K5 versus the M9

[Amin]

Godfrey... You didn't answer the question. The point is the relative bang for the buck of the K5 and Ltd primes vs An M9.

The same point can be made for relative bang for the buck of a Rebel XS and "consumer" EOS primes vs K5 and Ltd primes

Rebel XS + 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 = ~$1600

Pentax K-5 + 21/3.2, 30/1.8, 43/1.9, and 77/1.8 = ~$4650

No doubt the Leica kit price-wise takes things to another level, but one can make some terrific images with that Rebel XS kit.

 

[trisberg]

The same point can be made for relative bang for the buck of a Rebel XS and "consumer" EOS primes vs K5 and Ltd primes

Rebel XS + 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 = ~$1600

Pentax K-5 + 21/3.2, 30/1.8, 43/1.9, and 77/1.8 = ~$4650

No doubt the Leica kit price-wise takes things to another level, but one can make some terrific images with that Rebel XS kit.

That's a good point and we all have different opinions on what is good enough and how much we want to pay for the gear that we truly enjoy using.

If we compare the Pentax kit to a used M8 with non-Leica lenses then we have a more level playing field.

Used Leica M8 + CV 25/4, CV 35/2.5, ZM 50/2, CV 75/1.8 = ~ $4614

So now the question is more, does this setup deliver good enough results and which one would I be more comfortable working with.

-Thomas

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

The same point can be made for relative bang for the buck of a Rebel XS and "consumer" EOS primes vs K5 and Ltd primes

Yes, but this particular thread (lest we forget) was about the K5 & M9... I'm sticking to the original thread. Of course you can keep moving down the food chain of cameras until you are comparing a couple of Lomos...

I will use an uncomfortable b*tch of a camera if it produces the kind of image I like. I have always equated cameras as tools, never a religion or an object of magic or dare I say... Legend. If it produces what I am after I can use it... warts an all.

Like many in these forums I do not have unlimited funds at my disposal to lavish on my photography so to me, Bang for the Buck is important. I'll not get caught up in what an artist must sacrifice (monetary or otherwise) to produce his art in its highest and most favorable form as I do NOT consider myself an artist.. just a photographer.

There is an equation I use when it comes to photography and it is this:

Excellent Print/Image = 20% gear + 30% luck + 50% photographer

So you can see that, to me, the gear is the least important factor. Of course gear is important but give a Leica to a chimpanzee and chances are he will not produce a good image with the Leica anymore than he would with a K5... unless he happens to use auto-focus.

 

[jonoslack]

Great discussion - I think I have a different angle on all of this.
The reason I have a K5 AND an M9 is nothing really to do with IQ or compromises.

The point is I like shooting with both of them, but it's quite a different experience composing and shooting with a rangefinder and with an SLR. With the SLR one is looking through a tube at a view of the world, whether using a fixed focal length or with a zoom. A rangefinder gives one a fixed view, it's like taking pictures by framing with one's fingers.

As far as ART is concerned, I'm afraid I don't really associate it much with either the gear or the experience of shooting or the Image quality. When (if )I take a good picture it's because of me, and not because of the tools.

Really good pictures (IMHO of course) very rarely hinge on any kind of image quality criteria, it's about being there, seeing it and having the skill to record it - as far as I can see pretty much any modern camera can do that.

For me at least, photography consists of FOUR unrelated occupations:

1. GAS and IQ - I like the whole business of buying and selling the gear, evaluating it, discussing it here, pixel peeping - it's good fun. As an aside, Jim's question about value for money is rather confused by the fact that apart from the camera bodies, leica lenses usually appreciate in value rather than the opposite - of course one has to have the resources, but my leica lenses are definitely considered as an investment rather than an acquisition .

2. THE SHOOTING EXPERIENCE - walking, thinking, looking at things, snapping away - it is here, for me, that it's worth having an M9 and a K5.

3. ART - this is the frustrating part - getting home and realising that one has shot 20 bummers 150 perfectly okay shots . . . . and no good ones at all. If I'm really honest with myself, I don't think I've taken more than 10 artistically interesting pictures in 10 years, and the best and most liked one (and most sold) was taken with an E1 in a dark kitchen - it has bad camera shake and is out of focus and drastically under-exposed.

4. SHARING - oh yes - this bit I do like; showing a couple their wedding book for the first time; having a child's friend use one of one's pictures as their photo on facebook; - seeing a picture as someone's desktop on their computer; getting emails from people who have enjoyed the website; seeing again a good image on somebody's wall.

I remember looking at a spectacularly good website of landscape black and white shots taken with a 2.5 mp Kodak compact. I really don't think that one can connect kit acquisition with art, I really don't!

all the best

 

[Paratom]

Godfrey... You didn't answer the question. The point is the relative bang for the buck of the K5 and Ltd primes vs An M9.

I would say it depends what you like to do.
I have done only few comparison shots between the M9 and the K5 but in my case I did see a clear advantage in the M9 images at ISO up to 640 at least.

