M9 - my 2 cents

<p>I've tried to keep my mouth shut concerning the M9 but obviously I can't. I have to voice the opinion that after waiting for a FF Leica body I am very disappointed in the M9 camera and the truthfully subpar performance. I know this will get some hackles up and I don't mean to do that. I just have to contribute here (and get this off my chest) as I feel to keep my mouth shut would be irresponsible. This is a $7000. camera body that doesn't perform as well as some $900. camera bodies; a subpar, behind the technical curve, piece of gear that is beautifully built. It's profoundly rediculous and in some ways highly disrespectful to the loyal user base here who are willing to pay a premium for the Leica experience and expect state of the art performance and flawless craftsmanship in return. This experience has been severely compromised. Think of it as Porsche introducing a new, beautifully built, 911 with a 1980's 3.2 engine in it and then justifying the Porsche premium cost by reputation alone. They tried this once and almost lost the company. If one carries this comparison a bit further, a Porsche today costs less than they did in real dollars 10years ago, and delivers a standard setting, state of the art experience on every performance marker. (yes, I've been a p-car driver for 30 years and happily drive a 993, but I digress). <br>

Some background:I'm a working cinematographer and director and maybe am a bit more demanding in my expectations when it comes to optics. I use a Canon 5D for my digital work and the L lens are fine. But Leica glass is IMO the only lens that come close to Cook S4 or Zeiss Ultra Primes. Compared to Leica glass the Canon lens feel lightweight and amateurish..they perform fine in most aspects. But once one gets used to the "objectivity" of Leica glass it's very difficult to use any other lens. I know that's not a scientific evaluation but honest none the less. (I won't go into my shock after viewing backlit images ruined by veiling from what should have been insubstantial lens flare I had shot with the Tamron zoom I purchased along with my original 5D). OTOH the sensor in the Canon camera is magnificent...especially the 5DII. Why did Leica compromise? They undervalued their customer by gambling that they would buy the camera if it was "good enough". This violates everything we had come to expect from Leica film bodies. Maybe the user has changed and the M series camera is now the venue of non professionals. <br>

I , not so patiently, waited for a digital Leica body that lived up to the Leica brand reputation, that had the same matchless excellence as my Leica lenses; the same bulletproof feel as my M7 or even my III's, a state of the art sensor that would have set the standard for low light performance and latitude, a camera that one wouldn't feel any compromising about and would perform without peer in any situation....a LEICA. I wasn't expecting or even wanting video or image stabilization. I'm guessing that in daylight the M9 will be fine but that's not the point. If it's about portability a G10 does a fairly good job as well as the new micro 4/3rd's cams. If it's about overall image quality a 5DII is very hard to beat. But the Leica brand was built on bodies that were flawlessly crafted and, if the need arose, one could hammer nails with; state of the art optical excellence, a highly unobtrusive and portable photographic tool that allowed one to create images that wouldn't be otherwise possible. Many here are making excuses (and in my opinion attempting to justify the monetary outlay..me too) for the sub par low light/higher iso performance of the camera. What they should have been doing is raving about the camera and the high bar Leica had once again set with the M9. If we are willing to pay 2x-3x for a camera body why should any of us have to make excuses for the camera performance?<br>

Thanks for letting me blow off steam. As I said earlier, it's only one guy's opinion and probably overpriced at .02 </p>

 

 

Joe Murray DGA Director/IA600 Director of Photography<div></div>

<p>Do you own and shoot an M9?</p>

<p>Jim, I wondered the same thing.</p>

<p>The M9 may, indeed, suck. But looking at images on the web is unlikely to tell you that much.</p>

<p>Joe, you can blow off some steam any time your heart desires, but it can sometimes temporarily "fog your lens".</p>

<p>Was that picture shot with an M9? </p>

<p>From your post I was trying to zero in on what bothers you about the M9. Aside from hammering nails, it appears to be high ISO performance. Is there something else I missed?<br />Personally the lack of high ISO performance doesn't bother me. Put it on a tripod, attach a cable release, and shoot at a lower ISO. Since value is in the eye of the beholder, I find my value in other aspects of the system.</p>

<p>"sub par low light/higher iso performance of the camera"</p>

<p>Perhaps true, and your particular need is understandable, but that is only one very small parameter of use. You may have tried it, and I admit I have not, but the M9 is said to allow fine reproduction up to ISO 1250 (as the M8 does, at 650, perhaps its limit, except in the case of B&W photography), then it is probably more than adequate for most photographers, Leica or not. Twilight zone photographers with their f3.X or f4.Y zooms may well appreciate ISOs of 12,500, or even 25,000. Most of us seem to live quite happily without those twilight zone specifications.</p>

