lencap
Established
As I've written in other posts I recently bought a M9 with a 50mm Summicron lens. This was the first day I got to actually shoot with it. In total about 400 shots or so, stopped when the battery gave out. Seems that at least one backup battery is needed to complete a day of shooting/testing. Many shots were just to get familiar with the touch of the shutter, and to become reacquainted with the rangefinder flow versus my DSLR experience. Only a portion of the shots were "photographs", the rest were tests.
First lesson - the M9 can be slow to write to the SDHC card. A few times I took 3-5 shots in quick succession, following the action of my subject (a family fishing). The M9 had trouble digesting all of the shots. It locked up once or twice, requiring me to remove the battery to get it back on track. I was shooting full RAW uncompressed and also a lower quality JPEG simultaneously. Apparently that is very stressful for the M9. I will find another way to shoot and store, but it is frustrating that on my first attempt I all ready have to alter my shooting style. Not because of the rangefinder, but because of the slowness of the hardware processing the shots.
Second lesson - Fill flash. I take fill flash for granted on my DSLR, it comes on when I need it. No extra gear to carry or connect, a simple pop up when needed, and a simple click to hide it when I don't need it. Without the fill flash some shots were unusable. Again, my technique, not the camera, but it is something that I will have to learn and adjust to.
Third lesson - shooting in bright sun. Here again I take the blame. I don't know my gear well enough. But, when in bright sun the light gathering ability of the lens (FAR better than Nikon or Canon) makes it almost imperative that I add neutral density filters to the lens if I want to stop down to anything lower than f/5.6. My M9 showed a blinking 1/4000 second for many shots at near full aperture. Clearly that wouldn't work, but it wasn't a problem with lesser lenses/cameras.
Fourth lesson - color balance. The color balance is pretty aggressive. Mixed light is a real challenge. Part of the shot is blue, the other half of the frame is yellow. I'll have to learn about this more fully, and consider what to do to make it more compatible across the scene.
Fifth lesson - shooting indoors. Setting ISO to 800 limit works well enough, but there are times when the ceiling is hit and I have to chose between some added grain or missing the shot. Again, lack of knowledge and technique - my fault, not the M9.
The most amazing thing I learned was the quality of the lens. I shot some posters from 10 yards or so. On the M9 screen they looked "OK", nothing special. At home on the computer they were tack sharp. I could read the text easily, even at the edges of the frame. Truly amazing. None of my other lenses could ever come close to this. I appreciate the MTF charts, but seeing for myself what these lenses can do versus my old gear is truly an eye opener.
I welcome any tips/tricks/suggestions that will help my learning curve, and especially anything that will help me better understand what may be a camera imposed limit and workaround (slow disk writes) versus lack of knowledge/skill (frame lines, focus).
Thanks again to all for the help. Without this forum I'd still be shooting with my Nikon.
First lesson - the M9 can be slow to write to the SDHC card. A few times I took 3-5 shots in quick succession, following the action of my subject (a family fishing). The M9 had trouble digesting all of the shots. It locked up once or twice, requiring me to remove the battery to get it back on track. I was shooting full RAW uncompressed and also a lower quality JPEG simultaneously. Apparently that is very stressful for the M9. I will find another way to shoot and store, but it is frustrating that on my first attempt I all ready have to alter my shooting style. Not because of the rangefinder, but because of the slowness of the hardware processing the shots.
Second lesson - Fill flash. I take fill flash for granted on my DSLR, it comes on when I need it. No extra gear to carry or connect, a simple pop up when needed, and a simple click to hide it when I don't need it. Without the fill flash some shots were unusable. Again, my technique, not the camera, but it is something that I will have to learn and adjust to.
Third lesson - shooting in bright sun. Here again I take the blame. I don't know my gear well enough. But, when in bright sun the light gathering ability of the lens (FAR better than Nikon or Canon) makes it almost imperative that I add neutral density filters to the lens if I want to stop down to anything lower than f/5.6. My M9 showed a blinking 1/4000 second for many shots at near full aperture. Clearly that wouldn't work, but it wasn't a problem with lesser lenses/cameras.