The other thing is the question if you like shallow DOF. If you do than it is a huge difference between a 35/2.8 on dx vs a 50/1.4 on ff, or a 21/3.2 and a 35/1.4 or a 15mm Lim which needs to be stopped down to f8 for usable corners and a 21 or 24/1.4

The next thing is what Sean Reid would call "seeing the subject". I think 35 and 50 mm are the focal length which work best finder wise on a M9, and the viewfinder is bright even in low light.
Frienkly I find the viewfinder of the K5 a little on the dimm side, specially if you dont have much daylight.
On the other side anything 90mm FOV and longer the K5 works much better than a M9 viewfinderwise.

Then we have other things like different user interface.
I have used Leica M for roughly 25 years now and allway got along good with them and I kind of like it to have this "constant factor". Simplicity which still works very well.

So I think it depends what and how you want to use the camera- and the question how much it is worth is even harder to answer.
Even knowing that technical IQ is just one little thing (and maybe the least important) of an image it is still something which is important for me. How much is it worth if the image looks the way I want it to look like? How much is it worth to make the image to look a tiny bit more like what I remember to have seen? (the way I have seen it)?

The most annoying thing of the M9 for me is the all mechanical coupling of rangefinder and lenses which means calibration of focus accurancy has allways to be done mechanical which needs a lot of patience.

For me the things why I see the K5-System as a good but not a great system are
-still not feeling safe regarding focus accurancy
-lack of fast lenses
-lack of quality control for lenses like the 16-50 (and some others) ...(not a Pentax only problem)

 

[Amin]

Interesting points of view all around.

 

[jonoslack]

Interesting points of view all around.

Aw - c'mon Amin - you can do better than that :ROTFL:

What I like about this place is that you can post something as potentially controversial as this thread . . . . and expect to get a raft of measured and intelligent replies.

Thank you everybody (so far at least!)

Tom
I'm really not finding focusing problems with the K5 now - as long as I'm aware that the focusing point is much larger than the red square.

As far as the difference between the two - I can certainly see plenty of difference pixel peeping the RAW files - under what conditions it's important I'm not so sure.

 

[Amin]

Aw - c'mon Amin - you can do better than that :ROTFL:

What I like about this place is that you can post something as potentially controversial as this thread . . . . and expect to get a raft of measured and intelligent replies.

I agree with you about GetDPI being a great place for this kind of discussion, but I just don't have it in my anymore. I'm happy to read along though. Almost always, someone will make the points for me .

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

What I like about this place is that you can post something as potentially controversial as this thread . . . . and expect to get a raft of measured and intelligent replies.

Yes, I have noticed that as well and it is much appreciated. One of the reasons I quit posting in the Leica Forum at DPReview was due to several individuals who always read more into my post than was there.

Leica Diversion.....
I love Leica gear, especially the glass, just can't afford it. I have often said that the Leica glass has been and always will be the heart and soul of Leica. They do make great lenses... not so much enthralled by their bodies. I sold my M8 due to several issues which even an unlimited budget would not correct. I'd love to have a FF M9 and a couple of lenses but that simply is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.

Back to the K5.....
The K5 is a wonderful, small package of digital technology. I've had it almost a month now and still find myself returning to the manual to understand things, not that it is complicated, I'm just a bit slow in my old age but I do appreciate what the K5 offers on a number of levels over my previous cameras, including my M8.

The bottom line on any camera is about what it produces and how much one enjoys using it and that is why so many camera arguments/discussions often lead nowhere. It is an individual thing.

I suppose what is "Good Enough" for me might be far less than what others would accept but fortunately that poses no problem for anyone.

Good thread, Jono.. glad you started it.

 

[Paratom]

Aw - c'mon Amin - you can do better than that :ROTFL:

What I like about this place is that you can post something as potentially controversial as this thread . . . . and expect to get a raft of measured and intelligent replies.

Thank you everybody (so far at least!)

Tom
I'm really not finding focusing problems with the K5 now - as long as I'm aware that the focusing point is much larger than the red square.

As far as the difference between the two - I can certainly see plenty of difference pixel peeping the RAW files - under what conditions it's important I'm not so sure.

Jono,
I need to shoot more with the new firmware upgrade and the K5 before I post any further comments.
I need to find out how/when noise reduction, focus, distance (seems close distance work better than medium distance), shake, SR, optics (and here also f-stop) influence IQ how much.
I also have been shooting too much with the S2 which raises my standards/what I am used to see.

And maybe I should get either the 16-50 or the 18-135 to have a more interesting alternative towards my S2/M9 with primes.

How good is your new 16-50 vs the 18-135? Have you compared?

For some reason I would want the K5 to work for me.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,
I need to shoot more with the new firmware upgrade and the K5 before I post any further comments.
I need to find out how/when noise reduction, focus, distance (seems close distance work better than medium distance), shake, SR, optics (and here also f-stop) influence IQ how much.
I also have been shooting too much with the S2 which raises my standards/what I am used to see.

And maybe I should get either the 16-50 or the 18-135 to have a more interesting alternative towards my S2/M9 with primes.

