Im just a very small step away

[Gaston]

from purchasing a M9 and 35mm f2 lens "BUT" looking at photos posted on this forum some look fantastic the colours "POP" and some have 3D feel to them.
I can achive this look from my Panosonic GF1/LX3 and D700 if I play around in post processing so I'm wondering just how good are photos direct out of camera????? Could some one please guide me to a few :"POP": in you face M9 photos that are "virgin " jpeg and RAW out of camera

""This will help me greatly thanks in advance ""

 

[Maggie O]

You know, the whole thing about a Leica isn't so much the "POP" thing, but it's the experience of using a rangefinder. Like you said, you can get "POP" a-plenty from other cameras.

If you're going to spend seven thousand dollars on a camera, I think you owe it to yourself (and possibly your accountant) to handle an M9 in person and see if using a rangefinder "POPs" for you.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I think also you need to compare the raw files captured using Leica and other sharp glass to what the Nikon and Panasonic can produce. The micro contrast from the Summicron and non-AA sensor produce significantly sharper images straight from the camera than even my D3x and the best Nikon glass. It's true that you can achieve a lot in post processing but I've always been surprised at how little work is required with my Leica files.

 

[otumay]

I agree with Graham and would like to point out that my M8 and Leica glass get the colors right and require minimal post processing. I love my Nikon D700 and Sigma's, but have to work harder to get the color balance right. A small but an important advantage of my Leica system is that, I love the in-camera black-and-white jpegs and thus shoot RAW+bw(jpeg) always.
Best of luck with your purchase,
Osman

 

[stevem_nj]

With the price of a new M9, and what I have been reading about a backlog of orders, I wonder, before purchasing, try one, short term or longer, is it possible to rent one?
As with a car, try before you buy.
You may find the "Pop" and physical handling just right or not to your liking.
But that would be an expensive mistake if you didnt feel just "right".

just my 2 cents.

Steve.

PS-i've been reading and learning from everyone here, thanks. (Same name in RFF)

 

[Paratom]

I also do use a D700 and M9. Regarding color I find the M9 good but not better than the D700, maybe a little bit more tricky.
However the Tonal Range/contrast/Sharpness out of the M9 does come out great and doesnt need much pp IMO.
OUT of camera JPGS are fine but images converted in c1 show more detail. Still you dont need much post procesing for my taste.

Still I agree with others: rangefinder is a totally different handling and I rate the handling differences higher than IQ differences.
ALso when using rangefinder get ready to check lenses and to eventually send them in for calibration.

 

[Double Negative]

I agree with Graham and would like to point out that my M8 and Leica glass get the colors right and require minimal post processing...

Agreed with both of you... While I can get a similar "look" from my Canon gear, it requires a bunch of stuff in post. With the M8/M9, I get nearly perfect files right out of the camera. The saturation and contrast are there, and most files require very little (if any) USM. My Canon files on the other hand, require tweaking all of these things.

 

[d2mini]

I agree it's more of a rangefinder user experience.
Smaller/lighter gear, less buttons and doodads, and slowing down.

If all you're looking for is a "look" to your shots, don't waste your money. Most shots i have, especially straight out of camera, even I can't tell half the time if they came from my D700 or my M9.

 

[Don Libby]

I'll admit going into this conversation that I have no experience with either Nikon or Panasonic so feel free to ignore me.

I do however have extensive experience with the Canon and Phase One lines (1Ds, 1DsII and the current 1DsIII as well as P30+ and P45+ medium format digital backs). Guess I also need to add yet another caveat for those who may not know me - I'm a landscape photographer. I rarely do anything other than landscape and the very occasional wildlife.

I feel there's slightly more than a simple rangefinder experience to using a M9. I'll admit the weight differences are a huge factor just the same as the quality of the Leica lens.

I've had a similar conversation with another photographer regarding the overall images quality of the M9 versus a Canon and to certain regards the P45+ and P60. We wanted to make certain in our own minds that what we thought we were seeing was in fact that and not what we felt we should see or what we wanted to see.

Hopefully I haven't lost too many people by now. The general consensus of the image quality (tones, color, sharpness, etc) of the M9 just about beats the Canon and in some cases comes very close to that of medium format. I can generally tell which image was taken with a M9 vs our 1DsIII and in almost every case (so long as we do our part) the M9 image is better. It gets very close when comparing images between the M9 and P45+.

I've included a couple sample images that were taken in February shortly after I got the M9. I've also written extensively about the M9 and have done comparisons on my blog.

Don

Photos 1,2,3 and 6 have some processing, 4 and 5 have none.

 

[rchisholm]

I think that a rangefinder is for someone who enjoys that way of shooting. I find it to be a very different experience from shooting an SLR type camera. Image quality? Seems to be fantastic compared to 5D2, D700. I like the files much better than the M8 files as well - the M9 files take to processing easier, and I do not blow highlights like I used to with the M8.

Anyway, I shoot boring family-type stuff, but I have a whole host of photos on my flickr account from the M9, M8, 5D2, 5D and D700, so you can look and compare.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/feros-ferio/

rob

 

[PeterA]

Don - I love your nature shots - you get to see some beautiful land over there.

the M9 punches way above its weight and its megapixel count - it is by far my favourite camera system - much better files than I got from Canon 1dsmk11 when I was shooting that in 35mm or Nikon which I use now - dont let the rangefinder size fool you - the M9 is a serious camera and the lenses are peerless.

 

[Don Libby]

We were talking about this just yesterday. I equate the difference between a rangefinder (in this case the M9) and a DSLR (Sandy's 1DsIII) much like a Point-n-Shoot vs a "real camera*", meaning you can pick up the 1DsIII hold it to your eye a shoot with the auto-focus turn on; in other words quick and easy. The rangefinder on the other hand take a little longer and slightly more concentration to achieve the same image partially due to the manual focus aspect of the lens and much smaller viewfinder. I've always found it much harder to manual focus a DSLR than a rangefinder though.


*the term "real camera is a poor choice of words however I just got up and am waiting for the coffee.

 

[ashrafazlan]

Agreed with most of the comments here, go for an M9 not for the IQ (although it is very, very good) but rather the experience of shooting a rangefinder itself.

Another option would be to go with an M8/M9, which produces files with slightly more "apparent" crispness than the M9 as long as you stick to lower iso's.