Sean Reid s Review of the M9

[stevem8]

I enjoyed Jonos write up and photos quite a bit. I am a real world kind of guy and appreciate seeing what the camera can do in a good photographers hands. I SHOULD be getting my M9 next week and can't wait to put it to good use! So far I am enjoying the real world users reports I have seen and hope to see more!

Steve

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jack,
I am glad you said the above. After reading through the thread, I was just about to post the same. To me, it is more valuable to read even a disjointed and rambling review (truly no offense to you, Guy) with lots of images under normal real world shooting conditions, than anything else. The "rigorous" tests and more lab-like testing is also good, as it helps quantify and compare things that some folks may find important, but overall, a variety of shots under all sorts of lighting, weather, etc., then processed simply, provide more practical information to me. While I have appreciated reading most of the reviews, nothing tells the story like images from a user one trusts to just put them out there, unvarnished, with minimal tweaking.

LJ

I will actually take that as a compliment to be honest.

Look here is how I review this stuff and it all comes down to use. I honestly could care less how it actually gets made, or what the frequency pattern of the Ad converter does or not do if there is one such thing. I go into these this things with a open book and think out loud and you bet it is scrambled because everything is like a puzzle you have all these parts and you need to connect them. There is no order to it and i truly believe people learn it better than reading a document that put's you to sleep. I read something and after 5 minutes my thought is so where's the beef here . Does it do this or that and can i make it work for me. I'm like Jack if Marc for example says something than I listen just like he is printing these images if say Guy these things rock , I don't have to question it or figure out why I just know it does.
Other things like trusting someone is key if is working for them and they are showing you images that prove it than all doubt is gone. My M9 report was purposely done to show as many images as I can shoot than let folks have the DNG and try it themselves. This way they can see for themselves and judge instead of getting it rammed down your throat.

 

[LJL]

Tim,
I understand your thinking and feeling here. Probably share the same feelings at times. That being said, some of the testing is really useful, though can be mind-numbing at times. The brick wall shots you mention are a good example, but they really do help when deciding if a particular lens can be counted on to deliver what you may want or need whenever you are going to shoot something yourself. One of the problems is that those "brick wall" shots are sometimes not accompanied by other useful and attractive shots that help create some of that inspiration you mention. Not all testers are artists, so it is good to see the blending of things on a forum like this, where you can get the details and inspiration at the same time. It is also good to see real world shooting and processing for where that matters. It is good to know that a camera can deliver a good file that is robust, but looks pretty good from the start. From that point, one can employ all the post processing they desire to get the art they want. For folks that may have to or want to deliver volume shots, like an event, or wedding, or that kind of need, knowing that the images one is looking at for review have come from a normal sampling of many hundreds of shots taken under normal shooting conditions, and have gone through minimal processing is helpful to evaluate things, rather than one or two shots that may have been massaged through dozens of steps of who knows what process or skill level to produce an image or two meant to dazzle or impress. Are you being impressed by the camera and what it can deliver, or by the skills of the processing, or by the artistic composition and subject? All do matter, so being able to view and separate the parts in different ways helps a lot. Just my thoughts.

LJ

 

[jonoslack]

I do NOT need to shoot this camera side-by-side with anything including my M8 at a wedding to know it delivers. I've shot so many weddings and related assignments I can immediately tell if a camera is going to cut it, and how well it'll do against what I already have in my gear closet.

The minute I opened yesterday's assignment and looked at the Browser full of over 200 M9 shots I was sold.

HI Marc
It took me twenty four hours to realise. At that time, every time you switched the camera off the menus reverted to German, and about one in a hundred shots had delightful purple zigzags over it. Firmware was 0.015 (oh yes, I remember).

It was this shot which did it for me . . .

I'm not even sure why. Sure, I've been doing lots of methodical testing, and I'll probably do more, but right now I'm simply enjoying it.

 

[Vivek]

All the brick wall tests on the other hand are well... sort of "missionary position" by comparison.

As long as it gets the job done...:ROTFL:

Why would any shot compel anyone to buy a camera (I can imagine someone wanting a print of that shot.)?

Aren't there other factors (cost, reliability, and such mundane factors) to consider?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You mean the drop test i tried it but half way down I realized it was Leica's gear so i put my foot out to break the fall. Don't repeat this too loud though. LOL

 

[Vivek]

Hope your foot is OK, Guy.

 

[fotografz]

Jack,
I am glad you said the above. After reading through the thread, I was just about to post the same. To me, it is more valuable to read even a disjointed and rambling review (truly no offense to you, Guy) with lots of images under normal real world shooting conditions, than anything else. The "rigorous" tests and more lab-like testing is also good, as it helps quantify and compare things that some folks may find important, but overall, a variety of shots under all sorts of lighting, weather, etc., then processed simply, provide more practical information to me. While I have appreciated reading most of the reviews, nothing tells the story like images from a user one trusts to just put them out there, unvarnished, with minimal tweaking.

LJ

The only part of that I do not agree with is the "minimal tweaking" part.

This is a rangefinder ... as fast moving piece of gear used in less than ideal conditions quite a bit of the time. I can't imaging shooting available light with a M7 and going into the dark room and just souping and printing it.

