather sealing. M9 has next to none and water inside makes it uneconomical to repair.
Click to expand...

Nope.

My canon DSLR has plenty of fast lenses, a lot of them faster than the rangefinder equivalents -

14 f2.8
24 f1.4
28 f1.8
35 f1.4
50 f1.2
85 f1.2
 
A DSLR and an M9 are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary. Many use both systems side by side.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
<Insert Standard Answer Here>

What you really want is a Leica. For some reason you feel you need to justify that decision, so you ask the question on a forum where you are likely to get the answer you want. If your heart wants a Leica, buy the Leica. Even if anything else is the perfect camera for you and blows the Leica away for image quality, you will NEVER be happy with it until you've owned that Leica.

<End Standard Answer Here>
Click to expand...

This is a spot on for my situation few months ago:p, after post the question on the forum, I realise I had always wanted the Leica experience back even the MF system was perfect. Now I just need a film body... :D
 
At Ronald M, plenty of pro-photo people can get close enough to use a Leica M! Many choose to use a Canon 35 1.4L or 50 1.2 for other reasons. Just look at how many people shoot mostly with very wide lenses for 'dramatic PJ images'. Whether you want a RF or SLR is for you to decide. I'll take both thanks.
 
Mephiloco said:
5d Mk2 is a better camera in terms almost everything, except size. Also, you can get a 50mm sonnar for the 5d mk2, just get one in yashica mount and throw an adapter on it.
Click to expand...

The 50mm Sonnar in Yashica mount- is it really a classic Sonnar formula lens, or did they just use the name in a meaningless fashion as they did with other lenses?

There is more to a "Sonnar" than just the name- it is the optical formula that makes the image. If you want a "real" Sonnar formula lens, you cannot get one in 50mm for the Canon. Unless you want it for macro work.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The 50mm Sonnar in Yashica mount- is it really a classic Sonnar formula lens, or did they just use the name in a meaningless fashion as they did with other lenses?

There is more to a "Sonnar" than just the name- it is the optical formula that makes the image. If you want a "real" Sonnar formula lens, you cannot get one in 50mm for the Canon. Unless you want it for macro work.
Click to expand...

Actually, they don't have a Sonnar for C/Y mount, they have two Planars, one at 1.4 the other at 1.7. None the less, the lens choices with Canon are infinte, so to speak, giving you Zeiss and Leica lenses ( Contax lenses from Zeiss and Leica lenses for the R SLR system ) with superb optical performance and Canons very best, super-fast lenses in one package. And only because the camera has AF - you don't have to use it ! I tried this, and it works great both with Zeiss and Leica lenses, not to mention using T/S lenses from MF cameras.
Back to the initial question : as a system, the DSLR is far more versatile. But for certain types of shooting a rangefinder will be the better tool than the DSLR. It these situations are the ones you like to take pictures, I am sure the M9 will fit the bill nicely for you. I would like to have a digital rangefinder for the wide to moderate tele, keeping a DSLR for longer tele and special work ( macro, T/S product and architecture ). I simply want a smaller and lighter package for everyday shots. But I can not justify two digital systems right now, so I shoot the rangefinder with film, trying to build a nice lens lineup, and maybe add a digital body later on. But if you have the money, I would get one system, see how it works for me, and the add what is needed ( if anything ). From the data you gave us, bar the manual focusing, a rangefinder system should be the right primary choice for you. But I would start with a M8 for half a year before dumping all that cash directly on the M9.
 
Last edited:
harryxgoldberg said:
what do you guys think of this?
http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/OLYMPUS_EP-1_REVIEW_5.html
Click to expand...

Harry, the Micro-4/3 (M43) cameras have no mirror box and hence measure 20mm from the mount to the sensor surface. Because this flange distance is shorter than all other RF and SLR designs, you can use manual focus lenses such as those from Leica and mount these onto a M43 camera with the appropriate adapter. The E-P1 you mention is not the only M43 on the market, by the way; currently there are 5 models from Olympus and Panasonic together.

The downside is that the sensor size of M43 is much smaller than the image circle projected by most legacy lenses, thereby narrowing the field of view using these lenses by a factor of 2. So, for example, a Leica 50mm lens will have a field of view equivalent to a 100mm lens (magnification remains unchanged) when mounted on the E-P1.

The upcoming Samsung NX10 will have an APS sensor that is 50% larger than M43, so that when you mount legacy lenses on it, you will capture more of that image circle than a M43 camera is able to.

Some people here claim that the M43 images are sharper from edge to edge when using the new digital lenses designed for the M43 cameras.

