Jump to content

M9 - my 2 cents


joe_murray2

Recommended Posts

<p>At last, some images and analysis. Bobs experience is mirroring what we found in the shop...that Leicas Kodak sensor without the filter is equivalent to 24 mp with a sensor.</p>

<p>Don't forget to remember what Leica's aim was....a fullframe digital M that could produce the kind of images that their lenses were capable of resolving with the film version. Its no idle goal. Its not all about pure resolution. Its about capturing the Leica lens look. So think back to all those arguments about why Leica lenses were better and why. Some people saw the difference, a lot didn't. It will be the same here.</p>

<p>They are not after a mass volume market. Their production line is a bunch of desks with people in white coats doing hand assembly. Look at the pictures taken in the LL tour. Leica don't give a rats about whether the 5D2 or the D3x is better. They have a niche to fill, and if it satisfies that niche then great. Already the first two months production is sold, so if I was the sales director, I'd be sleeping at night again.</p>

<p>Now, just for a moment, imagine this M9 sensor expanded to 3 times its size in a package that's smaller than the D3x, and that undercuts the price of ALL of the MF digital products out there. That's the S2. And the S2 is the main game for Leica... to be the pro's choice for studio, fine art, photography. I can hardly wait.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I'm just a little confused by all the rhetoric here. Shouldn't the price comparison between the top-of-the-line M9 be made against the similar item from Canon, the EOS-1DS Mark III? Which is priced at an unflinchingly high $1000 OVER the price of the M9. Supposedly both are the state of the art from their respective manufacturers.<br>

AND, the Canon has no provision for total functionality with the high end optics which belong to Zeiss and Leica. <br>

Above everything else, irregardless of whether you approve or not of the IQ, noise, or features involved from one camera to another. The pleasure I get from my M8, and hopefully an M9 when I am financially able, is what you pay for.<br>

Of course, we could just dismiss the opinion of Mr. Murray, because after all, he is a video guy (we Photojournalists who don't shoot video refer to them as vidiots), who has not yet experienced the camera in question). (Just a humorous jest sir, no personal insult intended).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm just a little confused by all the rhetoric here. Shouldn't the price comparison between the top-of-the-line M9 be made against the similar item from Canon, the EOS-1DS Mark III? Which is priced at an unflinchingly high $1000 OVER the price of the M9. Supposedly both are the state of the art from their respective manufacturers.<br>

AND, the Canon has no provision for total functionality with the high end optics which belong to Zeiss and Leica. <br>

Above everything else, irregardless of whether you approve or not of the IQ, noise, or features involved from one camera to another. The pleasure I get from my M8, and hopefully an M9 when I am financially able, is what you pay for.<br>

Of course, we could just dismiss the opinion of Mr. Murray, because after all, he is a video guy (we Photojournalists who don't shoot video refer to them as vidiots), who has not yet experienced the camera in question). (Just a humorous jest sir, no personal insult intended).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gee; for the last 7 plus decades a new Leica body cost more than 1930's Retina or Exakta; or a 1959 Nikon F; or a 1965 Nikkormat; or whatever. Maybe I am missing something here; or some folks are just new to cameras?<br>

The production volumes of digital rangefinders is real low; thus they have to cost more than a mainstream camera made in high volumes.<br>

I sort of get the feeling that very few folks on photo.net have worked in manufacturing and launching products where costs are considered.<br>

M8's and M9's and RD-1's are expensive compared to a Canon dRebel that are made in the millions.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Roberto...umm, no video guy here but I have exposed millions (literally, no lie) feet of 35mm motion picture film on some very very very expensive movies and commercials around the world. I've been transitioning into the new digital cinematography world as the job demands (I shot the last Star War images that were exposed on film...8 perf Vistavision, so I've been involved with high end digital images from the early days ...the mid to late 90's :-). I confess to possessing an engineering degree but I was trying to keep the ones and zeroes out of the discussion as it was more of a "one from the heart" discussion. And the truth is, although I have not experienced the camera in question, some very heavyweight people who have defined image making on a worldwide basis have, who's opinion I sought out and they had a somewhat tepid response. The discussion was about price vs. performance..the state of the art of the technology and whether or not Leica gets this new reality and whether or not their very expensive M9 is keeping up. As far as the marketing aspects go, alas, I'm way too familiar with the sometimes absurd justifications of corporate logic on this subject and I believe I could school you in that my talented friend (btw, lovely landscapes). But why dismiss any opinion, I'm wide open to being convinced to part with 7K so that I might experience the instant gratification of images exposed thru M glass. Steve and some others here are on their way to doing that. It's a forum, voices are to be heard and considered, no? Vidiot??? in jest sir? I demand your second meet my second...oops wrong century ..kind of like Leica corporate think? Just kidding..don't mean to start another war. Truthfully, no offence taken, I've been called much worse.</p><div>00UZC4-175205684.jpg.8b696011d6684d4698d80b882be962f6.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Joe,<br>

