K5 versus the M9

[jonoslack]

After all I do not understand such a thread.

I mean how can one compare a M9 (or M8) with a K5 or any other DSLR - does not work feature wise, does not work IQ wise, does not work operational wise, does not work comparing any brands zooms to Leica M primes or even any brands primes to Leica M primes ....

If you compare a K5 to other DSLRs that makes some sense, but to Leica digital M's - sorry but I do not get this one

Hi Peter
I did the test because I use both cameras and I wanted to find out how much of a sacrifice IQ wise I made when I shot the K5. (reasonable?)

I thought others might find the results interesting and that it might provoke an interesting discussion. It seems they did and it has.

You are, of course, perfectly at liberty not to read it if you find it pointless

It was certainly not intended to influence anyone on their camera buying decisions.

 

[Sapphie]

I think Jono is being very brave with this thread. If I won the lotto I might get a Leica, just because I could and I'd be curious about what the fuss was about; and I have no doubt that the quality is outstanding.

At the end of the day though, photography is a compromise. If we all cared about ultimate image quality we'd still be carrying large format plate cameras, or medium format. Maybe ... but life should be more fun than that.

When I had my medium format film gear (Mamiya, including the '7' range finder) I thought it was great and I took some great shots with it - partly because of the quality of the equipment and the format but also, a mentality. I would say 'what is the point of having this great camera, this great format if you don't make the most of it?'. So, yes it was relatively easy to hand hold but to 'make the most of' meant tripod and slowing down and realising that you only had 10 shots ...

I thought I could usually tell a medium format shot from a 35mm in a printed magazine too, so it *did* make a difference.

And even the Mamiya was a lot less expensive than Leica ...

Lee

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Lee

I think Jono is being very brave with this thread. If I won the lotto I might get a Leica, just because I could and I'd be curious about what the fuss was about; and I have no doubt that the quality is outstanding.

Not brave - maybe a bit ansty - worth emphasising that the Leica lenses can be considered as 'currency'; they hold their value very well, so if you can manage to hump to buy in the first place, then, if funds are short, you can often make a profit after a year or so.

But I'm very clear why I'm using the M9 - it's because I love the rangefinder way of shooting, and because I like the lenses. It isn't so much about the quality, but more about the experience.

I do always want an SLR as well, because it's such a different way of working, and because I like to do macro and telephoto sometimes, and the Leica isn't that great at it.

At the end of the day though, photography is a compromise. If we all cared about ultimate image quality we'd still be carrying large format plate cameras, or medium format. Maybe ... but life should be more fun than that.

I agree so much about this - which is why I've fought off really big temptations to go to MF digital - from what I see it encourages people to take technically fine images, often at the expense of imagination and intuition. I don't ever use a tripod - because (for me at least) I've learned that it stops me casting about and makes me concentrate hard and think about what I'm doing (always the death of my imagination).

For others that discipline is just what they want - it takes all types. I was at a local exhibition recently, and a guy had been travelling the world with his tripod and his MF gear - going to all the traditionally beautiful/interesting spots, setting up his tripod and . . . . taking the same shots as everyone else had taken when they were there! They were beautifully organised, technically perfect, wonderfully printed

But I really don't want to fall into the trap of pigeon holing other photographers.

Uwe has chipped in a little in this thread, and if you haven't examined his landscape shots, you really should go there - fantastic, inspirational work.

When I had my medium format film gear (Mamiya, including the '7' range finder) I thought it was great and I took some great shots with it - partly because of the quality of the equipment and the format but also, a mentality. I would say 'what is the point of having this great camera, this great format if you don't make the most of it?'. So, yes it was relatively easy to hand hold but to 'make the most of' meant tripod and slowing down and realising that you only had 10 shots ...

I thought I could usually tell a medium format shot from a 35mm in a printed magazine too, so it *did* make a difference.

And even the Mamiya was a lot less expensive than Leica ...

Lee

Well, as I say - my Leica gear is definitely 'on loan' and if the prices look like dropping, then it'll have to be converted back into funds.

 

[tsjanik]

Hi there
I have a mantra which I have (too often) said around here:

If a photograph is interesting then nobody cares whether it's technically good
If it isn't interesting nobody cares at all.

I'm sure it wasn't me you were thinking of, but the principle seems the same.

