'5 reasons to buy a Leica M8/M9 in 2016'

Leica lenses are sharp, but in any case sharpness is not at all the only measure of a lens. There is also

such a thing as <i>too</i> sharp- on the edge needle sharp- which is something at times I think about the

images that come out of my Sigma DP-1.<p>

 

Ken Rockwell is in the business to promote and sell equipment, whichever piece of equipment it may be.

<p>"I made the move from Leica to a Sony A7ii as well. What makes me happy for the change?"Edward.<br /> <br /> If you are happy with with your move from Leica to Sony that is all that matters for you. However, us Leica users are also happy with our M's.<br /> <br /> We really don't need to be preached to about the latest wiz bang.</p>

<p>"However the Sony does everything the M9 does and more. It is sharper"Edward.<br /> <br /> Once again I refer you to your own posts.</p>

<p>You posted that you bought the latest Sony zoom and it was good as your Zeiss primes. Indeed you were seriously thinking about selling those primes.</p>

<p>You posted photos to prove that the Sony zoom was just as good as your Zeiss prime lenses. They were rubbish to put it bluntly, dull and flat, which you excepted when other posters pointed it out.The last photo you posted from your M9, even to the untutored eye ,was in a different place. The richness of tonality, sharpness, and...do I need to say more?<br /> </p>

<p>Edward, I get two thoughts about your posts.</p>

<p>The first thought is I'm talking to a kindly gentleman, who is very excited about his new camera, and wants to tell the world about how wonderful it is.</p>

<p>The second thought is that I'm actually talking to Sony's marketing...sort of, get onto the forums, and promote the product.</p>

<p>I like the kindly gentleman thought best.</p>

<img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/2/1470/23985093090_888ddd1a4f_o.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Skate and

Funzone"><p>

 

50/1.1 Nokton, wide-open, 1/125th second ISO 2500, Leica M9.<p>

 

<img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/512/18970241924_758eceeff7_o.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Skyline

Caverns"><p>

 

35/1.2 Nokton, 1/25th Sec, ISO 2500, Leica M9. <p>

<p>

Using a slower 4x memory card reduces noise, improves high-ISO performance on the CCD based cameras.

<img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7415/16335237507_580a22188f_o.jpg" width="682" height="1024"

alt="M8_4_F15_ISO5000"><p>

 

Leica M8, using M8RAW2DNG- ISO 5000 equivalent. Shot at Base ISO160, exposure made on Manual using the M

Monochrom metering at ISO5000. Pushed in post using Lightroom levels.<p>

 

<img src="https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7353/16520126332_e8e17514ff_o.jpg" width="681" height="1024"

alt="Monochrom4_F15_ISO5000"><p>

 

The M Monochrom shot, same exposure, same lens, ISO5000. <p>

<p>Allen,<br /> I never should have responded to Ray's question regarding the Sony. This is a forum where sacred cows are draped in flowers, and barbecues are not welcome. I feel it was an honest answer, just not appropriate.</p>

<p>The CCD of the Leica M9 produces lush colors, especially greens and reds, whereas the Sony CMOS is more reserved (clinical). It's like comparing Fujicolor with Velvia. I have room to manipulate the Sony images, but they're never going to look the same, nor would that be a worthy goal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Using a slower 4x memory card reduces noise, improves high-ISO performance on the CCD based cameras.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait. You're sure about this? I believe you that the M9's ISO limit is often misunderstood. I'd peg it at 2000 from what I've seen. But the idea that the SD card has something to do with noise makes me a little bit skeptical.</p>

I firmly believe this, and you can find discussions on the Leica forum that show memory cards that produce banding

problems. Fast cards will produce more bursts as data is moved from the memory buffer to the card. Using a slower card

results in a steady readout. Data bursts produce emissions, put more draw on the power supplies. A CCD based digital

camera uses off-sensor A/D converters which are more susceptible to electrical noise.

 

I did some quick, informal tests for this when I first got the M9. Used a high-speed card shooting at the skating rink, results showed banding. Used a 4x card - banding was gone. Never went back. Maybe some day I'll try some tests and run the DNG files through a 2D FFT. That was the 1980s for me.