I think so - seems that even though the little limiteds are great, they aren't going to compete with what you're getting with the S2 and M9, and the K5 needs to be for something different (to be honest, mine is more a replacement for the compact cameras I no longer use). I certainly use the K5 with zooms most of the time.

How good is your new 16-50 vs the 18-135? Have you compared?

For some reason I would want the K5 to work for me.

I'm not sure that the 16-50 is much better than the 18-135 - of course, it's faster, but that's not so much of a bother - and also it gives a brighter viewfinder, and it has the 24mm equivalent (much used here). But it's a lot bigger too - in your position I'd get the 18-135 and just play around with it, whatever else it's fun and compact combination.

Apart from the 35 macro limited (which I have because of the macro) I've managed to hold off on the primes for the very reason that I don't need competition for the M9!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Back to the K5.....
The K5 is a wonderful, small package of digital technology. I've had it almost a month now and still find myself returning to the manual to understand things, not that it is complicated, I'm just a bit slow in my old age but I do appreciate what the K5 offers on a number of levels over my previous cameras, including my M8.

I quite agree - it's fab - lots of little nuances - I just found the bit to get the exposure to follow the focus point - very useful. Everything one could possibly need seems to be there if you look - and it's nicely organised as well.

The bottom line on any camera is about what it produces and how much one enjoys using it and that is why so many camera arguments/discussions often lead nowhere. It is an individual thing.

Exactly - my point with my GAS section above - there are no absolutes, just a sliding scale of preferences / priorities

I suppose what is "Good Enough" for me might be far less than what others would accept but fortunately that poses no problem for anyone.

Well, different between people, but also between circumstances, conditions etc. but my contention is that unless you're doing commercial billboards, any of these cameras are 'Good Enough' for any of us.

all the best

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

my contention is that unless you're doing commercial billboards, any of these cameras are 'Good Enough' for any of us.

all the best

Yes, totally agree.

And one more point.... While digital photography has been a wonderful development it has led to a level of pixel-peeping that borders on the absurd.

Truth is that many files, once printed, look great while they may have looked awful at 200% magnification in Photoshop or Lightroom.

 

[tsjanik]

Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the author’s name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly I’m afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
If anyone knows the exact quote, I’d love the reference.

 

[ptomsu]

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

 

[retow]

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

In a max IQ (file quality) in an as small as possible form factor comparison, both systems "tick a lot of boxes", albeit not all of the same ones. Looking at it from this angle, the comparison makes sense to me.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the author’s name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly I’m afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
If anyone knows the exact quote, I’d love the reference.

While I do not ever remember hearing that quote, it bears the weight of truth. We must remember that many of the most memorable photographs from the last 100 years were taken with cameras far below the standards of today (technically speaking)...

We, as photographers, seem to be overly critical and distracted by the technical qualities of images today rather than their actual content.

I never take a photograph with technical attributes in mind but rather what the image conveys. In the end, no one really cares what gear was used to take the photo.. just that the photo "speaks" to them or not.

To often we photographers rush to defend the gear we use rather than the merit of the photographs we take. I've seen amazing photos taken with plastic cameras (lomography). It's still about what the image invokes in the viewer that is the most important thing about a photograph, not its technical merit or qualities.

 

[markwon]

For me, a rangefinder and a dslr provide very different types of shooting experiences, hence, they are different kinds of tools. One uses a dslr with a zoom for utilitarian purposes, and needs to compose and make the shot within the viewfinder. This is very useful when shooting macro, telephoto or action shots. This is where the dslr excels.

But in the streets of nyc or any other place as crowded with movement and people, the RF excels. The point of using these prime Leica lenses is often for the purpose of zone focusing, which is actually faster "in practice" than a AF enabled top of the line DSLR. When shooting with my M8 and a 35 lux asph, I already have in my mind a sense of distance and frame in memory. It's another reason why I have narrowed down by Leica lenses to 24, 35, 90. Focal lengths I can virtually visualize in my mind before ever bringing the camera to my eyes. So I am constantly adjusting the aperture and focus ring without ever looking into the viewfinder to set up for a shot. At it's best, the RF is like a point & shoot with no shutter lag, much better IQ, and dof control.

I think many people who jump into Leica M8/9 have buyers remorse because they go in thinking that the RF is just a compact large sensor camera, which it is not. The entire philosophy of the "tool" design is different. If one is into macro shots, telephoto action, and other things in between, a RF is not the right for you regardless of the cost. It is not simply about cost in my opinion. There are many people who would be getting better shots using a Canon Rebel than a M9, simply because they are not capitalizing on the design characteristics of the RF body/lens combo.

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. The RF shooting experience is different and even better for certain kinds of photography.

 

[ustein]

>We, as photographers, seem to be overly critical and distracted by the technical qualities of images today rather than their actual content.

Yes, very much so. A sharp eye/imagination is more important than a sharp lens.

 

[jonoslack]

Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the author’s name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly I’m afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
If anyone knows the exact quote, I’d love the reference.

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