<p>Shooting coal bins at midnight was not someting I could do easily with my M4-P, f1.4 lens and TRI-X or HP5 pushed to 800 ISO, either. I believe my IIIc didn't have anything better than ISO 200 to charge it with in its time, yet many fine photos have been taken with both periods of Leica cameras you have extolled.</p>

<p>I guess those who are really in need that much of highest ISO might get an adapter to put Leica lenses on their 5D II. I have heard that that is one way to squeeze that extra 0.5% out of Leica's photographic potential.</p>

<p>Joe, I don't think you've been fair to Leica or to the forum because you haven't explained what the problem is. We gather that you are disappointed and as Ken says, it seems that the high ISO performance is the issue. Is that it? You prefer the Canon because it performs better in low light? Or is there something more?</p>

<p>I am considering to buy a M9. I would like to have more facts about your problem. Is it bad high iso performance or slow processing or lack of sharpnes and definition or what ?</p>

<p>Tommy</p>

<p>Sorry if this is stating the obvious.<br>

Digital cameras are as much about electronics as optics, and Leica has traditionally excelled at the latter. Just look at how many companies have gone under or shrunk over the last decade, as they have struggled to adapt. Big companies such as Canon have huge research and development resources. Leica is a smaller company. So its hardly surprising that they have not led the pack when it comes to a digital camera. And don't forget that for technical reasons it is much harder to produce a 35mm sensor for a Leica rangefinder than a DSLR due to the shorter lens to image plane distance. And lastly, there is another issue. 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.)<br /> I think the M9 might sell quite well. A small light high quality camera that can produce results to rival MF film. It might even lead to an increase in bank robberies.</p>

<p>Canon is exceedingly unlikely to sell Leica sensors to use in the M9 or M10. Sony is apparently also not willing to sell their full-frame sensors to third parties yet. (If Canon does anything in cooperation with Leica, it would be a 5DII with Leicaflex lens mount.)<br>

Kodak's sensors have over 50% market share in the medium format digital market, so they can't be all that awful. A lot of people think they are pretty darned good, but being CCD, they aren't low-light champs like the best CMOS sensors.<br>

Leica is probably using the best sensor they can get on the open market. Also, time-to-market is an issue, so continuing to work with Kodak was a pretty obvious choice, even if there was a better sensor available for the M9. They need to keep their cash flow reasonably close to positive, considering the large investment in the S2 project.<br>

Leica can't afford to buy Canon to get their sensors. Heck, Nikon can't afford to buy Canon. (But I bet Canon could afford to buy Nikon if they wanted to.)<br>

Leica also has to use "older" components because they can't design and release products as quickly as Nikon or Canon.<br>

Of course, from reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious that there will be a follow-on to the S2 using Kodak's next-generation 5 micron pitch sensors (presumably the S3), they will probably do the same thing for the M9, producing an M10 with higher pixel count. Will that sensor have lower noise? In Kodak's marketplace, it probably has to in order to succeed.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback guys. And thanks for allowing me the bandwidth to vent a bit. Some responses to all of your very valid answers:<br>

Nope, don't own an M9. Will I? I don't know....probably....maybe ...don't know. I do know that if the cam had a great sensor and created superior images I would have happily paid the Leica premium....<br>

Jody, you are not the first to accurately note that my lens is a bit fogged but be that as it may, the cam is beautifully mechanically engineered but lacking in it's delivery..it's function as a tool. <br>

The sensor=the film. it's like buying a Leica film camera and only having aceess to substandard off brand film emulsions. <br>

Arthur, it's not about shooting in coal bins, it's not about iso 400 or even 800 anymore just as 1930 wasn't about iso 16. Its about state of the art performance and justification of an outrageous premium. Look at some of the images at 800 posted on the net. They are noisy. Leicas are not supposed to be "adequate" they are supposed to be superior tools. Yes, one can mount R lens but if there was away to mount M lenses on a 5D I would have done so long ago (and saved you all from my whining) but there isn't due to exit pupil/focal plane distance. Any optical adaptor will denigrate the lens.<br>

The standard has evolved, the tools have changed, there are images being produced today that one could not have produced 10 years ago due to great tools and engineering genius. One of the many marvelous things about being alive in this day is that the relationship between performance and cost is inverse with the upward bias focused on performance. Note the engineering marvel of Jim Jannard's Red Camera. Jim is an engineering genius who is literally changing culture and redefining the foundational economics of the motion picture industry with a $17,000. camera that creates images that rival $400,000. cameras.O<br>