I am far more interested in how well a M9 file takes pushing around. How well does it convert to B&W? How much placidity does it has to manipulate lights and darks when the lighting is well beyond the dynamic range of any camera made? How do my PS actions work on the files? How well does it handle mix lighting? And so on.

In other words how well does it help me realize my own vision and what I want my photography to look like?

 

[glenerrolrd]

Appreciate all the input on how to evaluate different testing methods etc. And I will concede that the ultimate test is in the hands of the photographer and the best possible application of the tool.

The performance of the M9 will surely exceed any IQ requirements that I will have . When will Atlanta stop raining?

Low light performance has been the weakest part of the M8 and the most important part of improving my street. As I indicated before holding shadow detail without burning out highlights is a neat trick. Color is a little different at night and as ISO increases you seem to loose color depth. This is true of every digital sensor. Miss your exposure by 1/2 stop and you can t make it work (or at least I can t ). So maybe that will help with the context of my initial post.

As far as I am concerned Sean Reid is the most respected equipment evaluator both for the rigorous testing methods and for his getting to the essence of what matters in real life situations. I look to his reviews not to make a buying decision but to understand what to look for in my own tests. I guess if you already know how to "read the xray" ....great . This is why I recommended the links to DXO sensor evaluations...because you can see the issues and know what to look for.

Let me provide a few examples of what I learned about the M8(from the technical reports).

1. The noise at 1250 is about all I can stand without "magic post processing" and even then the images will be lost in the selection process when I edit...because they will not be good enough.

2. The limits of DR and color saturation are at 640. Stop beating a dead horse trying to make 1250 work. And yes ....sometimes the moment ,light etc carries the image. DR range at 640 provides about 1EV of pull back in the shadows.

I try to never use more than 640 .....use my fastest lenses wide open and take great care with the shadows.....

I have seen countless posts over at the LUF about high ISO performanceof the M9 ..most of which prove the opposite of what the poster has concluded. So I think consistent with others I have to draw my own conclusions .



Since Sean s reports provide one of the only side by side comparisons .....you can see some evidence of the differences. Guy explained this in his post on CCD verse CMOS...there are trade offs. The CCD sensors tend to have a more dramatic drop off in high ISO performance. You can see that in every test ...but how does it compare to the most common benchmark (my M8).


We have had input form 4 very competent but very different photographers..that they don t need tests to see the improvement in high iso performance? So are sean s tests irrelevant ?

 

[LJL]

The only part of that I do not agree with is the "minimal tweaking" part.

This is a rangefinder ... as fast moving piece of gear used in less than ideal conditions quite a bit of the time. I can't imaging shooting available light with a M7 and going into the dark room and just souping and printing it.

I am far more interested in how well a M9 file takes pushing around. How well does it convert to B&W? How much placidity does it has to manipulate lights and darks when the lighting is well beyond the dynamic range of any camera made? How do my PS actions work on the files? How well does it handle mix lighting? And so on.

In other words how well does it help me realize my own vision and what I want my photography to look like?

Marc,
I really do not think we are in disagreement here at all. Having files that are robust and can be "pushed around" are important. It is also valuable to see just how the camera renders something straight up so you know what you have to start with. If the DR sucks, you are not going to get that back. If the gamut covered is compressed, you are not going to be able to open it and exploit it. If the color balance is way off to start, you may be sacrificing other things to get to where you want to be. If there is a lot of noise, it will compromise your final treatment in many ways. That is why I was saying it is good to have images posted that have minimal tweaking, along with files made available that one can test their own processes that you mention. It is also valuable to see captures under actual shooting conditions, not just static tests.

That all goes for the image file/processing part. You are correct.....if the camera itself does not help you create or realize that vision you have, and in a way that is fluid and second nature, when you need it to be, then I consider that a handicap in its own way. One of the reasons why I have never really been attracted to things like view cameras or larger format. To me, the Leica has always been a tool that was meant to be an extension of what you see and want to capture. The M8 just took a lot more attention to get those results, in my mind, compared to what the older film versions delivered, or now what the M9 is delivering for you folks that are testing and using it.

Did I misread what you were saying?

LJ

 

[Jack]

So are sean s tests irrelevant ?

Not at all what I was trying to say Roger. Just saying I look to photographers whose work and commentary I respect.

Sean's tests may in fact be very good, but I no longer subscribe to his site, so cannot say one way or the other now. If you like them and glean helpful data from them, then it sounds like it's worth the cost of admission for your purposes -- but for me, it isn't and why I stepped off that train a few years back...

Cheers,

 

[wbrandsma]

I am far more interested in how well a M9 file takes pushing around. How well does it convert to B&W? How much placidity does it has to manipulate lights and darks when the lighting is well beyond the dynamic range of any camera made? How do my PS actions work on the files? How well does it handle mix lighting? And so on.

In other words how well does it help me realize my own vision and what I want my photography to look like?

Well said Marc. That is exactly what matters to me in my testing of a camera. I personally don't understand all those MTF charts and whatever. Too technical for me. To me it sounds like seeing your wife delivering a baby and trying to think about sex :angel: No magic, no creativity.

