Why the M9 is the near pefec camera for me

[Paratom]

I feel I need to write this here:
Having used M6, RD1 and then M8/M9 (and many DSLRs from various brands).
The M9 (and the M8 is pretty close IMO) is the near perfect camera for me.
I have tried all kind of DSLRs, M4/3 ETC but I allways come back to the conclusion that for me the M9 is near perfect.
why?
1) IQ - for some reason I just prefer the IQ of the CCD of the M8 and M9 over the cmos from Nikon/Canon/Pentax. Even though colors are maybe sometimes a little tricky the clarity and microdetail of the images is superior for my taste.
Noise is not the great over 1000ISo but then you have lenses which are fully usable at f1.4 to compensate.

2) Size: camera and lenses much smaller than most DSLRs - you can bring it nearly everywhere (Big plus)

3)Handling: great. simple user interface, nice viewfinder (specially for 35 and 50mm which I like a lot)

4) Focus: you need some patience and eventually send lenses in for calibration but once you have the right lenses it works very well. I get at least as precise focus with my M9 than with all DSLRs I have tried (except maybe Nikon which offers the best AF IMO).

5) Lenses: just amazing what lens options you have if you are a prime shooter. Many of them fully usable at f1.4. Sharp, nice bokeh, good contrast and color and small. ALso many options from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer and others.
Sliding hoods make the small lenses even more portable.

The only downside I see are the limitation regarding tele and sometimes AF would be nice for action. However I much prefer a precise rangefinder about a not so precise AF. Still a fast and precise AF (ala Nikon D3 or D700) allows to shoot some things which you cant get (reliable) without Af. And its expensive (but with stable value and very good used market)

Thank you Leica!

 

[ptomsu]

I feel I need to write this here:
Having used M6, RD1 and then M8/M9 (and many DSLRs from various brands).
The M9 (and the M8 is pretty close IMO) is the near perfect camera for me.
I have tried all kind of DSLRs, M4/3 ETC but I allways come back to the conclusion that for me the M9 is near perfect.
why?
1) IQ - for some reason I just prefer the IQ of the CCD of the M8 and M9 over the cmos from Nikon/Canon/Pentax. Even though colors are maybe sometimes a little tricky the clarity and microdetail of the images is superior for my taste.
Noise is not the great over 1000ISo but then you have lenses which are fully usable at f1.4 to compensate.

2) Size: camera and lenses much smaller than most DSLRs - you can bring it nearly everywhere (Big plus)

3)Handling: great. simple user interface, nice viewfinder (specially for 35 and 50mm which I like a lot)

4) Focus: you need some patience and eventually send lenses in for calibration but once you have the right lenses it works very well. I get at least as precise focus with my M9 than with all DSLRs I have tried (except maybe Nikon which offers the best AF IMO).

5) Lenses: just amazing what lens options you have if you are a prime shooter. Many of them fully usable at f1.4. Sharp, nice bokeh, good contrast and color and small. ALso many options from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer and others.
Sliding hoods make the small lenses even more portable.

The only downside I see are the limitation regarding tele and sometimes AF would be nice for action. However I much prefer a precise rangefinder about a not so precise AF. Still a fast and precise AF (ala Nikon D3 or D700) allows to shoot some things which you cant get (reliable) without Af. And its expensive (but with stable value and very good used market)

Thank you Leica!

I agree!

After sending my K5 back and rethinking lot of my cameras, I decided to finally go for the M9 (after the more than 1 year abstinence after my M8) and make my M lenses fly again. Especially my 1.4's and my 1.0 Nocti

And for the rest use my Nikon (currently D700) and my H3D39.

Cheers

Peter

 

[jaapv]

You have to rethink the statement about noise. We ( the users on various forums, in long threads) have figured out the technique for clean ISO 2500..:thumbs:

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Tom
Quite in agreement, except that I think the increased clarity is more due to the lack of AA filter rather than the CCD vs CMOS situation.

Agree with Jaap about the noise. He's done a great FAQ at LUF (although I missed information on Aperture rather than Lightroom.

Still think there's a place for other cameras, even if it's onle for macro and telephoto.

All the best

 

[Paratom]

If needed I also use up to max. Limit.
However I allways found ISO1000 and lower much more unproblematic.
I have to read those threads. Thank you for the hint!

Of course there are things where other cameras work better - sports, action, wildlife.

I also could still se a place for a K2 ah S5 or what was it again?

 

[jonoslack]

I also could still se a place for a K2 ah S5 or what was it again?

:ROTFL:
Don't mention the wares

 

[jaapv]

Thanks, Jono. I didn't include Aperture because the noise control is not nearly as good as that of ACR 6. I also find that it struggles with the high edge contrast of the AA filterless sensors of Leica, creating more color aliasing than other RAW converters. There have been a number of examples over the Internet.

