M9 - my 2 cents

<p>I understand how wide angles behave, but I don't think Joe was going for perfectly level architectural or landscape-type shots where you use a bubble level, etc. The slight tilting was perfectly appropriate for the 2 shots. Moreover, this wasn't really an image critique thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The wider the lens, the more prone to distortion it is if it's away from the vertical. I think both shots could benefit if the cameras had been held closer to the vertical. Both lenses are excellent, and can benefit greatly from being held vertical. Lesser lenses are not worth the bother.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We now have two pro reviews of the M9.</p>

<p>The latest was done by KR...he reviewed the M9 against the 5D2 and the D300. The D300 you say? Yes...He didn't have a D3x....and sorry, but it acquitted itself very well...go and read. Canon...you need to fix your 5D2 auto focus...or go fix Kens camera. Now all we need is Michaels test from LL.<br>

So far....the M9 at 18mp is as good or slightly better as anything Canon or Nikon can throw at it. Was that predictable?</p>

<p>Stephen, do any of these pro reviews provide test data as well as their experienced but subjective appreciation?</p>

<p>At one time, tests were udertaken in depth by North American journals. Now I find it better to go to European magazines (two French magazines are often cited for their quite wide ranging and quantitative tests) to get a fairly objective evaluation. Erwin P does at least give some tests data and makes comparisons with other cameras (his not yet completed 3 part review is comparing the M9 to Nikon D3x. See another current post). It is interesting that he says that the M8 is no slouch in comparison either.</p>

<p>Christopher, I find that with my 21 mm aspherical lens the more critical parametr for quality rendition is the accuracy of focus, especially in the off centre regions of the image. </p>

<p>Somehow I have a feeling the "Digital gurus" are missing some points in evaluating the M9:<br>

I expect leica to have a better surface on the viewing screen in near future and a slight uptodate on the fast end "Grain/noise" ( the only minuses I can think of) The plus factors are:<br>

-Foolproof focusing, almost "subconsicuous focusing" with wide angle lenses, a feature the SLR usesr don`t even realize, but second nature to a seasoned M shooter.</p>

<p>-Lenses don`t go bad even after decades of use. Autofocus Zoom is actually a "dust and debris pump". needing major overhaul and possible replacement after a couple years usage.<br>

-You don`t break your back after strolling a day around the city with a M leica, analog or digital.<br>

-You don`t look like a silly photographer pointing innocent people with a huge DSLR Zoom, just sneak around with a "Toy camera" M9, yet get better quality than most of the DSLR guys... If you want "Real quality" Then add a H series Hasselblad...</p>

<p>I've had an M9 for nearly three weeks now, and have used it for over 3000 shots with the W.A.T.E., the new 24mm 3.8 ASPH, 28.35.50 Tri-Elmar, Zeiss 35mm 2.8 ZM, 50mm 2.8 Elmar-M, 50mm 1.4 ASPH, and the new 75mm 2.5.<br>

The results are exceptionally "filmic" for a digital camera, extended latitude with few burnt out highlights and a nice traditional balance between low frequency and high frequency resolution/acutance. Just like using an M7 in fact...only digital!<br>

I've posted a folder with some M9 shots that illustrates the M9's filmic look (or as much as an 800x500 pixel jpeg ever can).<br>

I'm delighted with the M9, it's the highest digital quality in the smallest most convenient package. However, the M9's still far from perfect (what camera is perfect?). Chief issues, for me at least, are<br>

1. I abandoned the M8 when it repeatedly failed in difficult but not arduous conditions. I've already had one episode when the M9 went down, albeit very briefly, after being caught out in a rain shower. I hope it's robustness doesn't deteriorate further. I can live with the current problem, where a quick wipe down and a battery removal/replacement gets it working again, but not any worse.<br>

2. There's repeated examples of moire (I admit, nothing very "filmic" about moire!). But let's keep that in perspective, out of 3000 shots I've lost precisely one to moire, all the other examples were either trivial or correctable. <br>

3. So far it's required a sensor clean every 1000 shots (although this is with a lot of lens changing, probably more than average), at which point I'm spotting-off up to about ten dust motes per shot. This together with moire correction means you'll have to spend more time at the computer before printing each shot. <br>

4. The "One Meter" frame lines are a definite step backwards. They may have been acceptable on the M7 but with the instant confirmation of digital they're a mistake. I wonder if the reason they're retained is that "Two Meter" frame lines arelikely to make the 35mm frame lines too large for spectacle wearers?<br>

5. Personally I find the new broad exposure measurement area on the M9 is too broad, but I'd accept that's probably the best solution for auto exposure.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Since news came out of the M9 on the horizon I went quite nuts because I have used all Leicas made; I've been making images for 60yrs in a regular fashion and only slow down when the University begins. The question that I havee is whether our old lenses (less 6bit) will also have to be converted since the sensor is full-sized on the M9? I'd appreciate an answer. Thanks. gus D</p>

<p>Gustavo, 6 bit coding adds very little to the M9, it's certainly far less important than it was on the M8 where it was vital to help control the infra red problem.<br>

On the M9 6 bit coding will record the focal length in the EXIF data, and give a little bit of vignette correction (but only a bit because it doesn't know the precise aperture used for each individual shot). However you can also manually enter the details of which lens you're using into the M9 menu, therefore bypassing the 6 bit coding on the lens.<br>

Actually I'm tending increasingly to just turn off the lens data recording on my M9. In particular I like the more "filmic" look that the M9 delivers, and too much vignette correction makes the image appear more digital again.</p>

<p >“-You don`t look like a silly photographer pointing innocent people with a huge DSLR Zoom, just sneak around with a "Toy camera" M9, yet get better quality than most of the DSLR guys”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >What’s with the word innocent? Are they the guilty of something or are you doing something wicked to them like by their photo? Why do you feel need to sneak around; do you feel you are doing something wrong? If you do you should not be doing it. I don’t know any real street photographers who use a huge Zoom or particularly sneak around…..by far the majority like to be part of the street and are happy that people are aware of them. Why do you think, apart from looking at the poor quality M9 brochure photographs, that the quality is superior to other cams? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Please show some examples of this so called superior quality, your photos, and i will post some photos from other cams to prove otherwise. </p>

<p><strong>Gustavo</strong> - I have found two links you might find useful for coding non-digital lenses for your digital M Leica</p>

<p>M8 and M9 lens coding template <a href="http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2009/01/m8-coder-simple-manual-handcoding-of-m-lenses.html"><strong>HERE</strong> </a><br>

Leica digital lens codes <a href="http://www.digital-leica.com/lens_codes/"><strong>HERE</strong> </a></p>

<p>Allen Herbert:<br>

Talking about cameras is a SERIOUS BUSINESS, taking pictures with them is not so much...<br>

After aquiring the new CFV back on my V sereies hassy, I decided not to go to M9, even if I liked it and it`s picture quality so much. If the next M digital has a Wlan connection to a mini laptop (Nokia), then I might think again.</p>

<p>For an overpriced and antiquated toy, Leica is selling a lot of them. And they will. It is what the rangefinder market has been waiting for. Just my 2 cents. </p>