marcoinhawaii
Member
Thanks to a rental with Josh at Hawaii Photo Rental in Honolulu, I got to photograph the 70th anniversary of attack on Pearl Harbor with an M9 and an older 50mm Summilux. Along with my cameras, I shot quiet a wide range of images and tried to use the Leica as much as I could but with much easier to use Canons, I found myself relying on those as opposed to the somewhat limited M9.
Now when I say limited I mean I was still able to capture some really nice images.
I think what really was nice about the M9 was the handling and the size. Some might say the Olympus Pen or other small cameras do the same the Summilux lens proved to be a fantastic lens. The bokeh felt much more...well..there are others that can describe this more than me but i felt it was something else. Canons do a fine job at this but the feeling isn't quiet the same. Even the flare in the first photo of the Buddhist monks really made an impact.
The metering seems primitive in my opinion due to Canon's matrix etc...but again, if you are a professional or understand your camera/tool, you can probably compensate a situation before you snap a picture. I would quickly shoot something, see it was under or over and compensate as fast as my thumb could move. I automatically know how to compensate by seeing what people are wearing, background, etc...and know instinctively how to fix that before I even shoot it. Again, if I shot and owned one I would probably be as efficient with it like a Canon. Put a Nikon DSLR in my hands and I would probably fumble just as much as I did with the Leica.
As far as the images go, I felt the sensor was sensitive enough to quickly go wrong...oddly like film. I was shooting scenes where I'd review images and see there were blacks because I under exposed. I can't get blacks like that with a canon because of the dynamic range of the camera. Again in my opinion, the range of modern dslrs really takes away some mystery as everything is recorded. I've pulled major detail from canon files that were files that were up down 4 stops. The Leica kept blacks black and whites white.
Looking at the images now, they feel like film.
Am I crazy?
Now when I say limited I mean I was still able to capture some really nice images.
I think what really was nice about the M9 was the handling and the size. Some might say the Olympus Pen or other small cameras do the same the Summilux lens proved to be a fantastic lens. The bokeh felt much more...well..there are others that can describe this more than me but i felt it was something else. Canons do a fine job at this but the feeling isn't quiet the same. Even the flare in the first photo of the Buddhist monks really made an impact.
The metering seems primitive in my opinion due to Canon's matrix etc...but again, if you are a professional or understand your camera/tool, you can probably compensate a situation before you snap a picture. I would quickly shoot something, see it was under or over and compensate as fast as my thumb could move. I automatically know how to compensate by seeing what people are wearing, background, etc...and know instinctively how to fix that before I even shoot it. Again, if I shot and owned one I would probably be as efficient with it like a Canon. Put a Nikon DSLR in my hands and I would probably fumble just as much as I did with the Leica.
As far as the images go, I felt the sensor was sensitive enough to quickly go wrong...oddly like film. I was shooting scenes where I'd review images and see there were blacks because I under exposed. I can't get blacks like that with a canon because of the dynamic range of the camera. Again in my opinion, the range of modern dslrs really takes away some mystery as everything is recorded. I've pulled major detail from canon files that were files that were up down 4 stops. The Leica kept blacks black and whites white.
Looking at the images now, they feel like film.
Am I crazy?