 

[kevinparis]

OK.. I am not a Leica user... but i do live with one... and have used one ...and while i totally accept that the choice of camera is absolutely entirely personal I do have to speak out in response

1) IQ... the lenses make nice pictures.. sensors are a constantly moving platform...I care more about the quality of the image than the image quality... thats just me .. your priories may differ

2/3) Size and handling in my opinion are awful... the body is too big and is ergonomically only usable to me with a third party Thumbs up. Time to show a image on the LCD is lamentable. The fact you cant see shutter speed in VF in Manual is a a silly oversight... all in all it gives me the impression of a company that was dragged kicking and screaming to the digital age

4) Focus... well here we enter a odd place...I fully get the whole rangefinder paradigm...I can make it work.... though i never really got the outside the frame thing...but i can live with that... what i dont get is the dance that seems to happen to get the rangefinder and the dioptre and the lens to somehow work in harmony without a man from Solms...

5) Lenses are stunning... I will not dispute that... but nothing beyond 90mm and focussing closer than 0.7m are a odd set of restrictions in my world.

If it is the perfect camera for you then all the best to you... but my view is that it is a very fine camera when all is in harmony,,, but like a supermodel does seem to be awfully high maintenance.


everything above has been written in the spirit of genuine debate.. all opinions are mine and mine alone, and as such hopefully will not get me in too much trouble

For the record i shoot entirely for my own pleasure on Olympus e-p1, 510 and Canon 5D Mk2 with all sorts of native and legacy lenses... including Leica


peace and a happy new year when it comes

K

 

[Paratom]

OK.. I am not a Leica user... but i do live with one... and have used one ...and while i totally accept that the choice of camera is absolutely entirely personal I do have to speak out in response

1) IQ... the lenses make nice pictures.. sensors are a constantly moving platform...I care more about the quality of the image than the image quality... thats just me .. your priories may differ

2/3) Size and handling in my opinion are awful... the body is too big and is ergonomically only usable to me with a third party Thumbs up. Time to show a image on the LCD is lamentable. The fact you cant see shutter speed in VF in Manual is a a silly oversight... all in all it gives me the impression of a company that was dragged kicking and screaming to the digital age

4) Focus... well here we enter a odd place...I fully get the whole rangefinder paradigm...I can make it work.... though i never really got the outside the frame thing...but i can live with that... what i dont get is the dance that seems to happen to get the rangefinder and the dioptre and the lens to somehow work in harmony without a man from Solms...

5) Lenses are stunning... I will not dispute that... but nothing beyond 90mm and focussing closer than 0.7m are a odd set of restrictions in my world.

If it is the perfect camera for you then all the best to you... but my view is that it is a very fine camera when all is in harmony,,, but like a supermodel does seem to be awfully high maintenance.


everything above has been written in the spirit of genuine debate.. all opinions are mine and mine alone, and as such hopefully will not get me in too much trouble

For the record i shoot entirely for my own pleasure on Olympus e-p1, 510 and Canon 5D Mk2 with all sorts of native and legacy lenses... including Leica


peace and a happy new year when it comes

K

Hi Kevin,
I just respond to your points:
1) Yes sensor technology is moving but I can only tell about what existst today and what I have prefered over the last years and I find do prefer the image quality I gor from my M8 and get from the M9 slightly over that from my Nikon D700.

Regarding "quality of he image" vs "image quality": I hear this sentence constantly and my answer is: I care about both. I dont see any reason why people who care a lot about image quality should care any less about the quality of the images.

2/3)
I guess size is indeed a personal thing and while it works well for me it seems to not wokr for you. I dont understand why you find it too big/ which alternatives do you have regarding smaller cameras?
I agree your point regarding missing exp in vewfinder when using M, but I use A 90% anyways so I can live with it (still would prefer to have it).

4) Sending lenses in for eventuall calibration can indeed be a pain.
On the other side the experience I have with other brands lenses is not any better. Decentered/ not sharp on one side, and I had several lenses from Nikon and Canon in the past which I had to send in or exchange to get a good sample. So I would say even for all brands. Better quality control would be highly appreciated.

5) Yes, lens range is restricted regarding focal length(by the way there is a nice Macro lens as well which does go much closer than 0.7m)
Not a camera for someone who often likes to shoot Tele. Thats why I also like to have a DSLR for those times when longer than 135mm is needed. (I my case mainly for sports or action)

Your answer does show me again how personal the choice of the "right" camera is. I occasionally use a E-P2 and while I like it I allways feel that it is somewhat overloaded with (confusing) functions. On one vacation I brought the M8 and the E-P2 with M adapter but found out quickly that I much prefer the viewfinder and the handling of the Rangefinder camera.(And you found out the opposite for yourself)
(Still think the M4/3 deliever great IQ/flexibility and a very good value)
I am sure the combo of a 5DII and the M4/3 offers great flexibility for all kinds of photographic tasks. I am also convinced for me that I can shoot 80-90% of what I do like with the M9 and 3 lenses (even though I admit I have some more lenses).
Thanks for your answer -I find some exchange of preferances and opinions regarding user interface makes threads like this more interesting and usefull Tom

 

[kevinparis]

tom

thank you for taking the time to respond to my rant - I fully respect your opinions and wish you many happy images in 2011

cheers
K

 

[jonoslack]

Thanks, Jono. I didn't include Aperture because the noise control is not nearly as good as that of ACR 6. I also find that it struggles with the high edge contrast of the AA filterless sensors of Leica, creating more color aliasing than other RAW converters. There have been a number of examples over the Internet.