Just 2 guys, one a semi-retired photojournalist and one a movie maker (did I get it right that time?) with different approaches to the same question. My only point was that you spend whatever dollars it takes to "float your boat". Since I no longer shoot to earn a living, I am only involved in the 'pleasure' side of shooting.<br>

BTW, nice casual portrait.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The M9 sensor has worse color (both in respect to gamut and in respect to metamerism, as computed over a 4000 spectrum database in multiple domains) than the M8 sensor. A consequence of attempts to improve the high ISO capability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm in the market for a used M8/M8.2!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At the risk of repeating myself, the stuff from this camera looks like Leica shots.</p>

<p>In other words, it doesn't get in the way of the lenses.</p>

<p>Don't care about specrtum data bases.<br>

Wouldn't care if Leica used a "Digital Daguerrotype Plate" to get there.</p>

 

<p>IMO, the proof is in the pudding, not long debates about the mixer and bowls used in making the pudding ... LOL!</p>

<p>Give it a try, see if you agree. There is no amount of words that is a substitute for that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>High colour fidelity means narrow pass colour filters in front of the sensor, at the cost of high ISO performance. Maybe the M9 has better colour fidelity. (That is a guess and no more.) The M9 has, according to both Leica and Kodak, green and blue filtration unchanged from M8, and a wider pass red. So, by your logic it would have poorer color fidelity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can only tell you that in testing the M8 versus the M9 side-by-side - the colors coming from the M9 appear better than the M8. Personally, I don't care about "computations" or theory. What matters is what is in the file and what you can print.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor in the M8 has a larger gamut than ANY sensor made by Canon or Sony. That is a rather extraordinary claim, and it does not bear out what I have observed, working at the spectral response level for the Kodak, Sony, or Canon sensors. Do you have any proof of that claim?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why - yes I do. I have raw processing profiles for most all digital cameras. That is the color corrrection processing applied to the image in the raw conversion program that determines the final gamut of the image after it has been converted from a raw file to a TIFF. If you look at the profiles in a profile program in both 2D plots and a 3D model, you will see that the the M8 sensor has a far larger conversion gamut than any of the Canon or Sony sensors. Once again, it doesn't matter what happens in theory, but only what is produced for use in the final image. If you would like to see a plot, please send me an email and I will send you a plot of a Canon 1dsMkIII versus the M8. The M8 profile gamut is larger than the Canon. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Canon and Sony make a lot of sensors... And how does it do for accuracy (from a metamerism standpoint) within its gamut? The M9's sensor has corrected the IR problem AND has even better color (the Bayer filter design has been changed) than the M8. The M9 sensor has worse color (both in respect to gamut and in respect to metamerism, as computed over a 4000 spectrum database in multiple domains) than the M8 sensor. A consequence of attempts to improve the high ISO capability.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a rather extraordinary claim. Do you have any proof of that claim?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Personally, I am surprised that Leica have managed to pull off what they have with the M9. It was quite a feat of engineering and they've done it. Credit to them.</p>

<p>But... I know what Joe is saying. Leica used to be the byword for photographic excellence. It isn't any more. Their lenses are still tops, their workmanship is unmatched but they're no longer the kings of image quality in 35mm format cameras. Let's face it, they're highly unlikely to be any more. They don't have the huge resources of Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>The M9 is better than I expected, but it's not the best by a long way. And it's no good grumbling about the price. Leica (like any good company) only charge what people are prepared to pay. If people are stupid enough to pay $7000 then Leica will keep boxing them up and shipping them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Beautiful images in your portfolio..I really responded to the contrast between the formality of your compositions and the randomness and unpredictability in the world within them.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Joe - not everyone "gets them." I was out all day yesterday <a href="http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~langmuir/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.mro.nmt.edu/About/about.htm">here</a> working on a video systems / fiber optic system distribution problem and could not participate in the forum discussion.</p>

<p>Having looked carefully at your photograph, if the image represents the kind of conditions you photograph in regularly, I understand why you're concerned about high ISO performance. Extrapolating the image to a print, I can see how noise in the image would disrupt the wonderfully subtle tonal transitions in the dark areas, and not just affect textures and details. While the noise in the M8 (and probably the M9) looks a lot like film grain, your images need smooth tonal transitions such as in the sculptural blending of curves on the side of the car as seen through tonal changes over its surface. The dark areas are of great importance, and cannot be lost or degraded. Nice photo, I'd love to see what happens on "Soul Sunday." Do you have other images online I can look at? </p>