Maybe you should wait a few weeks to make decision on what to buy. In that time you should try to figure out if you prefer zoom or prime (single focal length) lenses.

If you prefer zoom lenses then perhaps the Canon DSLR is your best choice.
 
jaapv said:
A DSLR and an M9 are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary. Many use both systems side by side.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I'm a cheapskate which is why I have the R-D1 and the D2X instead of an M9 and D700/D3/5DMKII etc... This weekend I used both, whichever fitted the bill for the given situation.
 
The 5DmkII is everything you could want in a camera and more. The images will blow you away even without L series glass. You have live view and true HD video, ect. The "more" part it that it is a beast of a camera but I put a 50mm 1.8 on it and it's not so bad. Does it feel like a Leica? Not even a little bit. So if you really like the RF experiance and want full frame digital you have no choice but to get the M9, no?
 
Are you sure that you feel comfortable with manual focussing? Perhaps you could try it as already suggested with a used M8. Due to my glasses and the fact that I shoot more wide open, I have more and more problems with focussing my M8. Missed more shots with my M8 because of the lack of AF than with a DSLR because the AF did things I didn't want to.

m4/3 is great. In good light. I like my Panasonic G1 because the lenses are great and the noise is acceptable below ISO 800. I have mixed feelings with using Leica lenses on m4/3. You have to focus manually. This is very precise but quite slow.
 
If you have no experience with using a DSLR or a Leica M, your best bet would be to go to a shop that has both types and try both out to which you get along with best. OTH, since money is of no concern just get the M9. You say you have always wanted a Leica.

Bob
 
Slungu- thankyou for the confirmation that a true Sonnar 50mm lens is not available in Canon mount. As far as I am aware, only Pentax made one in the late 1950s. Rare and expensive.

as far as the choice in lenses- Canon has a full range of SLR lenses available, as does Nikon and others. For myself, I would go for the Leica because of the number of lenses that I own for it.

For a person coming in fresh, it's a tough choice. The logical person evaluating the feature-trade space would easily go for a Canon or Nikon top-of-the-line Full Frame DSLR. Someone that wants "something completely different" would consider the Leica.

If logic rules, get the Canon. If Emotions rule, and using ancient lenses that just cannot be made for an SLR appeal to you, seriously look at the Leica.
 
watch these vids from Chris Weeks, I like them and it shows why he likes his Leica so much, even though he shoots with Canons as well.
I have shot with a digital rebel and I've shot with my current M obviously.. and while perhaps my hit rate on my Canon was a bit higher (that's changing now though), I found the experience not very engaging.. putting a big black computer in front of your face.. I like the M a lot better. I can bring it everywhere I go, I enjoy a nice bright finder and it feels just so much nicer to hold and to work with even though the manual focus takes a bit of getting used to (just use it a lot and it'll get better :) )
http://www.vimeo.com/chrisweeks/videos
 
Last edited:
Harry, why did you buy the Contax G2 in the first place, and not a Leica? Was it because of the AF or because of the Zeiss lenses? Had you bought a Leica I think you probably would have no trouble making a decision right now.

You never did tell us where and what you shoot. And at what time of day and under which kind of lighting. Knowing this would probably clear things up.
 
I own a D700 and a Leica M2--I use the D700 daily, the M2 not as often. But I like the M2 more. If I had my way, I'd use it for everything; it's small, beautiful, solid, a truly inspiring tool to hold in the hands. I need digital for newspaper work or paid portrait commissions, however, plus the M2 is a pain in the ass to use with flashes (I need a 1/250th sync) and impossible for sports (gotta have that AF 70-200 f/2.8). When I just want to do relaxed portraits, however, that are natural light (and in good light--D700 can handle higher ISOs, although the M9 I'm sure would be close, never tried one) I use the M2. And it's not because I'm a huge film lover--yes I do like how film looks but I'd probably be even happier with a digital M, money is a big issue for me, however--it's because the M cameras and lenses are a wonderful tool to have in your hands. If you are shooting mostly for travel, I'd say the M9 no question. I get far less looks when I travel with that than my D700 (especially by the time I put a grip on it). If you're shooting family and friends, I'd also say the M9 in most cases (fast AF is good for kids, you might like the ease of Nikon CLS flash system/canon's flash) because it is so much smaller and easier to have out. Even with people who I photograph regularly and are very comfortable in front of the camera, the Leica is smaller on my face and I feel more present in the moment in some ways than with a big, noisy SLR. It changes the mood to have one.

Go for the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom