Are we happy! The M9, THe X-1, The S2

[geoff_r1]

<p>That's less than an estimate I got from a Sydney shop last week. Do you know which shops are expecting stock? Out of my reach, but I'd like to have a look, even if just through the glass cabinet.</p>

[jbm]

<p>Les: Yeah, if your shrink can get me an inside line on a Panasonic GF1, Leica M9, and a Cervelo S3 with SRAM Red.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I am happy that the Japanese Yan has finally risen to a level that gives Leica a fighting chance, something that should have happened 20 years ago.</p>

[guido_h]

<blockquote>

<p>This comes at a horrible time, as I am planning on throwing money I don't have at bicycles, too (my other passion).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And on top of that, we must not forget that Apple is expected to announce its new Tablet Mac anytime soon now. The timing could not be more horrible indeed!</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>The X-1 is everyone's waste of time. Why fossilize a nice, big sensor with a fixed lens? Stupid.</p>

<p>M9? About bloody time. Despite the price, which is, let's face it, too high, I'm happy. I do see occasional comments by persons outside this forum who seem to think that you can save money by buying a 5D or D700. SLRs are not rangefinders, FFS. A D700 is not a cheaper version of an M9. I wonder if anyone actually pays attention to this stuff.</p>

<p>S2? I don't know, I am not in a situation where I'd need to buy a camera like that. Sure, the D3X and 1DsIII are cheaper but they are not in the same class as the MF level digitals.</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Guido H says: "I just downloaded one of the M9 test images (the Gurkhin) from dpreview and printed it in 16x20" size on my Epson 3800. Incredible - it's sharper than my Mamiya 7 pics, sharper than the Hasselblad, sharper and cleaner than everything I have!"</p>

<p>Sharper than the Hasselblad? I assume that means sharper than a Hasselblad <em>film</em> camera. This would not be surprising as 34x26 digital sensors are routinely reported as sharper than medium format film. But he's not suggesting, is he, that the new Leica is sharper than a Hasselblad medium format digital back, is he?</p>

[guido_h]

<blockquote>

<p>But he's not suggesting, is he, that the new Leica is sharper than a Hasselblad medium format digital back, is he?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I was indeed comparing the visual detail to 16x16" prints of similar scenes (skylines with fine horizontal, vertical, and textural detail), which I made from scanned T-Max 100 and Portra 160NC film (Hasselblad 80mm CFE).</p>

<p>This only applies to 16" Epson 3800 prints, and is entirely based on the one Gurkhin photo available in full resolution from dpreview.com. I just wanted a quick answer in the wake of the excitement on the evening of 9/9; I didn't do pixel and noise comparisons at 400% on screen; I wanted to see how the visual results compare in the final print size I most commonly use. My personal impression was that the M9 clearly surpasses prints from 12MP Nikon D300 and 18MP Leica M6 35mm negatives, and is visibly equal to or slightly better (and cleaner in any case) than prints from my MF film cameras. Especially if one considers the total weight, ease of handling, and packaging volume of an M9 outfit compared to a Hasselblad setup in the field.</p>

<p>Still, I came to the conclusion that I'd rather continue to lug around my MF gear on holidays and trips worth $7000, rather than sink the same amount of money into the M9 (and be confined to taking pictures of pets and flowers in my front yard) at this point in time... ;-)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>M9 looks great - congrats to Leica. Too late for me unfortunately, but then I could never have afforded the $7000 anyway.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>This is all a conspiracy to lead us into a life of crime.....hmmm is jail food as bad as they say?</p>

[guido_h]

<p>I don't know if I would want to be seen with a M9 in jail.</p>

[didier]

Yes I am happy !!

I almost feel like going digital now ;-)

X1 when climbing in difficult zones, M9 for all the rest of my activities !!!

And kind of proud Leica can create interest for a lot more photographers again.

 

Didier

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Hey, Guido. Do what a lot of leica shooters do. put a piece of black tape over the M9, and no one will know.<br>

LL's preview impressions after a day with the S2 are pretty amazing. And Smart Leica! The pricing is a bit less than Leaf, Phase One, H1 equivalents, plus the choice of leaf shutter or FP shutter. So its obvious what market they are targetting.<br>

I really hope the M9 and S2 are a commercial success for Leica. I get sick of all the Canon/Nikon argy bargy, even though I own both. Now if only Sony can tweak the firmware to reduce the ISO1600+ noise on their 900, then the midrange game will change. They have the body and the lenses.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>Guido wrote: I don't know if I would want to be seen with a M9 in jail....at least not wearing a French maid uniform. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Am I HAPPY? Absolutely!</p>

<p>For a decade I shot weddings with a pair of M7s backed up by an endless parade of different SLRs. </p>

<p>When I went digital for weddings, the roles reversed ... DSLRs with some use of a Epson RD1 and then a M8.</p>

<p>This represents the chance to return to how I shot weddings before ... with the camera I always preferred in hand ... a Leica M. </p>

<p>IQ? A pretty good shooter has posted his first M9 shots on GetDPI forum "More Fun With Leica M9", and they are all Leica in look, feel and quality. In the right hands the M9 shows itself as everything I had hoped for. </p>

<p>Any new camera, especially one with a brand new sensor, needs some time to explore it's abilities. I suspect we'll see more and more excellent stuff from this camera.</p>

<p>My personal congratulations to Leica. </p>

<p> </p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>Compared to the posibillties of the existing Nikon D3X/D700, Canon 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII, Sony A900 DSLR's etc., the new Leica M9 body, is a simple and very expensive piece of a digital camera only!<br>

My 2 cents!</p>

[guido_h]

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to the posibillties of the existing Nikon D3X/D700, Canon 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII, Sony A900 DSLR's etc., the new Leica M9 body, is a simple and very expensive piece of a digital camera only!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that, precisely, is what makes the M9 so exciting!</p>

<p>If you then look beyond the body at the lens range, it is hard not to notice the world of difference between the contrast, sharpness, size, and distortion of Leica and Zeiss rangefinder glass vs. even the top DSLR lenses from Canikony.</p>

[sitemistic]

<p>I think we mainly spend all this money to impress ourselves and our photo buddies. 99% of the folks you shoot photos of will not be able to tell the difference between photos with the M9 and photos with a Canon Xti and kit lens. Especially at print sizes most folks buy. I love Leicas, have several of them, but let's get real.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>The M9 has made me think for the first time ever to try digital photography.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>Raid...you bad boy. :-)</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>Jim Powers,<br>

The rationalizing period is not over. It is a bit early for a reality check. :-)</p>

[travis1]

<p>"99% of the folks you shoot photos of will not be able to tell the difference between photos with the M9 and photos with a Canon Xti and kit lens"</p>

<p>That's hard to tell, if they are able to..</p>

[odama]

<p>I found the new M9 and X1 as visually appealing cameras. I want to buy the M9 next February-March, but one thing I've to say, I don't like the new M brochure photos (taken in Cuba), the sky is always burned and the colours aren't real.<br>

I'm used to my D-Lux4 and very happy with it. Hope I´ll be happy with the M9 too. Why did Leica show us those unrealistic photos on their new M brochure?</p>

[jason]

<p>Thanks to all the responders..No one can see the quality on a monitor. Making actual prints from the download sounds good. I personally see no difference between shots taken with my Canon Sureshot 590 and an M8 when printed between 4 x 6 and 8 x 12 inches. I do see BIG differences between scanned film to digital! Anyway for those checking quality by doing magnification on the monitor that equals a poster/billboard of 50 feet x 75 feet. Get real. I would never spend that money. I am cheap! I used a Pentax Optio with 3,5mp for 4 years for web sites that i supplied the images..Kirk Tuck is following me.</p>