Fourth lesson - color balance. The color balance is pretty aggressive. Mixed light is a real challenge. Part of the shot is blue, the other half of the frame is yellow. I'll have to learn about this more fully, and consider what to do to make it more compatible across the scene.
Fifth lesson - shooting indoors. Setting ISO to 800 limit works well enough, but there are times when the ceiling is hit and I have to chose between some added grain or missing the shot. Again, lack of knowledge and technique - my fault, not the M9.
The most amazing thing I learned was the quality of the lens. I shot some posters from 10 yards or so. On the M9 screen they looked "OK", nothing special. At home on the computer they were tack sharp. I could read the text easily, even at the edges of the frame. Truly amazing. None of my other lenses could ever come close to this. I appreciate the MTF charts, but seeing for myself what these lenses can do versus my old gear is truly an eye opener.
I welcome any tips/tricks/suggestions that will help my learning curve, and especially anything that will help me better understand what may be a camera imposed limit and workaround (slow disk writes) versus lack of knowledge/skill (frame lines, focus).
Thanks again to all for the help. Without this forum I'd still be shooting with my Nikon.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use the lowest ISO setting for daylight photography with the lens set at 8 or 9. This will allow the use of lenses at large apertures if needed. Else, I prefer using 8-11 as my daylight apertures anyways.
As for mixed colors/lights in a scene, I would experiment with color and also use B@W on my M8 in such situations.
As for mixed colors/lights in a scene, I would experiment with color and also use B@W on my M8 in such situations.
mrrobleyleica
Member
Hi lencap.
I've had mine for about a year and a half and just getting used to some of it's odd foibles and surprising behavior.
I could write a short book about the M9 - here are a few things I've learnt.
One is about SD cards. I'm trying different makes as 'fast' Sandiscs have been unreliable, now I'm on Transcend which are very cheap. They're slow - but so is the M9 and if the M9 munches one up it's the same price as a roll of film. It hasn't damaged one yet, so all good so far.
As you've found and other here, the screen is really a rough guide to what you're getting. It can tell you if a detail is in focus but not a good guide to exposure or colour.
Colour balance is a bit hit and miss.
I shot some pics at a party in a hall recently, with mixed light from daylight, tungsten and tubes. No camera can cope that well with that, film didn't either. As it was dull the M9 showed a lot of noise at 1250 ASA on the screen. In lightroom they looked great, a few ears were bright pink and not just from the spicy food and brandy, but the 'grain' is not as nasty as my Nikon and since I was brought up on film I don't mind the low light performance pushed up to 1600. I also don't mine fiddling in LR to get a good result, and I think the RAW DNG files are strong enough to push around in Aperture or LR, that's a big plus point for the camera, and why I've not jumped to Fuji, as if. I never shoot JPEGs.
I agree about the lenses, I'm constantly amazed at the quality. Not just the sharpness but the subtlety in shadow detail, misty scenes that other lenses seem unable to render nicely are lovely. I've had a go with Zeiss - which was a faulty 25mm - sharp on only one side - and I have a 21mm Voigtlander. Nothing is as good as a Leica but I like the VC - it's great value and worth a good for B&W. You have the summicron and so do I. This just gets better the more I understand it, it's a brilliant lens wide open and very compact.
Frame lines, well - they're well off. I tend to pretty much forget them and crop a bit.
My best (?) advice is to get the right small bag (mines a scruffy looking Thinktank) and carry three or four lenses every time you go out. It won't cause major back problems and small lenses are the best way with Ms, for my use. No other digital high quality camera can use these smaller compact elmarits, summicrons or VCs like the M9. If you tried to carry an SLR with 4 lenses it wears you out after a few hours. After all, one of the big advantages in the old days with rangefinders was your viewfinder was not compromised by using a very slow f4 lens as it did with SLRs - and I mean back in the 60's long before good glass when viewfinders were dull in SLRs. So, if you can use small lenses why not stick with them? Smaller, great quality and cheaper too. Also, get a half case for the body. I picked up a cheap one and it's saved the camera - once is all it takes for a big messy bill. Definitely worth the £40 I paid. I also got a Thumbs Up grip because it's not easy to hold the body from the side with one hand, the M9 is a bit slippery and smooth like a non-stick pan. One of those means you can hold the camera, away low and out of sight, which I sometimes like. It's also where my thumb naturally hangs after many years with film wind ons.