Alastair, if I've been unfair to you or anyone on the forum I sincerely apologise. I too am a dedicated Leica user and sometime evangelist. As far as unfair to Leica, I respectfully disagree with the very concept. Leica discounted their reputation and their product by utilising a substandard sensor as the heart of their camera. They then ask 2-3x the cost of cameras that deliver superior images and justify it by stating that the camera is handmade and has a red dot. Once more, 400 or 800 iso isn't high iso anymore. The standard has changed, it's mid sensitivity. and at 800 this camera is less than. No doubt about it. Ask yourself, what are you paying 7000.before taxes for? For the ability to look thru a rangefinder and manually focus? Okay, I'm there. For the ability to utilise the greatest still lenses ever manufactured? I'm there too. The problem is the end result that in many cases will be of a visually discernable quality that is less than images produced by cameras that cost less than 1/4 of an M9. <br>

No, as I said earlier, I thought about the M9 and how long I waited. This mostly unecessary missive is nothing more than the opinion of one Leica fan(-atic). I guess to sum up, my point is that the camera is very, very expensive and it's performance is nowhere near commensurate with the price. More than that, it is a let down as far as it being a product of a company that was never synonymous with compromise or "good enough" or adequate. Considering the manufacturer and it's well earned legacy, it should have been the best of the lot and it's not. </p>

<p>The thing that bugs me about the CCD choice is the lack of live view.</p>

<p>A Leica M9 with live view would be a genuinely competitive FF landscape camera. Being able to use polarisers and ND grads with those lenses on a small body would be wonderful.</p>

<p>I'm also a p-car driver, but I have a 996, so I'm less traditionalist than the OP :) Can you really drive air-cooled car and accuse the M of being backward?</p>

<p>John, your points are right on the money and the point is Leica compromised and now we have to accept that and compromise also. It's simply wrong.</p>

<p>On another front I suggest you go to http://www.red.com/ and explore the website. This is an American company whose founder had a huge vision and followed up on it without any compromise. It is a testament to the human spirit and the ability to dream big and follow through. Jim Jannard started Oakley in his garage with $300. He then decided to build a movie camera from scratch and he did. More than that he built a brand loyalty bordering on fanaticism...go to some of the forums. As such Jim and his brilliant team have created a market where none existed before and inspired a not so small army of dedicated supporters of his product. I shoot mostly film with Arriflex cameras but am utilising and promoting the RED cams at every opportunity as I have so much respect for these guys. Red cams are 4perf motion picture standard sensors but check out the future camera designs with the large sensors...I wonder who his supplier is? I'm not suggesting that there is an image making comparison between an M9 and a RED cam as the demands are totally different. What I am stating is that quality and performance should go up as price comes down. Red is an extreme example of this but we should have expected more from Leica; I know I did.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>had a great sensor and created superior images</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You'll have to help me out on this one. The sensor in the M8 has a larger gamut than ANY sensor made by Canon or Sony. The M9's sensor has corrected the IR problem AND has even better color (the Bayer filter design has been changed) than the M8. When it comes to dynamic range and color fidelity - the Kodak sensor absolutely beats any Canon or Sony sensor. I'll be glad to send you a gamut plot comparing Canon versus the M8 to prove what I'm saying. The lack of the anti-aliasing filter gives much sharper images than the over-processed plastic look from the Canon cameras. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is the end result that in many cases will be of a visually discernable quality that is less than images produced by cameras that cost less than 1/4 of an M9.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't buy into this statement because I've used Canon and Nikon equipment, and the image quality from the M8 is better than what I've gotten from either manufacturer comparing a 12mp camera to the 10mp M8. The M8 makes far better color, and the sharpness is much better due to no anti-aliasing filter. However, I would suggest using only Capture One to process the images. The camera profiles and DNG conversion is superior to Lightroom and way better than ACR. The latest version, 4.8.3 has a profile for the M9.<br>

There is an M9 at my house for the week and I'm hoping to try some test shots with it to see the difference in it from my M8.</p>

<p>You're venting seems to based on projection, conjecture, and speculation rather than facts. Maybe you should take one for a test drive before making all of these claims - you have NO idea whether the camera is worth the price or not since you've apparently never used an M8 or an M9.</p>