All the best

Hmm, it is possible that I am referring to your phrase. I hope not, as I have been on this forum only a short time and so should remember; additionally, I mangled the quote pretty badly. In any event, yours is a much more elegant expression of the same sentiment.
It is easy to be distracted by the technical aspects of photographic gear, when what most of us are really seeking the exceptional photograph - much harder to obtain than the exceptional lens.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, I have no interest in re-visiting Pentax system. I've had all their best lenses and enjoyed them thoroughly, the K5 seems a very good body commensurate with the lenses ... but I'm happier with the equipment I have now, don't need to spend a bunch to play with another system again.

Another Leica M ... I miss my Leicas. When I can afford one, without thinking about it, I'll buy one. I have no illusions about how much better they make my photography: I just like working with them. I chose to sell my Leicas in 2002 to further my photography in the digital capture world long before Leica had any digital M cameras available, but I'll go back there some day when the moment is right.

Meanwhile, I keep doing Photography with what I have.


..."Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...

 

[ustein]

>Meanwhile, I keep doing Photography with what I have.

And I think you do very well.

 

[ashwinrao1]

What a cool thread...in my opinion, I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level (when using asph glass) than K5 files. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I have found the K5 experience, especially with the KatzEye screen and older MF lenses, to be awesome. And the IQ coming from the modern FA and DA lenses is hard to discern macroscopically from shots I have taken with my Leica. One thing I love about the K system is lens interchangeability, and there's a lot of different looks one can achieve, and for cheaper prices (by far) than Leica, with great build and great satisfcation of use. I see the K5 as a keeper, and I am thrilled I made the switch from Canon land...

 

[ashwinrao1]

But I'm very clear why I'm using the M9 - it's because I love the rangefinder way of shooting, and because I like the lenses. It isn't so much about the quality, but more about the experience.

Jono, I am completely here with you on this one!

Ash

 

[ustein]

>I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level

The missing AA filter of the M9 is a big plus.

 

[ashwinrao1]

>I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level

The missing AA filter of the M9 is a big plus.

Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

By the way, I adore your "California Places" series on your website...Stunning work!

 

[ustein]

>Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

I also would like to see this. But then there would also be more aliasing and moire.

>By the way, I adore your "California Places" series on your website...Stunning work!

Thanks. Here is the link:

http://californiaplaces.com/

 

[Paratom]

I wanted to comment Jonos thread regarding the spontanity of shooting with different formats...and the sometimes "static" MF images.
I agree that it can be a problem to start having the priority on technical image aspects and loosing some spontanity with MF, but I think it does not necessarly has to be the case.
Specially with the S2 I feel very flexible (with maybe the exception of not having superfast continous AF and high ISO). I feel to see the subject very good which is important, I feel to be able to play a lot with shallow DOF when I want to, I feel the sensor allows to play with contrast/shaddow/light, the room for cropping (because of high resolution) lets me tking images quite fast without having 100% correct framing. Most of the images come out as I thought they would come out. Also an advantage of primes that I do know my lenses and which "look" I achieve with them.
In comparison for example with the EP2 and a zoom my vision is not so clear, I can not see the subject as good when taking the image, I do not have such a good feeling which sky I can "catch" and which one I will blow out (or get to much noise in the shaddows), also with the many switches and menues I feel unsecure if I have all settings right.
What I mean, as funny as it might sound, I feel faster and more spontanious with the S2 then with an EP2.
There are times when I prefer a smaller camera like the x1, M9 or K5 or want the fast AF of a D700, but there are also times when I prefer the S2 even for subjects where I dont need the resolution and IQ - just because it works better for me as a camera.

I dont know yet, but with the M9 and K5 I feel they are both spontanious cameras for me, with an advantage for the user interface of the M9 which I just know better, and the plus that I dont have to worry about lens quality, and more flexibility regarding f-stops vs. the K5 having more room regarding high ISO and Tele-lenses and AF (sometimes).

What did I want to say again?
I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.

 

[jonoslack]

What did I want to say again?
I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.

Hi Tom
you said it very clearly, and your pictures (and for instance CEH's shots) show that to be the case - I think it's the great thing about the S2 . . . . you know how close I came to that particular brink! At least if I change my mind later I have a little Leica 'currency' to get me closer to it.

I quite agree with you about the general run of the 'mirrorless' cameras - I find them hard to ignore, which is the beauty of the M9, it disappears when shooting - and the K5 also does that with some practice I think.

all the best

 

[m3photo]

Re: RF choices

If Zeiss or CV had a digital RF at half the cost, I would easily buy into that system, given that they offer comparable quality.