<p>I took a few test shots this afternoon to illustrate my comments about corner sharpness. No color adjustments were made (irrelevant in this case), nor sharpness added. I resampled image from the Sony (42 MP) to equal that of the Leica M9 (18 MP) for a better comparison. In previous posts, I left the Sony images at full resolution, which in a 1:1 crop, is equivalent to using a 10X loupe, leading to accusations of being out of focus. Everything's out of focus at 10x.</p>

<p>Overview<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18248595-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Comparison Grid (as labeled), from the area describe by the red box above<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18248599-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>A7Rii + Novoflex Adapter + Summaron 35/2.8 @ f/5.6<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18248598-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="600" /></p>

<p>The last image clearly illustrates degradation in the corner caused by the thick (2 mm) cover glass on the Sony sensor. This is visible to a lesser extent when the lens is used on a Leica M9, which has a 0.9 mm cover glass. If you wish to see how a Summicron and Summicron APO perform, refer to Ken Rockwell's site. I don't have them. I included results from a Zeiss ZM 35/2.8, which is noticeably better than the Summaron, which I bought in 1964.</p>

<p>In the top panels, I compare two lenses made for the Sony A7, a Zeiss Loxia 35/2 and a Sony 24-70/2.8 GM, set to 35 mm. This should support my conclusion that the zoom lens is superior to any other lens I've used in that range.</p>

<p>Not fair, Edward. Although good in the centre, both 35mm Summarons (3.5 and 2.8) are known to be weak in the corners. Similarly the collapsible 50 Summicron.<br>

Even Erwin Puts, the famous Leica apologist says so ;). Don't use these images from 55 year old lens to beat Leica around the head and ears.</p>

Not sure how many threads I've seen on this site go over 60 posts, and so far off the original posters question.

 

Now all we need is someone jumping in with a Nikon D5 and do some comparison shots against an M8 and 50mm f2 Summitar and we'll really be cooking.....

<blockquote>

<p>Not fair, Edward. Although good in the centre, both 35mm Summarons (3.5 and 2.8) are known to be weak in the corners.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My results with the Summaron are consistent with similar tests performed by Ken Rockwell on newer versions, including the M-ASPH. The Summaron ranks high in these reviews, especially f/4 or greater. You say you've never heard that Leica lenses were anything but sharp? If you still have doubts, show us where we're wrong.</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/comparisons/35mm-summicron/sharpness.htm#c56</p>

<p>Brian, maybe M8 and M9 owners should stock up on those slower memory cards before they disappear! I have some SanDisk 8GB cards which are Class 4. I assume they are the ones you mean? In any case, I think a lot of people, I included, don't quite appreciate the nuances in technology. They think that digital is digital. But oils ain't oils and water ain't water.</p>

<p>Edward, it seems that Sony is onto a winner with the 24-70/2.8 zoom. It is, however, optimized for digital, and so we should expect it to perform so well.</p>

<p><em>My results with the Summaron are consistent with similar tests performed by Ken Rockwell on newer versions, including the M-ASPH. The Summaron ranks high in these reviews, especially f/4 or greater. You say you've never heard that Leica lenses were anything but sharp? If you still have doubts, show us where we're wrong.</em><br>

Edward, <br>

My mathematics are pretty awful, but as far as I can see it, Ken Rockwell was showing very small crops of .5% of an M9 18mp jpeg image, and while he distinguished between 35mm Summicron lenses on the basis of quality, he was very enthusiastic about their overall image quality. <br>

Doing a bit of edge image pixel peeping on my 3.5 Summaron with goggles, I was disappointed about the corner quality even at f8, the aperture at which your superior 2.8 and my 3.5 are pretty much similar, according to Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium. <br>

I compared images with a Canon tm 35mm f2, which looked equally sharp centre and corners at all apertures, but was outclassed in the entire central area by my Summaron, again at all apertures.<br>

Nothing wrong with your lens, just a 1958 design for a budget Leica lens had to make choices.<br>

To get back to the thread, a great lens for an M8, with slight natural cropping<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>James,<br>

Nothing wrong with your math. The crops I posted represent a very small area of the image, about the same as Ken Rockwell - 700x600 pixels out of a 5216x3472 (1.9%). Had I used the original resolution of the A7Rii, the number would be 7952x5305 (0.83%). As I said, it's a tough test. It's funny what you find once you start to look.</p>

<p>The fault is less with the lens than the nature of digital sensors, which must have a cover glass both for physical protection and IR attenuation. The difference between the 0.9 mm filter of the M9 and the 2.0 mm filter of the A7Rii is shown rather clearly in my illustrations. It's hard to say how any of these lenses would perform on film, because the M9 is sharper by far than any color film I've ever used. My folder at (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1082377) illustrates the difference between Ektacolor 100 in an M3 v the same lens (Summicron 90) on the M9. The longer the lens, the less the effect of the cover glass.</p>

<p>Taking a step back, notice that the pine (fir, spruce, whatever) needles are quite sharp except in the extreme corner. For me, that was ample reason to look beyond Nikon for landscapes and architecture. Where Leica falls short, I've enumerated above. If these factors don't matter to someone, they can be safely ignored.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Edward, it seems that Sony is onto a winner with the 24-70/2.8 zoom. It is, however, optimized for digital, and so we should expect it to perform so well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I just replaced the slim neck strap (ThinkTankPhoto) with a SunSniper cross-shoulder strap, which puts less strain on my lower back carrying that beast.</p>

 

<p>I suspect lenses for the Leica SL601 are optimized for digital, judging from recent reviews. Native lenses for the Sony, both Sony and Zeiss, account for the cover glass in their design, but perform poorly on other cameras and in normal MTF tests (LensRentals inserts a 2 mm glass for testing). Leica primes will probably evolve along the same path, but perhaps not the M versions.</p>

 

Karim- I DID stock up on them! Have at least 20 that get circulated between the M8, M9, M Monochrom- and even the

Nikon Df when shooting High ISO.

 

On a humorous note, I do a lot of embedded systems programming and had to get a supply of 256MByte CF memory

cards. Larger cards slow the OS down. Bought 50 of them.

<p>Most of my cards are Class 4 cards.</p>

<p>Edward<br>

<em>'These images were shot with a <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm">LEICA M9</a>' ..... '460 x 460 pixel samples were cropped from the full images'</em> - Ken Rockwell<br>

not quite 'about the same as Ken Rockwell - 700x600 pixels'. Your crop is twice the size<br>

Sorry to be a pain, but I won't roll over and let you tickle my tummy;)</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>not quite 'about the same as Ken Rockwell - 700x600 pixels'. Your crop is twice the size<br />Sorry to be a pain, but I won't roll over and let you tickle my tummy;)</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

<p>Irrelevant! Would not my examples, at twice the size, diminish the apparent effect by half? Besides, you can't compare my results directly with those of Ken Rockwell. There are different subjects and experimental conditions. Comparisons are only valid within the confines of that experiment. Even MTF charts made with precision instruments can't be compared between manufacturers and laboratories.</p>

<p>One of the things I wished to illustrate is the contrast between sharp and distorted portions within the same image. This gives both an idea of the effect and it's extent within the image area. In previous experiments, I used a much smaller crop size (350x350) and a full 42 MP image. Everything in the image was blurred, leading to Allen's assertion that they were simply out of focus. (In my experience, very few things are IN focus, on the pixel level, with a 42 MP sensor.) I used f/5.6 because at that aperture, differences between lenses are minimized, and diffraction has not yet become dominant.</p>

<p>My effort was sidetracked, so some extent, by Photo.net size limits, which cut the size of my uploads in half. If you go to my portfolio and click on the image, it will be displayed at the original size.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18248599&size=lg</p>

<p>The other point I wished to make that 35 mm lenses designed for film don't work well at all on the Sony A7. Secondly, the same effects are seen when the same lens is used on a Leica M9, but to a lesser extent. The reason derives from the physics of light. A piece of parallel glass increases the optical path by a distance of about 1/3rd its thickness. The effective thickness is proportional to the tangent of the angle if incidence. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater than angle of incidence in the corners. Finally, the effect is greater at infinity than at closer distances, because the lens is closer to the image plane.</p>

<p>My experiment was designed to test the performance at the limits of the lens and system. In a positive sense, everything you do will be better, especially if you never look for problems.</p>

Just say no to MTF charts is what I say. Shoot real pictures with the intent to fascinate and see how things

come out over time. Use the tools that suit you and help you achieve what you want.

 

Any camera in the hands of a good photographer is capable of making images that can move people. That to me is what counts.

 

A used M8 is a fine choice if that's your inclination.

<p>This could have been an interesting thread. It should have been about the Leica M8 & M9. Instead some off brand camera was entered into the mix that is neither rangefinder nor Leica. Ray, above, says it all, "shoot real pictures....."<br>

Good luck with your photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just say no to MTF charts is what I say.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think examining an image with your eyes is the best thing. Measure twice, cut once. That way, you can take photos without having to think about equipment too much.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Karim- I DID stock up on them! </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I should buy a few more 4GB and 8GB ones. Just a few. ;-)</p>

<p>Not how I would want to be using my 21mm Leica superwide, this particular model released in 2011, so definitely designed with digital sensors in mind. At least, the ones Leica uses....</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-09-30-sony-leica-canon/index.htm</p>