<p>If high ISO peformance is your one metric on sensor performance rather than overall image quality - then NO, the M9 is probably not for you. However, there are some tricks you can do in Capture One to make ISO 1250 workable on the M8. ISO 640 on the M8 is totally doable and looks fine. I would expect ISO 1250 on the M9 to be equal or better than 640 on the M8 - another thing I want to test. If you want to shoot at ISO 6400, 12,500 or 25,000 - then you buy the equipment that does that the best - but you don't complain about the other equipment that won't.</p>

<p>If, however, what you want is good dynamic range, superior color reproduction, image sharpness, and RAW files that give a huge range of processing options - then you buy the piece of equipment that does that - and the M9 totally fills that bill.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve..once more, no complaining or venting...okay maybe a little. Funny, I feel a lot less passionate about the subject then I did earlier after 2 cups of coffee. Seriously, I tried the M8 ....didn't like it. Again I thought it was overpriced for what one got. Besides the IR issues, I didn't like the small sensor. I prefer the T1.4/8 perf look...that's just me.<br>

It's not really about color space, gamut, pixel size or any of the other techie stuff that i deal with more and more in my job. I've been privelaged to make my livlihood creating images and have produced great images (great to me I guess) with Holgas as well as Panaflexes, Arris Leicas, Hassy'ies, D21's. My musings were really about price points, value vs. performance and the devolution of a once stratospherically superior brand and is simply an opinion and we all know what that's worth. If the camera body cost the same as a 5DII I'd buy one and chalk the shortcomings up to personality but it doesn't...it's twice as much. Why shouldn't the Leica perform as well as Japanese cameras that cost 1/2 to 1/4 as much? For the price premium the camera should kick some serious butt in every measurable aspect. <br>

However I feel about the M9, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and defense of the product..not as much as Leica is counting on it but I do admire your spirit so you'll get no argument here from me. I'm sure you're correct for you. I hope you post your results...especially those concerning dynamic range. From what I have seen it's an okay, sort of slow and noisy camera...if it proves to have 2-3 extra stops of latitude then you're moving the discussion in the right direction for me. </p>

<p>Joe: For or against? </p>

<p>FWIW, the M9 is less expensive than the white edition M8.</p>

<p>double post...</p>

<p>V...that's exactly the problem...I want to be so for and I'm not. It's the musings of a guy who doesn't want to be on the fence but is..maybe more off the fence than on. I feel like I'm being held a bit hostage to being able to use those incredible M lens. What about you?</p>

<p>We are only just seeing real world experiences with the M9. The factory themselves have stated that their target was not high ISO performance, but low ISO. It will be interesting to see if Joe's experience is repeated by others. So far its not, but its early days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely not interested in the white M8. </p>

<p>I had a blast with the Panasonic G1 for a while. I lost all interest of late. Surely, videos and comibicams aren't for me.<br>

Perhaps, it is time to rearrange a few things to get back to the real L.</p>

<p>(no, none of the advertisement campaign persuaded me to show any interest in the M9)</p>

<p>Here's a photo done at 640 hand-held, in front of the Mirage Casino. It has been processed in Capture One and tweaked in PS - but, there has been absolutely NO sharpening applied. I do that at output and not to the image overall. If you look behind the busts, you will see foliage that has been lighted. In the original image the foliage looks blown out, but by using the Nik Viveza plug-in to lower the contrast and pull back the exposure to those areas I was able to reclaim the detail in the foliage (not the green trees but the golden areas beneath and in back of the trees). Also notice the detail in the shadows, that was increased in both Capture One and PS by using shadow processing. The sensor includes an incredible amount of image information that can be easily extracted using simple processing techniques.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a photo directly out of the camera with no processing in either Capture One or PS. It has been converted from the DNG to a TIFF and then to a JPEG - that's it. Notice the detail in the interior and also outdoors. The sky had very high thin clouds and was mostly white in the direction of the photo. Again, using simple image processing techniques, this image could be made to show more detail in the interior as well as outdoors.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a really difficult photo to make. I had under 5 minutes to do it and was not expecting a veritible African landscape when I went into the house. The room was illuminated by a single 100 watt bulb in the ceiling fixture. If you notice the window in the background, you can see a car through the window. There was easily 12 stops between the interior and outdoors. I have done several different versions and you can make the car totally visible but that changes the feeling of the dingy room with a single lamp. Also, notice how I carefully tweaked the color temperature to give a slightly warm feeling from the incandescent lighting. The amount of color data available from the sensor is incredible. The photo can be processed from totally white balanced to looking like incandescent lighting used on daylight balanced film. I chose sort of a middle path so that the colors of the animals would come through.</p><div></div>