Ah, may the gods hear ye. Frankly I'm still puzzled as to Epson's lack of an upgrade to their excellent RD camera.

 

[jonoslack]

What a cool thread...in my opinion, I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level (when using asph glass) than K5 files. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I have found the K5 experience, especially with the KatzEye screen and older MF lenses, to be awesome. And the IQ coming from the modern FA and DA lenses is hard to discern macroscopically from shots I have taken with my Leica. One thing I love about the K system is lens interchangeability, and there's a lot of different looks one can achieve, and for cheaper prices (by far) than Leica, with great build and great satisfcation of use. I see the K5 as a keeper, and I am thrilled I made the switch from Canon land...

HI There Ashwin
My feelings exactly . . . . although my Sony gear is still hanging on by a thread!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Re: RF choices

Ah, may the gods hear ye. Frankly I'm still puzzled as to Epson's lack of an upgrade to their excellent RD camera.

Well - I agree with you, but I'm not so puzzled: I guess that they didn't really make any money from the camera . . . which was designed as a means of selling more voigtlander lenses, so that when Leica brought out the M9, there wasn't really any need for the R-D1.

As for Zeiss, I'd imagine they see it the same way - basically, that there is a rather limited market for an M rangefinder, and that there isn't much money to be made from selling camera bodies after you've taken in all the R&D required, and as long as Leica keep making the bodies, they'll keep selling the lenses.

 

[bbodine9]

K-5 equals what upgraded Oly E-1 could have been...what a shame!

 

[Godfrey]

Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

The Olympus E-5 has a virtually non-existent AA filter, if it has one at all.

Detailing is incredibly good.
There are occasionally situations where moire is a problem.

K-5 equals what upgraded Oly E-1 could have been...what a shame!

While Pentax has some very good lenses, Olympus lens line is much more consistently excellent. While the E-1 can't compete with the K5 on camera speed, pixel resolution and light sensitivity, I much prefer using it ... it makes excellent photos still.

 

[bbodine9]

No argument from me on the E-1 ( I have an original issue also ) but just think if Kodak had continued working on their sensors and Oly had stayed with them...um, um, um!

 

[tsjanik]

I wanted to comment Jonos thread regarding the spontanity of shooting with different formats...and the sometimes "static" MF images.
I agree that it can be a problem to start having the priority on technical image aspects and loosing some spontanity with MF, but I think it does not necessarly has to be the case.
Specially with the S2 I feel very flexible (with maybe the exception of not having superfast continous AF and high ISO). I feel to see the subject very good which is important, I feel to be able to play a lot with shallow DOF when I want to, I feel the sensor allows to play with contrast/shaddow/light, the room for cropping (because of high resolution) lets me tking images quite fast without having 100% correct framing. Most of the images come out as I thought they would come out. Also an advantage of primes that I do know my lenses and which "look" I achieve with them.
In comparison for example with the EP2 and a zoom my vision is not so clear, I can not see the subject as good when taking the image, I do not have such a good feeling which sky I can "catch" and which one I will blow out (or get to much noise in the shaddows), also with the many switches and menues I feel unsecure if I have all settings right.
What I mean, as funny as it might sound, I feel faster and more spontanious with the S2 then with an EP2.
There are times when I prefer a smaller camera like the x1, M9 or K5 or want the fast AF of a D700, but there are also times when I prefer the S2 even for subjects where I dont need the resolution and IQ - just because it works better for me as a camera.

I dont know yet, but with the M9 and K5 I feel they are both spontanious cameras for me, with an advantage for the user interface of the M9 which I just know better, and the plus that I dont have to worry about lens quality, and more flexibility regarding f-stops vs. the K5 having more room regarding high ISO and Tele-lenses and AF (sometimes).

What did I want to say again?
I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.

Hi Thomas:

I understand you comments. I recently bought a 645D; it is my first “serious “digital camera, i.e., it has replaced my film cameras. I am very comfortable with the 645D, it behaves much like a 645N: I can set the aperture on the lens, not the viewfinder and the viewfinder image is very clear, unlike the DSLR cameras I’ve tried. I understand the spontaneity aspect you mention as well. Here is an image taken with the 645D and 400mm FA. Nothing exceptional, but it could have been. The finder and autofocus of the 645D allowed me to capture it. A shot (handheld) of migrating mergansers who gather in a nearby harbor during their spring migration. Also a crop. A nearly impossible shot on my film cameras.

Tom