Sell my M9?

[__--]

...If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.

Shooting with manual exposure with the M9, I have not seen any difference in terms of shutter lag with the M6. As for the buffer, as I don't shoot a lot of shots rapidly in succession, this is not an issue for me.

It would surprise me if either of these two factors were a reason that someone would stay with an M6 rather then going to an M9. In the real world, as oppsoed to discussions on the web, a reason for staying with the M6 would be that the photographer liked shooting film.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[Lss]

This is offtopic, but interesting anyway...

If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.

Is the M9 significantly slower than the M8? I don't have trouble with M8 when shooting panoramas, which is usually the most demanding scenario for the buffer in my use. This means shooting up to about 15 images as quickly as possible. It's not exactly machine gunning, as you need to frame with the overlap in mind, but it is fast shooting. I seldom shoot this many frames very quickly when using a rangefinder for portraits.

 

[jaapv]

Of particular note, I've never had to wait, even a mili-second, for a film Leica to "wake up."

The buffer of a M9 is limited, as is also write speed. Absolutely I can shoot 8 shots faster with my M6 than I can with my M9. If you're shooting landscape or still life it may not be an issue. If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.

Only - with the M digitlal
you keep the camera unmoving at your eye, whereas with a film M you will have to operate the rewind lever, introducing wiggle,wobble and motion blur.

 

[Fraser]

Of particular note, I've never had to wait, even a mili-second, for a film Leica to "wake up."

The buffer of a M9 is limited, as is also write speed. Absolutely I can shoot 8 shots faster with my M6 than I can with my M9. If you're shooting landscape or still life it may not be an issue. If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.

The quite some fast shooting faster than 2 frames a second, maybe with a rapidwinder but thats quite tricky to use while focusing at the same time.

 

[JSU]

You should consider the real benefit of the exceptional accessory for the M4-2, M4-P, M6 (series), M7 and MP: Leica Motor M (14 408). . . .

Or, with the plain, unembellished version of the above, simply use a sufficiently high shutter speed.

My own Leica Motors (14 408) rarely come out of the locker anymore, the exceptional Tom Abrahamson Rapid Winder lives on each of my M6 bodies.

Maybe I just practice careful technique, but I can easily shoot an entire roll of film without diminishing my images with wiggle, wobble and motion blur. My livelihood for 30 years depended on it, including ~25 years with film.

Only - with the M digitlal
you keep the camera unmoving at your eye, whereas with a film M you will have to operate the rewind lever, introducing wiggle,wobble and motion blur.

 

[furcafe]

High ISO can certainly be a reason to prefer the X100 to the M9.

With all due respect to Mr. Alland (& Jim Kasson, whose findings he cites), applying those techniques works w/other cameras/sensors, including the Fuji X series & dSLRs, & is not a magic bullet (or lantern). I tried a variation starting back when I had an M8 & continued messing w/them on my M9 (though using Capture One rather than Lightroom to develop my raw files). In my experience at least, the M9 still lagged behind other cameras, both newer (like the X-Pro1) & older (like the D3/D700) at high ISOs, whether using in-camera gain or pushed in post-processing. I eventually settled on 1250 as my maximum in-camera ISO on the M8/M9 so that I could still use the screen. Having no particular preference for the M8/M9's color rendition (I prefer the Fuji AWB to both Leica & Nikon), I would not call the M9 an "excellent" low light camera compared to the competition; useable, yes, but I think much depends on how much post-processing work one wants to perform & what one considers "low light". I prefer to have useable in-camera high ISOs & my definition of low light starts downwards from around EV 5 at ISO 1600 (= 1/30th sec. @ f/1), which is not unusual in the environments I shoot in (home interiors, bars/restaurants, clubs, etc.).

Nobody has asked WHY the OP uses his X100 more despite liking the M9 and recognizing the better image quality from the M9. It cannot be high ISO. On LUF Mitch Alland has written an extensive thread proving that, using the proper technique, the M9 is an excellent low light camera.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html

The technique is basically: leave at ISO 640, underexpose massively to get a decent shutter speed and push in postprocessing.
It turns out that this reduces noise significantly. Apply a touch of noise reduction and you'll find the M9 is actually very good at low light with a better colour rendition than most other cameras.

The conventional wisdom is that the M9 is not good at high-ISO; but I think that the technique described in this thread (shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in LR5) shows the M9 to be a great camera for night photography, taking into account its color rendition that I feel is better than what the X100s or most other cameras offer.

EDIT: I just noticed Jaap's posting above (post #26) on the same subject.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[jaapv]

You should consider the real benefit of the exceptional accessory for the M4-2, M4-P, M6 (series), M7 and MP: Leica Motor M (14 408). . . .

Or, with the plain, unembellished version of the above, simply use a sufficiently high shutter speed.

My own Leica Motors (14 408) rarely come out of the locker anymore, the exceptional Tom Abrahamson Rapid Winder lives on each of my M6 bodies.

Maybe I just practice careful technique, but I can easily shoot an entire roll of film without diminishing my images with wiggle, wobble and motion blur. My livelihood for 30 years depended on it, including ~25 years with film.

