Nick De Marco
Well-known
At the beginning of this month I joined other members of the Leica International Forum at the photo festival in Zingst. Leica kindly lent us a camera and lens of our choice for a day - I borrowed the M9 and Summilux 24mm f1.4 - and was very happy to have the opportunity of using this camera over a whole day. I also used some of my other cameras I had with me: my Olympus EP2 (with Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens or Leica lenses with adapter), Leica M6, and Hasselblad. I have only just got finished a gallery of photos taken with all 4 cameras on flickr:
Zingst Photo Festival - a set on Flickr
Somewhat controversially, having had the pleasure of being able to borrow an M9, I came to the conclusion that the Olympus EP2 is a better camera for me than the M9. I like digital for speed, versitility and mobility, and the EP2 beats the M9 on all these counts from my brief experience. The slowness of the M9, and its short battery life would annoy me if I use it a lot, and I found the resolution on the screen on the back so bad it was difficult to know whether the photo you had taken was in focus, let alone any good.
On the other hand the image quality of the M9, when you get back and look at the raw file on your mac, is stunning - easily equal to my 24MP Canon 5D Mk II. With the new Summilux lens it was very sharp and clean - (maybe a bit too clean for me).. But the difference in image quality between the M9 and EP2 (used up to 400 iso) is not SO great to justify either the cost or other disbenefits I found with the M9. This is largely because I since I have started to use medium format film so much more, I often think that if I want to make a large print, and get a perfect photo, I will use one of my MF cameras. For smaller prints (A4 etc) the difference between the EP2 and M9 is difficult to detect.
Even though I would love to have an M9, I decided that the truth was, even if someone gave me one, if I went on a 2 week trip abroad I would probably not take the M9. I would need at least one medium format camera and one digital camera, and I would be able to rely on the EP2 more for speed and battery life.
On the other hand, if I was to give up film alltogether and only use digital, maybe I would only ever take the M9 with me - so this is not an anti-M9 rant.
All in all, Zingst was a fun experience and I enjoyed all the cameras, probably enjoyed using the Hasselbad (which I only just picked up) more than any other camera.
Nick
Zingst Photo Festival - a set on Flickr
Somewhat controversially, having had the pleasure of being able to borrow an M9, I came to the conclusion that the Olympus EP2 is a better camera for me than the M9. I like digital for speed, versitility and mobility, and the EP2 beats the M9 on all these counts from my brief experience. The slowness of the M9, and its short battery life would annoy me if I use it a lot, and I found the resolution on the screen on the back so bad it was difficult to know whether the photo you had taken was in focus, let alone any good.
On the other hand the image quality of the M9, when you get back and look at the raw file on your mac, is stunning - easily equal to my 24MP Canon 5D Mk II. With the new Summilux lens it was very sharp and clean - (maybe a bit too clean for me).. But the difference in image quality between the M9 and EP2 (used up to 400 iso) is not SO great to justify either the cost or other disbenefits I found with the M9. This is largely because I since I have started to use medium format film so much more, I often think that if I want to make a large print, and get a perfect photo, I will use one of my MF cameras. For smaller prints (A4 etc) the difference between the EP2 and M9 is difficult to detect.
Even though I would love to have an M9, I decided that the truth was, even if someone gave me one, if I went on a 2 week trip abroad I would probably not take the M9. I would need at least one medium format camera and one digital camera, and I would be able to rely on the EP2 more for speed and battery life.
On the other hand, if I was to give up film alltogether and only use digital, maybe I would only ever take the M9 with me - so this is not an anti-M9 rant.
All in all, Zingst was a fun experience and I enjoyed all the cameras, probably enjoyed using the Hasselbad (which I only just picked up) more than any other camera.
Nick
I've had the M8 for 5 months, and the EP2 for about a month. Last week I took the EP2 to the roller skating rink for the first time, low-light and fast moving subjects. My shots with the M8 war far better. More of them were in focus, and better framed. ISO 2500 shots with the M8 had less noise than the ISO 1600 shots with the EP2. The EP2 shots were too late, and often my main subject was occluded by another skater, that could be avoided on the M8 finder. I took the EP2 again yesterday, and gave it another try. I did much better, but the 8 shots were still better. Same lenses used on each. Forget trying to use a slow AF 4/3rds lens in that darkness. Next time with the EP2- should be better. An M9 would pick up right where the M8 is now. For battery life, I'm getting ~250 shots with the M8 on one charge.
It takes a while to get used to a new camera. After last week, I was ready to relegate the EP2 to bright light, no action. I do not give up easily.
It takes a while to get used to a new camera. After last week, I was ready to relegate the EP2 to bright light, no action. I do not give up easily.
Spyro
Well-known
What do you mean by slowness of the M9? As in, slow to focus an RF or slow to shoot consecutive frames because of the buffer/size of file?
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Slowness in most all ways, I would guess.
RF's are just another state of mind, to me anyway. I like both but for me, they produce differently because of the way "I" integrate with them. I used to shoot muzzle loaders. One shot at a time and you had to think about what you were doing. Too much work just to waste shots, so easily done with most other guns.
RF's are just another state of mind, to me anyway. I like both but for me, they produce differently because of the way "I" integrate with them. I used to shoot muzzle loaders. One shot at a time and you had to think about what you were doing. Too much work just to waste shots, so easily done with most other guns.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Sorry, I mainly meant slowness to write a file - since I shoot in Raw and jpeg. I find this feature much slower. You often can't use the camera whilst you are waiting for it to write either, which can be annoying.
Because I use film and digital cameras together I usually want my digital to be able to work very fast and let me see, on a good screen, the results in good time. That's really what I meant.
