Just used my new M9

[Philip Freedman]

<p>Just used my new M9 on this sunny London day, with my Summilux 50 1.4 Asph and my old 1970 Summicron 50 (v 11817), both RAW processed in Lightroom with just a little fill in of shadows and the usual necessary sharpening. Out of the camera in raw the shots are unsharp but they respond to sharpening in L2 fantastically. In both cases great colours and amazing detail at 100%- better than my D700 and Zeiss 50 Planar. Strangely, using the new 50 1.4 aspherical lens results in some chromatic aberration in the form of a little purple fringing around some back-lit subjects, but the old 50 f2 lens is absolutely fine and seems just as sharp! (And, for those who fondle their cameras, it feels like a Leica!).<br>

Philip</p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>Congrats Phil,<br>

I wonder how a Summar, uncoated Elmar or Summitar would fare? I still have these lenses but the M9, as great as it appears to be, is not in the cards for me. :-)</p>

 

[dennis lee]

<p>Very exciting Philip, any samples? Would love to hear about some higher ISO ratings. Seems that most people are shooting their Leica digitals at 160 an awful lot of the time. I'm kind of an ISO 400 guy. I'm hoping to use an M9 alongside my D700 as well. Would love to hear and see more thoughts and comparisons.<br>

Congrats, D</p>

[ray .]

<p>Dennis, the M8 is super clean @ 320, can have a nice velvety feel @ 640 that in <em>some</em> of my pics I've found preferable. At 1250 it's also a subjective call. Word is the M9 gives you another stop faster.</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>Here is a photo taken on the M9 at ISO 160 with the 1970 Summicron 50 f2 (resaved as a JPEG in sRGB at slightly reduced size - hope this works)<br>

Philip</p><div></div>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>I'm sensing an m9 in your future Ray.....</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>Here is a full size TIFF (I hope)</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>Sorry the full size version will not upload but I can assure you that it is sharper and even more detailed than the reduced JPEG when you zoom in !<br>

Philip </p>

[tedms gallery]

<p>Philip, did the purple fringe/CA/bloom not appear on the M8 or film with your 50/1.4 asph?</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Holy cow that's a clean image! Thanks for sharing it.</p>

[bjscharp]

Picture could use a skylight filter, but great detail!

 

My budget (and needs) dictates I stick to my M3 for now, but if I'm ever in the market for a new digital camera...

[Alex_Es]

<p>Well, I think Philip got his money's worth. </p>

<p>My only question, Philip, is how did you get the M9 so quickly?</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>Ted: I traded in my M8 (pre 8.2) since it had too many problems, and only used the 50 1.4 asph on slides and prints which did not shown any noticeable CA.<br>

Alex: this was thanks to Len at RG Lewis in London, where William Cheung was demonstrating the M9 and Len had two deliveries from Leica UK.<br>

Philip </p>

[vrankin]

<p>Wow, nice sample, Philip.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hey guys, how can a low res monitor show the qualities or not of Philip's picture? </p>

<p>You've gotta be drooling at the mouth for an M9, to think that. I am not questioning that the original is great, even in jpeg rather than RAW, but let's wait for some rigorous tests to tell us how much better it is than the m8.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Forgive my old eyes: it's a lovely picture, Phillip. But it reminds me of the thousands I've taken over the years with older & newer Leica glass, M bodies (M3 & M2) & film from the drug stores. I guess we're talking about 5/6K for a digital M, yes?</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>The new toy must be working always better than the other older stuff!</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>That attached JPEG looked good, but there was a bit of purple fringing along the right-most chimney. Other than that it looks really nice. And there's no hint of light fall-off. I wonder how the super-wide lenses will go?</p>

<p>BTW is that the same William Cheung who used to edit <em>Practical Photography</em> ?</p>

[Philip Freedman]

<p>The fringing was much more noticeable using the new 50 1.4 asph lens - can be fixed in Lightroom 2 but annoying. And yes it is the same William Cheung - very nice and helpful.</p>

[dennis lee]

<p>Thanks for the JPEG Philip, looks great. Nice neighborhood!</p>

<p>I get fringing on my D700 and find that LR2 does a pretty weak job in fixing it. Does this M9 fringing respond any better?</p>

<p>Well, what do you think Ray? Is there an M9 in your future?</p>

<p>Seven thousand dollars... boy that's a big number for a camera, a rangefinder camera. Keep thinking about it all day long... even while fishing this morning, sheesh, got the money, not sure I could pull the trigger. Plus I'd need a new 50. My old DR apparently won't work. At least it sounds like my old 21 3.4 will. That's good news.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Philip, perhaps it seems that what users have to do is figure out which lenses work best and stay with those for most or all applications. Even if this means losing a stop. For low light photography the fringing caused by a fast lens won't matter as much.</p>

<p>I must say that I think a new film process needs to be developed. I think it can. I think something with the grain of Spur Orthopan at 400 ISO is possible. But who will do it?</p>

[mikal_grass]

<p>Philip,<br>

Mazel tov on the new camera but the photo looks like it could have been taken with an M8.</p>

<p>Mikal</p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p>Out of the camera in raw the shots are unsharp but they respond to sharpening</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have not ever needed to sharpen .dng from my M8. I have turned off all sharpening in Capture 1. If the M9 .dng are soft this is sad news.</p>

[kbg32]

<p>I have never sharpened my M8 files either. I use CS4. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Mikal, you are right ... since the M8 and M9 have the same pixel pitch this would not be a surprising reaction to an uploaded internet image.</p>

<p>The difference comes in that the M9 is FF verses 1.33X crop .... so the file size is larger allowing either larger prints at the same IQ, or the ability to crop with less loss of IQ. This is not an inconsequential difference for some photographers. However, for others it most certainly wouldn't be worth the price difference.</p>

<p>Plus, for wide angle users, the M9 provides truer wide ability lens to lens.</p>

<p>(all the best to you and your family old friend : -) </p>