It's a camera that will give you great results when you learn how to get the best, and I'm still learning. I like the steeper learning curve and love the odd surprises. Modern cameras can be so good and easy to use they are less rewarding in the long run. I can imagine enjoying this camera in many years - if the camera lasts that is!
I've had mine for about a year and a half and just getting used to some of it's odd foibles and surprising behavior.
I could write a short book about the M9 - here are a few things I've learnt.
One is about SD cards. I'm trying different makes as 'fast' Sandiscs have been unreliable, now I'm on Transcend which are very cheap. They're slow - but so is the M9 and if the M9 munches one up it's the same price as a roll of film. It hasn't damaged one yet, so all good so far.
As you've found and other here, the screen is really a rough guide to what you're getting. It can tell you if a detail is in focus but not a good guide to exposure or colour.
Colour balance is a bit hit and miss.
I shot some pics at a party in a hall recently, with mixed light from daylight, tungsten and tubes. No camera can cope that well with that, film didn't either. As it was dull the M9 showed a lot of noise at 1250 ASA on the screen. In lightroom they looked great, a few ears were bright pink and not just from the spicy food and brandy, but the 'grain' is not as nasty as my Nikon and since I was brought up on film I don't mind the low light performance pushed up to 1600. I also don't mine fiddling in LR to get a good result, and I think the RAW DNG files are strong enough to push around in Aperture or LR, that's a big plus point for the camera, and why I've not jumped to Fuji, as if. I never shoot JPEGs.
I agree about the lenses, I'm constantly amazed at the quality. Not just the sharpness but the subtlety in shadow detail, misty scenes that other lenses seem unable to render nicely are lovely. I've had a go with Zeiss - which was a faulty 25mm - sharp on only one side - and I have a 21mm Voigtlander. Nothing is as good as a Leica but I like the VC - it's great value and worth a good for B&W. You have the summicron and so do I. This just gets better the more I understand it, it's a brilliant lens wide open and very compact.
Frame lines, well - they're well off. I tend to pretty much forget them and crop a bit.
My best (?) advice is to get the right small bag (mines a scruffy looking Thinktank) and carry three or four lenses every time you go out. It won't cause major back problems and small lenses are the best way with Ms, for my use. No other digital high quality camera can use these smaller compact elmarits, summicrons or VCs like the M9. If you tried to carry an SLR with 4 lenses it wears you out after a few hours. After all, one of the big advantages in the old days with rangefinders was your viewfinder was not compromised by using a very slow f4 lens as it did with SLRs - and I mean back in the 60's long before good glass when viewfinders were dull in SLRs. So, if you can use small lenses why not stick with them? Smaller, great quality and cheaper too. Also, get a half case for the body. I picked up a cheap one and it's saved the camera - once is all it takes for a big messy bill. Definitely worth the £40 I paid. I also got a Thumbs Up grip because it's not easy to hold the body from the side with one hand, the M9 is a bit slippery and smooth like a non-stick pan. One of those means you can hold the camera, away low and out of sight, which I sometimes like. It's also where my thumb naturally hangs after many years with film wind ons.
It's a camera that will give you great results when you learn how to get the best, and I'm still learning. I like the steeper learning curve and love the odd surprises. Modern cameras can be so good and easy to use they are less rewarding in the long run. I can imagine enjoying this camera in many years - if the camera lasts that is!
icebear
Veteran
1st:
I do agree, the M9 is not the fastest processing beast around
but the 10fps to catch the "decisive moment" is not the M approach anyway. Think about all the shots you catch not having to wind the find or change the film every 36 frames, not about the occasionally missed shots because the buffer needs to empty. Otherwise shoot RAW uncompressed DNG only. Do you need that JPG before you are at home? Then you can do whatever resizing from the orig. DNG. It does make writing a little faster.2nd :
no comments here, I don't own a flash
3rd:
Use ISO 160 (no the 80 pull) and yes, if that is not low enough at 1/4000s, you'll have to resort to ND filters
4th:
Use an Expodisc
5th:
I would not worry too much about grain, I have shots at ISO1250. If you don't underexpose and need to rescue areas in LR4x or PS, then grain will be very reasonable.
