E. Puts has been busy: More of the M9 Review

<p><a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html">Part 3</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page158/page158.html">Part 4</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page159/page159.html">Part 5</a></p>

 

<p>It's kind of like he's saying that the Nikon is, indeed, better - especially over ISO 400 - but that the M9 is good enough. "Good enough" when referring to a Leica. Well, I never.</p>

<p>If nothing else, he's been busy building Excel spreadsheets.</p>

<p>Well the Nikon D3 isnt exactly chopped liver -</p>

<p>This guy's testing methodology is mostly geared toward film. This much is clear from checking out his comparisons.</p>

<p>He is indeed saying the Nikon is a better choice , but lets not forget he is testing a RF. I am not impressed by either the Nikon or the M9 photos. I think his expertise is more about testing lenses and not even there digitally.</p>

 

<p>In the older days there was the camera body which we bought for its features, and the film which we bought for its sharpness/contrast/colour/dynamic range/speed/grain. We could discuss one without the other. Today the camera <em>is</em> the film so to speak. It makes discussion and comparison complicated, if not pointless. If you prefer the superior IQ of the D3 you must accept the weight and size of it and the accompanying lenses. If you prefer the small kit of Leica M9 then you must accept the lower resolution and noisier high-ISO files, until if ever Leica will produce such a camera that rivals the performancy of top Nikon and Canon. That is hard to do because Leica has always to stay within the stylistic demands of his fanclub or risk losing his major market.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One of the main reasons to use a Leica is the weight and size of the camera. Leica is moving in the direction of increasing the quality of its sensor, which is admirable. Let us ask ther reverse. Is Nikon moving in the direction of decreasing the weight of their high end cameras? Are they producing faster, smaller, high quality lenses. Wouldn't it be nice for Nikon to produce a line of digital cameras without motor drive and autofocus with lenses comparable to the Zeiss line that is currently in production? </p>

<p>It is usually difficult to sum up Puts's product reviews, as he couches much of what he says in various ifs, ands, buts, and other caveats. But he's pretty clear on the M9: overall its images are inferior to those made by a high-end Canon or Nikon by any objective measure, but it is still a rangefinder and is therefore relatively small, light, and easy to handle. If I were committed to buying an M9, Puts's review would make me unhappy, particularly as he is known as the ultimate Leica ubersnob. Maybe the M9.2 or the M10 will be better. But by then, of course, Canon and Nikon will have raised the technological bar even higher. Surely there will come a point when even Leicaphiles will give up on first-rate rangefinder bodies that produce second-rate pictures.</p>

<p>Leica's future lies not with digital M cameras but with the S2 and its progeny. With the S2 Leica faces none of the constraints in design and concept forced upon it by its rangefinder fanbase, which, after all, reflects an aging, shrinking, and increasingly crotchety demographic. If Leica can make the S2 into something really special (i.e., truly better images than that of its competition, including Hasselblad) then it will maintain its ancient allure. If it cannot do this, it will have a hard time finding enough people to buy its cameras.</p>

<p>Why is he comparing JPEGS?<br>

Unfortunately the in camera JPEGS from Leica are pretty weak, and the claim that they have improved them over the M8 don't seem to hold up.</p>

<p>"Why is he comparing JPEGS?"</p>

<p>It's because he doesn't know much about digital imaging. However, the hepatics of the camera are unmatched, as the hand wraps almost sensually around the leather body covering, the finger finds the shutter button instantly and there is a mind-body synergy that allows one to almost telepathically release the shutter.</p>

<p>Or something. Read his Hexar RF review for more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is usually difficult to sum up Puts's product reviews, as he couches much of what he says in various ifs, ands, buts, and other caveats. But he's pretty clear on the M9: overall its images are inferior to those made by a high-end Canon or Nikon by any objective measure</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree with you if it weren't for one of the caveats in his article, as in,<br>

<em>"but at lower values the competitive advantage compared to the Leica M8/9 is not very pronounced, al be it visible"</em><br>

or in,<br>

<em>"The final result that the M8/9 can keep up with the formidable Nikon up to ISO400 (to be really critical) is a pleasant surprise."</em><br>

But then again, this only proves your point that it is difficult to sum up Puts' reviews. That's the problem with him: so much verbose text with a wide range of possible semantics, and so precious few real images (if any at all).</p>

hey, at least he's on our side. here on the LEICA forum.

<p>Guido, you are right. Puts said that at ISO 400 the M9 is almost as good as the D3. But that is like saying that at f.8 an everyday Voightlander lens is almost as good as an ASPH Summilux. Maybe so, but who cares? You buy a Summilux for what it can do at f.1.4; you buy a high-end digital camera for what it can do at ISO 1000 and faster (or whenever noise might be a factor). At ISO 400 there are a number of DSLRs, some under $1000, that do very well.</p>

<p>BTW, I am a big Leica fan. Nothing in 35mm beats Leica on film. I have a IIIa, a IIIf, an MP, and an absolutely wonderful, astoundingly beautiful black-paint SL, all of which I use frequently. Alas, from all reports the M9 reminds me of the SL: mechanically near-perfect, full of that old-time Leica feel and precision, but technologically obsolete years before it hit the market. When Leica realized what it would have to do to compete with the Nikon F3 and Canon F-1, it outsourced much of its SLR design and production to Minolta, a wound from which the R-series would never recover. To avoid repeating this mistake, I suspect Leica would be better off putting its R&D money into the S2 and give up on trying to perfect the digital rangefinder design. </p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>Your chronology is a bit off. The SL was introduced in 1968 and the Nikon F3 in 1980. By then Leica had the R4. The problem, if there was one, with the SL was simply its expense, not really because of its lack of features (it had open-aperture metering unlike the Nikon Canon rivals of the time). It did not have the huge system from the get-go that Nikon, Canon or Pentax had either, but it was not obsolete technology.</p>