<p>I would make the following suggestion. The dealers should be getting M9 demonstration units within the next month. That should allow you to setup a demonstration with a Leica dealer. You should be able to get an M9 to use over a weekend and shoot under the kind of conditions you work in. If you cannot find a dealer that is willing to do that, send me an email, and I will get with a friend who is a Leica rep and see how to get this worked out for you.</p>

<p>The caveat being that how the DNG files are converted makes a real difference in the process. I gave up using PS ACR on Leica DNG files. It not only screws up the color, but degrades sharpness (a double bonus...?). Leica includes Lightroom with the M9 instead of Capture One (included with the M8). From reading usage reports on the Leica Forum (l-camera), users find Lightroom much better than ACR but still not quite as good as Capture One 4.8.3. I've never used Lightroom for file conversion, and therefore cannot make a personal obervation from my experience. However, rumours (including information from the Leica rep) seem to indicate that there will soon be a Lightroom upgrade with better DNG RAW conversion processing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jamie, I guess that sums up much more succinctly what I was saying.<br>

Steve..Thank you for your most generous offer. Actually, Leica should thank you also as you've probably tipped the scale in my decision to accept the limitations of the camera, focus on the advantages that chiefly being the ability to create digital images with my M lenses. Your observation about noise appearing more like film grain is also very appealing. Some here have offered the observation that images that come from the camera are identifiably Leica in personality. That makes me smile as of course they are...it's the glass, pure and simple. The M film bodies didn't influence the image and were merely a beautifully crafted transport mechanism. OTOH I'm also a huge believer in the way a perfect tool influences the artist..I've always advocated that there is indeed a ghost in the machine if that machine was designed by engineer's who understand that concept (Porsche). Leica cameras are indeed possessed. I don't pick up the same vibe from a 5DII. Anyway, I digress.<br>

Let's talk about the images. A fun story behind the soul car image. I shot the car on a location scout in Cleveland back in the Spring. We were driving through a wonderful lively neighborhood and there it was. I had the creative director who was driving stop and he looked at me like I was out of my mind, jumped out and suffered the verbal abuse of some passing cars while I exposed a few frames. The owner of the car came out of a bar behind me with a few of his friends to inquire in a less than friendly manner why I was photographing his ride. I always carry a small pocket portfolio with me just for such occasions but in this case I showed him the images on the lcd and they all gathered around looking back and forth between the image and the scene in front of them as the ambient light faded and the scene transformed. It was very cool as they all "got it". They were seeing their world differently. I sent them a print. Thanks for your interest in my work. You can to my website at nativesonsfilms.com and there is a small gallery of images. I haven't updated the site in a few years but it's on the to-do list. Here's another Leica image I took a few years ago at Eglin AFB in Fla. If you saw the film The Hurt Locker, these are the real heroes who the film is about. Talk about self sacrifice and mission orientation....</p><div>00UZVW-175345584.jpg.b37565eda9d98338cb36d1b8bc501637.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"it seems like the m9 finally delivers great images"</p>

<p>It didn't before? As it has been out only two weeks or so, that is quite a statement. If you are referring to digital Leica RFs, the M8 does give great images, even with its 1.33X crop factor. I expect a small improvement in picture quality with the M9, but not a huge change. Pixel density is similar.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>hi arthur<br>

i meant that compared to the M8 which doesn't deliver good quality compared to other digital cameras. maybe i just got a bad M8 or I'm too spoiled with my D700 but what came out of that sensor was just bad_compared_to my D700. I used the noctilux and the 21mm f2.8<br>

I'm referring to images made above the lowest ISO setting.<br>

It just didn't have the leica feeling i was used from my M6 and film</p>

<p>i know, the pixel density is the same but i hope for and improved image processor.</p>

<p>i'll just wait till my university gets a M9 sample and I'll try it out then :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Michael,</p>

<p>Nothing is so black and white, except perhaps those fine products of darkroom printing. I may be missing some good digital cameras by sticking with Leica, largely because I acquired some really nice second had or new Leica RF lenses over the years and appreciate the small size of Leica cameas. The M8 does have problems, but it can deliver nice results, albeit, as you suggest, at low ISO ratings. </p>

<p>I guess I also hate looking through a groundglass and prefer the uncluttered view through a Zeiss Ikon or Leica RF camera, and prefer their small size compared to many Nikons and Canons. </p>

<p>If the M9 is a great improvement then I too may be interested. It will be interesting to try one, for sure.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>the disconnect for me has always been somewhere between the price of entry and the bollocks service from leica. i am less concerned with how the m9 stacks up against the d700 at high iso as i am with how long my camera would disappear into the vortex should a trip to jersey ever be in order.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...