Well, imo the M8/9/M have built-in motors. I have a cupboard full of film Leicas (and motors and a rapidwinder), but they never come out any more, I have moved on, I fear. The M is quite good in this respect, with a fast card it can keep up shooting @ 1 frame / 2sec (after an initial burst of 10 @ 2 fps) indefinitely. Not that I am into this kind of shooting, I guess I would use a fast Nikon or Canon if my livelyhood depended on it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You should consider the real benefit of the exceptional accessory for the M4-2, M4-P, M6 (series), M7 and MP: Leica Motor M (14 408). . . .

Just thinking about putting my 14408 on my M4-P or MP again makes my neck ache...

Cheers,

R.

 

[__--]

...With all due respect to Mr. Alland (& Jim Kasson, whose findings he cites), applying those techniques works w/other cameras/sensors, including the Fuji X series & dSLRs, & is not a magic bullet (or lantern)...

Of course I never said that this type of technique cannot be applied to other cameras. What I did say was that the color rendition at night with the M9 is much better than that of the X100s and of other cameras from which I've seen high-ISO night shots. What you're not taking into account is this difference color rendition, which is what makes the M9 such a good camera for night photography.

Below are four night shots with the M9 using this technique, pushed about 2–4+ stops. It amazes me that this technique (shooting at ISO 640 and pushing Exposure in LR4/5), and the real high-ISO capability of the M9 is not generally known, considering that it's now four years since this camera came out.



Leica M9 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 4.15 stops (effective ISO 11,008) | f/4.0 | 1/60 sec

Bangkok




Leica M9 | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 4 stops on main subject (effective ISO 10,240) | f/4.0 | 1/60 sec
Hua Hin




Leica M9 | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 2.25 stops | f/4.0 | 1/125 sec

Bangkok




Leica M9 | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 3 stops | f/2.0 | 1/180 sec

Bangkok



—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]

 

[L Collins]

Nobody has asked WHY the OP uses his X100 more despite liking the M9 and recognizing the better image quality from the M9. It cannot be high ISO. On LUF Mitch Alland has written an extensive thread proving that, using the proper technique, the M9 is an excellent low light camera.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html

The technique is basically: leave at ISO 640, underexpose massively to get a decent shutter speed and push in postprocessing.
It turns out that this reduces noise significantly. Apply a touch of noise reduction and you'll find the M9 is actually very good at low light with a better colour rendition than most other cameras.

Or, just use the x100.

 

[furcafe]

Mitch, I didn't mean to suggest that you or Jaap meant or thought the technique was exclusive to the M9. I was just pointing out that if the M9's performance can be improved, so can its competition using the same technique; so to the extent the M9 lags, it still lags. That's why I sold mine & bought the 240 (it lags a little less 😉).

As to your point about color, I certainly did account for your (& apparently Jaap's) preference for the M9's color rendition over the X100, etc., & noted that I disagree ("Having no particular preference for the M8/M9's color rendition (I prefer the Fuji AWB to both Leica & Nikon) . . .").

Of course I never said that this type of technique cannot be applied to other cameras. What I did say was that the color rendition at night with the M9 is much better than that of the X100s and of other cameras from which I've seen high-ISO night shots. What you're not taking into account is this difference color rendition, which is what makes the M9 such a good camera for night photography.

Below are four night shots with the M9 using this technique, pushed about 2–4+ stops. It amazes me that this technique (shooting at ISO 640 and pushing Exposure in LR4/5), and the real high-ISO capability of the M9 is not generally known, considering that it's now four years since this camera came out.


—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

[furcafe]

Exactly. Is it so wrong to not have to do all the noise reduction in post-processing?

Or, just use the x100.

 

[__--]

Mitch, I didn't mean to suggest that you or Jaap meant or thought the technique was exclusive to the M9. I was just pointing out that if the M9's performance can be improved, so can its competition using the same technique; so to the extent the M9 lags, it still lags. That's why I sold mine & bought the 240 (it lags a little less 😉).

As to your point about color, I certainly did account for your (& apparently Jaap's) preference for the M9's color rendition over the X100, etc., & noted that I disagree ("Having no particular preference for the M8/M9's color rendition (I prefer the Fuji AWB to both Leica & Nikon) . . .").

Exactly, we seem to differ on the color rendition, although I am referring only to night photography here. However, I still have no idea how that of the M240 is in night photography, for I have seen only one M240 night shot posted — and that was in such darkness that the photographer said he could not fully make out the subject with his eyes; and that picture looked like one taken by a surveillance camera, so I would like to see some more.

On the basis of my recent experience using the "Shoot at ISO 640 and push in post" technique, I'm very partial to the color rendtion and image quality produced for night photography with the M9. Also, I think we've reached a stage in the development of digital cameras that it is no longer necessary to keep changing to new cameras so frequently. In this case, I feel it's better to work on one's technique for night photogaphy than switiching to another camera — and that is within a general preference to shoot with one camera for a good number of years, as we used to do with film cameras.

—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]