Each to his own I guess - sometimes there is colour aliasing, but I've made consistent comparisons . . . . and on several occasions considered changing - but I've always come back to aperture as doing best all things considered. On the rare (very rare) occasions I actually want to do any noise control - I'd rather use Nik anyway. For me the local adjustment tools in Aperture, together with CA controls seem to work much better.

Nothing is perfect I guess

 

[jaapv]

Jono - I know, discussing postprocessing programs and raw converters is like discussing developers in the film days. Everybody has his own preferences and the only thing that counts is the result However, this new ACR 6.0, I used to be a staunch C1 fan, but now... I switched computers and OS and I did not even bother to change my C1 5 pro license to Mac - don't use it any more. Went through some withdrawal symptoms, but there you are.

 

[davemillier]

Re: Compared to upcoming SD1

I'll be looking forward to seeing comparisons with the upcoming Sigma SD1 15MP X3 Foveon sensor.

With no need for demosaicing and no AA filter, we could be looking at the equivalent of a bayer 30+ MP from an APS-C sensor with micro-contrast and edge sharpness as good as it can get.

I probably won't be getting one (nor a M9) but the contest should be interesting....

 

[jaapv]

It won't be a contest - the cameras are too different in concept. It is not just about pixels - the using of the camera is much more important.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I am close to purchasing an M9, I absolutely love rangefinders! However, I just found an M6 (analog) in a local camera store. It's 9.5 out of 10 with a Summicron 50mm f/2, all in near perfect condition for $900. I probably should wait for the M9, but this is tempting!

 

[Paratom]

I am close to purchasing an M9, I absolutely love rangefinders! However, I just found an M6 (analog) in a local camera store. It's 9.5 out of 10 with a Summicron 50mm f/2, all in near perfect condition for $900. I probably should wait for the M9, but this is tempting!

I would say thats a very good price and I would assume if you sell the M6 later than you would have a Summicron for a good price.

 

[MCTuomey]

t_streng

Do you feel strongly enough about the M9 that you'd consider a dSLR like a Pentax K5 unnecessary?

Mike

 

[Jason Muelver]

I shoot with both my M8 and Nikon fx gear professionally. Each has its place, and I actually find them complimentary when accepting the limitations and taking advantage of the strengths inherent in each system.

 

[Chuck Jones]

I guess I've had my M9 long enough now to also comment.

To put it simply, I must agree. This is just about all the camera and lens outfit I need for about 90% of the professional work I do. For the rest, I intend to just rent when more is necessary. I feel so strongly about this, I am going to the Buy & Sell after writing this to list my D700 & the one remaining lens I still have. I haven't used this body since buying the M9, though I will admit I did feel the need to keep it before upgrading from an M8. That crop factor was just a killer for anything wide with the M8 for me, even with a 21mm.

The Nikon D700 is an awesome high ISO beast, and is full frame, which the M8 was not. But the files from Nikon, Canon, and all the rest just leave me wanting more. Probably spoiled after shooting MF for so many years, and four digital backs later. But with careful post processing, I am realizing image quality that is so far superior (yea, at a much higher cost!) that I simply can not deal with having to mix the post processing from multiple cameras anymore. The look from the M9 and the Leica glass says it all. I'm in photographic heaven :salute:

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I agree Chuck, the results are excellent. However, as opposed to you I did just add a DSLR again, but mainly for reach... an A850 with a 70-300 G lens. Also a Zeiss 24-70/2.8 to make it useful on its own and as a backup. I don't expect that much from it, and don't know how much I'll use it, but occasionally there's just no alternative to reach.

The M9 is to me what the Mamiya 7 used to be - the tool of choice for almost anything I do. The wide angle lens selection is fantastic. I plan to sell off the Mammy (didn't think I'd ever say that) to see if I can help fund a second M9 body.

The only drawback with the M9 I think is the RF is a little fragile and easily knocked out of calibration (mine is waiting for a vertical adjustment trip to Steve Zhou in LA). I knocked mine out of vertical alignment after about a week on the road. Also, not sure about the frankenfinder; mine's really loose in the foot and needs to go to Leica. Might be too fragile for real-world use. (But a CV 21 finder is just fine and is what I switched to.)