On using EP2 in low light, did you try the Panny 20mm f1.7, at 1.7, brian? I find this very good but I don't like to shoot above 400-640 iso so in lower light than that I have no doubt at all the M9 is far better than the ep2.
It's nothing against rangefinders. I love them and generally prefer to slr. I use the Mamiya 6 and Leica M6 all the time with no problems. It is the software in the M9, and the view screen on the back, which I think are the problems.
Because I use film and digital cameras together I usually want my digital to be able to work very fast and let me see, on a good screen, the results in good time. That's really what I meant.
On using EP2 in low light, did you try the Panny 20mm f1.7, at 1.7, brian? I find this very good but I don't like to shoot above 400-640 iso so in lower light than that I have no doubt at all the M9 is far better than the ep2.
It's nothing against rangefinders. I love them and generally prefer to slr. I use the Mamiya 6 and Leica M6 all the time with no problems. It is the software in the M9, and the view screen on the back, which I think are the problems.
Ben Z
Veteran
The M9 isn't the be-all/end-all for everyone who shoots digital, any more than the M7,MP, M6 etc were the be-all/end-all for everyone who shot film. I find myself using my 5D much more than my M8, in fact I found myself using my 20D more than the M8. For a lot of purposes I just like a SLR better. But for other purposes I like the M, especially for travel. It takes up a lot less room.
I too had the opportunity to try out an M9 for shooting (i.e. almost a full day, not just a quick look at a store). If I were just now entering the M digital arena I would be very tempted. Since I already have an M8, which I spent another $1700 upgrading (because I believed Leica when they said "the technology for a full-frame digital M is still a long way off"), I'm content to wait until I can get one that someone else has taken the 50% hit on depreciation. Thankfully the M8 image quality is so close to the M9 I'm not feeling any pain waiting.
I too had the opportunity to try out an M9 for shooting (i.e. almost a full day, not just a quick look at a store). If I were just now entering the M digital arena I would be very tempted. Since I already have an M8, which I spent another $1700 upgrading (because I believed Leica when they said "the technology for a full-frame digital M is still a long way off"), I'm content to wait until I can get one that someone else has taken the 50% hit on depreciation. Thankfully the M8 image quality is so close to the M9 I'm not feeling any pain waiting.
jdriffill
Established
Nick --
Terrific pictures of Zingst. Looks as though you had great weather, and it looks like a nice place. Interesting comments on the EP2 vs M9. How does the EP2 differ from the EP1? I see that Jacobs in the UK are offering the EP1 with 17mm lens and vf for £399 -- which is kind of tempting.
Terrific pictures of Zingst. Looks as though you had great weather, and it looks like a nice place. Interesting comments on the EP2 vs M9. How does the EP2 differ from the EP1? I see that Jacobs in the UK are offering the EP1 with 17mm lens and vf for £399 -- which is kind of tempting.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Thanks JD - yeah the weather was fine indeed
I never had an ep1, but I hear the ep2 af is slightly faster
My main reason for buying the ep2, having already got the GF1, was the very good evf, which does not work on the ep1. If you want to use legacy lenses this makes all the difference. If not, I guesw the ep1 is worth it
I never had an ep1, but I hear the ep2 af is slightly faster
My main reason for buying the ep2, having already got the GF1, was the very good evf, which does not work on the ep1. If you want to use legacy lenses this makes all the difference. If not, I guesw the ep1 is worth it
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I must have a rare batch of super-good batteries, because they usually last me about 500+ shots each. I also have auto image review off. I also always shoot DNG (w/o embedded JPEG); I've noticed that if you shoot JPEG, the camera takes longer to process and write. ::shrug::
I also turn it off as soon as I'm done shooting (force of habit), even though I have the camera turn itself off after 5 minutes (or is it 4?)
user237428934
User deletion pending
I had the same setting but only got 200-230 images out of the m8 battery. Looked at the lcd only for critical images.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
unless you habitually fill the buffer.LightBender
Member
I do think you have managed to make an interesting comparison between the M9 and all of the cameras you mentioned. I think you are saying that the M9 is not as good as your MF for large prints, you can’t tell the difference compared to your 4/3’rds with small prints, and the M9 is about equal to your Canon5D2. You wouldn’t even take one with you because the EP2 is faster and the battery life is longer… and of course you have that MF, which is capable of making a better image than anything you own. And, the M9 files are too clean for you with the Leica Summilux glass you demo’d. I just don’t see where an M9 would fit at all in your current line up or your thoughts of what is important for you as a photographer.
You seem to have it all covered with the EP2, film MF, 5D2, and your M6. Why wouldn’t you just use all four cameras you have, rather than just the M9?
You seem to have it all covered with the EP2, film MF, 5D2, and your M6. Why wouldn’t you just use all four cameras you have, rather than just the M9?
Last edited:
dws21uk
Member
I noticed on your EP-2 shots that the ISO is set to 100, EP-2's sensor is better at 200 ISO. You'll get fewer problems with clipped highlights.
jarski
Veteran
M8 (and apparently M9 too) is slow to write file to card, but that does not bother since I know thats just the way it works. dont need to shoots bursts of images with RF, and remember keep camera on long enough so it has time to do its work, then switch off.
nice photos from German Baltic coast. was tempted about Zingst too, but found out about it a bit too close to event, decided to pass.
nice photos from German Baltic coast. was tempted about Zingst too, but found out about it a bit too close to event, decided to pass.
ampguy
Veteran
same here
same here
I get 450-550. But I don't use the "C" mode, or let it sleep. I switch it off when not using it, the start-up time is instantaneous.
same here
I get 450-550. But I don't use the "C" mode, or let it sleep. I switch it off when not using it, the start-up time is instantaneous.