<p>Robin, I stand corrected. </p>

<p>I was about to order an M9 this week until I started looking at Nikon's and Canon's current offerings. This is a blog entry on the new Nikon D3s, and I was bowled over by the performance of the camera at the kinds of ISOs needed for low available light, as well as by the camera's video capabilities: http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/.<br /> <br /> I'm starting to ask myself whether I'm really prepared to pay $7,000 for an M9 when I can buy a Nikon D3 (12 megapixel) for $5,000; and if I'm prepared to shell out $7,000, I'm beginning to wonder whether it might make more sense to give Nikon $8,000 for their 24 megapixel D3x.<br /> <br /> I want to make the transition from film to digital, and I'd like to stay with Leica, but I'm very unsure right now whether what I find so attractive about the camera - the ergonomics - is worth the hit; not just the financial hit, but the hit in performance.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm starting to ask myself whether I'm really prepared to pay $7,000 for an M9 when I can buy a Nikon D3 (12 megapixel) for $5,000; and if I'm prepared to shell out $7,000, I'm beginning to wonder whether it might make more sense to give Nikon $8,000 for their 24 megapixel D3x.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you consider spending ~$7K for a Nikon, I'd rather go directly for the D3x. The D3 is old tech, and may soon be made completely obsolete by the long-awaited D700x, just like the D300 eclipsed the D2x before.</p>

<p>Hi Guido,<br /> Yes, I know that if I buy Nikon, there are some issues at the moment about timing, which of course should be tempered by the reality that there is always a better camera on the horizon :)</p>

<p>I think that what I am trying to get across is what a revelation it was for me, as someone who would like to stay with Leica, to see what Nikon and Canon are offering. Putting aside questions of ergonomics and lens preferences - both of which are sigificant issues for me, so I don't mean to dismiss them - there is just no comparison. As far as I can see, Nikon and Canon are in a different league.</p>

<p>For me, at least, this ISO issue is not minor. I regularly push film to 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO, and I was floored at what the blog that I referred to demonstrated on this issue. I'm now beginning to understand a couple of earlier threads in which people suggested - and got jumped on for suggesting - that the Leica is a complete non-starter for professionals, and by extension raises serious issues for amateurs who make photographs in lower light conditions.<br /> If I was going to stick with film, I'd be fine. But it looks like moving to an M9 is actually going to be a liability, whereas buying a Nikon or a Canon will open doors.</p>

<p>To be clear, I want to buy a Leica, but I'm beginning to think that my real choice is between staying with Leica film and buying a Nikon or Canon, and that sinking a pile of money into an M9 would be a cross between stupidity and blind brand loyalty.</p>

<p>I got the impression that for the tests the Nikon was fitted with a new manual focus Zeiss 35mm 1.4. Is that right?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm now beginning to understand a couple of earlier threads in which people suggested - and got jumped on for suggesting - that the Leica is a complete non-starter for professionals, and by extension raises serious issues for amateurs who make photographs in lower light conditions.<br /> If I was going to stick with film, I'd be fine. But it looks like moving to an M9 is actually going to be a liability, whereas buying a Nikon or a Canon will open doors.<br>

To be clear, I want to buy a Leica, but I'm beginning to think that my real choice is between staying with Leica film and buying a Nikon or Canon, and that sinking a pile of money into an M9 would be a cross between stupidity and blind brand loyalty.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My impression is that Leica felt necessary to bring a new camera to light soon, as sale of M8.2 (and as a consequence, lenses) had fallen down badly. They had before them a list of desires on the parts of the fans. The two biggest desires were fullframe and competitive high-ISO to other brands like Canon and Nikon. Maybe Leica was not able to accomplish both by 9-9-09 which was the date chosen by the marketing execs for its pretty numeric look. So therefore they had to choose between competitive high-ISO with remaining cropped factor, or less competitive high-ISO but fullframe. Probably their research told them they can sell more of M9 with fullframe and improve high-ISO a little but not near Nikon and Canon. Maybe the plan is by Photokina there will be M9.2 with different sensor and Nikon-Canon-esque high-ISO. What is sad is how much money it will cost to buy and M9 now and then hear how much better is the M9.2 very soon. I know many Leica fans will not care about this money lost, but I cannot afford that attitude, so I think I will wait at least for one year and see what is coming.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My friend brought his D700 to a retreat this weekend and I brought my little Lumix. When you compare the two it is more amazing that the Lumix which attaches to my belt can take a photo at all, not that the really large and heavy Nikon with f/2.8 zoom lens can shoot at ISO 4500.</p>

<p>I don't really understand the comparison. It is the same as it's always been. If you have specific needs that are better filled by shooting with a Nikon or Canon, then choose one of those cameras. A Leica is a different beast. You have the lenses and the rangefinder ethos. It is better for some things. You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.</p>

<p>Phil, ain't that the truth. I like nice pictures, so I'll go out with an MP and a Baby Linhof IV and shoot whatever they can take. Few if any other cameras can do better short of 4x5, although plenty of cameras, film and digital, can do a lot more. Leica is for people who believe the joy is in the image. </p>