But I guess that is just my thought.

 

[LJL]

It was this shot which did it for me . . .

I'm not even sure why. Sure, I've been doing lots of methodical testing, and I'll probably do more, but right now I'm simply enjoying it.

Jono,
I have come back to this shot several times already, and I have to say that I really find it just flat out gorgeous. Not even going to try to explain my feelings about it either.....this one just clicks so beautifully. Thanks for sharing this one with your thoughts.

LJ

 

[TRSmith]

Why would any shot compel anyone to buy a camera (I can imagine someone wanting a print of that shot.)?

Aren't there other factors (cost, reliability, and such mundane factors) to consider?

Absolutely. But it's been my experience that new products aren't out there for more than about 30 seconds before someone discovers all their flaws and strengths (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) All the "big" stuff is easy to find and talked to death.

But when I see someone working magic with a camera, it makes me want it. Can I achieve the same magic? Probably not. But their example shows me what's possible and what the real potential is far more than a dry, elaborate, technical write-up. And it could be ANY camera. When I see what some have done with a camera like the DP1 for example, I consider how it might work for me. Further reading and scanning on various threads and forums reveals that oops, it's slower than hell. Ahhh, ok. Decision made. And not a single technical term.

It works for me. I love cameras, but like cars, I like using them more than buying them.

 

[Bob]

When a fine photographer, such as Jono, posts a lovely image, it does feed the gear acquisition reflex.
I almost bought an A900 too :ROTFL:
-bob

 

[Vivek]

When I see what some have done with a camera like the DP1 for example, I consider how it might work for me. Further reading and scanning on various threads and forums reveals that oops, it's slower than hell. Ahhh, ok. Decision made. And not a single technical term.

Understood.

I did not buy the A900 (won't buy an A850 either- nothing to do with Jono). It is an ISO200 camera as many users keep saying.

 

[TRSmith]

HI Marc


It was this shot which did it for me . . .

Very sexy shot Jono!

 

[nostatic]

d about one in a hundred shots had delightful purple zigzags over it.

Well now it sounds like Leica is finally designing a camera for me :ROTFL:

I suppose I'm in the majority camp here - reviews from people who I "trust" get a fair amount of weight. I generally rail against machine tests and brick wall shots but they do have their place. For instance, the Pentax 16-50* lens is notorious for QC issues. When you buy one, a quick set of brick wall shots will instantly tell you if you have a good copy or a bad copy. And Dxo gives you some data to help with decisions, as long as you understand that EVERY machine test has some form of bias, and the results must be interpreted accordingly.

So for me it is a combination of some "objective" data, but probably more comments by people who I "know" (usually only digitally) and their subjective impressions. When you can collect enough of the latter you can usually get a feel for what will and won't work with you. The a900 is a perfect example. I looked at some of Jono's files and they were gorgeous. But the consensus is that you can't really shoot that camera at 3200 or 6400 and get a decent file without a lot of work. Since I need to shoot up there, it fell off my list despite the wonderful glass. Once could argue that it is worth it to buy the glass and hope that the a950 (or whatever) becomes a better hi iso machine, but I don't believe in buying in anticipation of vaporware.

The beautiful images (like Jono's above) just help me to realize that the gear is not the limiting factor. The M9, in capable hands, can capture the slice of time. The question really becomes one of *my* needs/wants and preferences, and how well the tool fits. One can always change the way they work (as I've had to do going from Pentax to Canon for dSLR), but at some point there are limits to how much you can change, and whether you're working with or against the tool. Sadly, only some period of personal experience can tell you that.

 

[roweraay]

... it took about two days for the IR contamination to be discovered after the launch of the M8 ....

I wonder if that was a case of the "Emperor's clothes" where the "skilled testers" did not want to point out the IR contamination to Leica as a big enough problem.

Leica themselves were clearly aware of the IR problem but a bit foolishly assumed that it would not be noticed. Of course as soon as it got out of the hands of the "skilled testers" and out into the real world, the whole thing blew up in a day.

 

[jonoslack]

HI There

I wonder if that was a case of the "Emperor's clothes" where the "skilled testers" did not want to point out the IR contamination to Leica as a big enough problem.

I don't think it's quite that. . . but it's true that when you're testing you get bound up with the intent, and there is a temptation to tread lightly about things. I can easily see how this happened. I'd guess that this time around those of us who were testing didn't want the embarrassment of having missed something which the internet community could find in two days! (certainly that was true of me).

Leica themselves were clearly aware of the IR problem but a bit foolishly assumed that it would not be noticed. Of course as soon as it got out of the hands of the "skilled testers" and out into the real world, the whole thing blew up in a day.

I Don't think that's quite it either - with a rangefinder IR is always going to be a compromise (as it was with the M9 as well).
If you said that they were clearly aware of the 'issue', then I'd agree - I don't believe that they assumed it wouldn't be noticed, I think they believed that the compromise was a good one (and they were clearly very wrong) without ever really considering whether it would be noticed or not.

I think that it's also clear that Leica have learned a lot about communication (there are now FAQs on the website about IR and the compromise - and the testers have been encouraged to talk about their experiences and to publish pictures).