Just one shot at ISO1000: from my gallery, I'll look for some even higher ISO ones:
Some accessories I use :
Tom A. Soft release, Photoequip MD grip, DIY sling loop, Giotto Schott glass screensaver - and of course spare battery (orig. Leica)
Enjoy your M9 and use it, use it, use it. Show some pics.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
DSLR's have incredibly smart computers inside that will hold your hand. The M9 not as much. I think that has led to the problems the OP is describing. Fundamentals are always important.
hteasley
Pupil
I have found no need to shoot uncompressed DNG: twice the size, and I've detected no difference in post-processing capability. Judging by threads elsewhere, it seems the same for most folks: no one has made a strong case for uncompressed files, that I've seen.
Recording compressed DNG-only, and using fast cards, that makes things a lot speedier.
Recording compressed DNG-only, and using fast cards, that makes things a lot speedier.
icebear
Veteran
I haven't made any "scientific" comparisons myself but if there is the slightest chance that information could be lost just to get a little speed advantage, I always opt. for the max. data quality possible. No compression in my M9.
willie_901
Veteran
As far as I can tell Leica's in-camera compression is lossy. This means the compression discards data that has a high probability of being redundant and the impact on the final DNG file is irrelevant.
This is confusing because Adobe compressed DNGs can be created using Adobe's software products as lossless compressed files. Lossless compression means algorithms are used to describe patterns in large blocks of data. When the file is uncompressed, the patterns are recomputed and the uncompressed file is identical to the original. There is no disadvantage whatsoever to using lossless compression. Files from lossless compression tend to be larger than files from lossy compression.
This means you can write an uncompressed DNG to the cameras storage card and then import it into Lightroom (just for example) as a lossless compressed DNG file and not discard any of the original data.
I would only use lossy compression when minimizing write times was critical or when I was running out of card space. In a prior life I was trained never to discard or modify original data until I knew the redundant information was not needed. Though I must admit I doubt anyone could tell the difference in a large detailed print.
This is confusing because Adobe compressed DNGs can be created using Adobe's software products as lossless compressed files. Lossless compression means algorithms are used to describe patterns in large blocks of data. When the file is uncompressed, the patterns are recomputed and the uncompressed file is identical to the original. There is no disadvantage whatsoever to using lossless compression. Files from lossless compression tend to be larger than files from lossy compression.
This means you can write an uncompressed DNG to the cameras storage card and then import it into Lightroom (just for example) as a lossless compressed DNG file and not discard any of the original data.
I would only use lossy compression when minimizing write times was critical or when I was running out of card space. In a prior life I was trained never to discard or modify original data until I knew the redundant information was not needed. Though I must admit I doubt anyone could tell the difference in a large detailed print.
hteasley
Pupil
Every expert I've asked or heard speak on the matter has indicated that they see no reason for uncompressed, that they have not yet run into situations where uncompressed files have made an observable difference to any part of the process.
I normally opt for the "hard drives are cheap" options for most things, but with tens of thousands of photos, 36mb vs 18mb per image actually starts to add up in an annoying way.
So to each his own. I'd test things out and compare images and process them similarly, to see if you can find a difference that matters to you.
ChrisN
Striving
+1. That's my preference too. It's a bit like the JPG vs RAW debate - why throw away data if you don't have to?
Check this thread; I believe the (Leica-)compressed DNG is 8-bit, while the uncompressed file is 14-bit.
willie_901
Veteran
Chris,
That's right.
I just wanted avoid confusion between Adobe DNG compression and Leica in-camera DNGcompression
That's right.
I just wanted avoid confusion between Adobe DNG compression and Leica in-camera DNGcompression
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I use the Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop with my DNG files. Lots of options for dealing with everything from the basics of contrast and the like to mixed light as you describe to correcting for distortion or color fringing. Very versatile.