M9 - my 2 cents

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Although not visible in this size image, you can count the openings in the backstop mesh. I have printed the image 18x29 inches and you can put your nose on it to count the openings - the camera makes an image that I would estimate is equal to a 14-16 megapixel camera. The 18mp M9 should equal a 22mp sensor with an anti-aliasing filter.</p><div></div>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Does this give you some ideas about whether the Kodak sensor's performance is up to Canon or Sony? No sharpening on any of these images. Again, I do that at output for the image size being printed. I've got a lot more examples if you'd care to continue....</p>

[jtk]

<p>Steve, you must understand the prejudice against Kodak sensors: The old company has more experience with sensors than anybody else, which is cheating.<br>

You're cheating too! You write well, concisely, and from real experience! No fair! <br>

Good demonstration, btw.</p>

[bms]

<p>First of all - totally get you point. For now, I have canceled my order for the M9 (mainly because I really do not NEED it). IMHO, $7,000 can only be described as painful for an amateur like me, no matter is this camera is the end all be all or not, and you would THINK that you'd get close to the God of all cameras for that price:)</p>

<p>But, e.g., a spacious lake house where I live (in northern Maine) costs about what in Seattle is a 3 bedroom downtown. The Maine house on Lake Washington would cost above $1 mill for sure. Why? Because the house is worth what people pay for it and markets differ. What is the M9 worth - currently, $6995 (unfortunately it DEpreciates but that is another story). I am pretty sure Leica did some market research before coming up with that number and I am <strong>guessing</strong> that sales at $6,995 projected close to $6,495 and much better than $7,495, meanwhile letting dealers sell their stock of M8.2 at $5,995 and M8's at $3,995. They know what people will pay.....It is priced to sell. I would not be surprised if you can get an M9 for $6,495 in 6 months....Could it have been better? Sure (so could my D700, but not by much). Leica probably also knows that another 6 mo of development or a 21 MP Canon sensor would make a marginally better camera, but would not have sold a lot more product....<br /> There is a lot of cult - be it Porsche or Leica..... My German car (not a Porsche) is fully automatic, but people still buy cars with manual transmissions. You probably will beat me on the Autobahn, but my car will transport 5 people AND luggage. It comes down to Apples and Oranges in the end....</p>

<p>My 2 cents (only 699498 to go).</p>

<p>Ben</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>I'll believe the M9 is an overpriced underachiever as soon as someone else sells for less money a camera with a <em>better </em> 24x36 sensor in a body that can handle M lenses.</p>

<p>You think the technical challenge is easily mastered? The next smallest flange-focal distance in a full-frame camera is the Canon EOS mount, which puts the lens more than <em>1.5 times</em> further from the sensor than the Leica M mount. Every closer FFD than Canon's uses a much smaller-than-full-frame sensor (scroll down to chart <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lens_mounts">here</a> ).</p>

<p>There are more than a few of us who think that what Leica has accomplished with the M9 is nothing short of amazing and yes, that $7,000 is a (relative) bargain. Anyone who thinks the M9 is "disappointing," "subpar," and "disrespectful" can just shoot Canon and whatever else they choose--but again, until another company can match what Leica has done with the M9 (see previous paragraph), this camera represents a singular and unprecedented achievement.</p>

[joe_murray2]

<p>"care to continue????"...I don't know if I can take anymore of the sound ass kicking you're giving me :-) Seriously...stop being so nice to that M9 and push that damn EXPENSIVE camera ... how bout some iso 800 and 1600 images with 12-14 stop dynamic range. If you have a 5DII it would be great to see your side by side in low light levels. Sell me that EXPENSIVE camera.<br>

BTW, good lively discussion...thanks. I still stick by my original thesis...overpriced and underdelivers compared to other ff digi-cameras. That never happened with Leica film cameras. C'mon Steve give me some love here..a little bit true?? Because of 2 cups of coffee and shooting off my big mouth, I accomplished very little more than a studio meeting this afternoon and was checking this thread in the Disney lobby on my iPhone when I should have been preparing my notes.<br>

One more thing, some sweet images for test grabs. Cheers, J<br>

Joe Murray DGA Director/IA600 Director of Photography/p>

[joe_murray2]

<p>forum |ˈfôrəm|noun ( pl. forums ):<br>

1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged <br>

2 a court or tribunal.<br>

Great forum..1 and 2</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>I will have the M9 for Thursday afternoon and evening. I plan on doing a series of ISO tests from 640 through 2500 of the same subject to see how the camera performs. I'll post those when I get them processed - it may not be in this thread. I have some photographs in the Hubbard Museum of the American West; and I am leaving Friday for the opening of the show on Sunday.</p>

[dean_kasic]

<p>And few drops of rain,fog,can kill it.20 years ago I had Casio watch with 6 buttons water resistant(100$),Pentax made good and cheap (K10) sealed and M9 haven't many buttons but few drops can kill 7000$.That's killing me,everything else is big question ,or not? It's one of a kind(digital world),smallest full frame(big difference from others) ,dynamic range,available lenses noise is subjective(depend what you expect,but there is different kind of noise manifestations,long exposure noise ,high iso noise...) ,it's personal matter ,image quality is exceptional ,no doubt,how much?-is it enough for 7000$_well,overall I think it is.I assume that someone who work in cinematography is most of the time in studious or on locations with full logistic support ,than dimensions are not really important, M Leicas are made for other way of work.Take S2.<br>

And yes ,Leicas prices are insane,I think that too,but what is the choice.<br>

Leica and price is even more in doubt in X1 ,how much good must be for 2000$,I have Sigma dp1<br>

and ?!</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>C'mon Steve give me some love here..a little bit true??</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Everything from Leica is over priced. The bodies, lenses, accessories - you name it - I think it's too expensive.</p>

<p>For example, I have the 16-18-21 WATE - that's a $5500 f/4 lens that needs an auxillary viewfinder to be able to use it...but, the taxidermy shop interior was done with it wide open with an exposure of 1/16 second using ISO 320 (I told you it was dark...) - I'm not sure of another lens that could do that without flare from the ceiling light. </p>

<p>The 75mm APO Summicron may be the best lens I've ever used. The color definition, subtle color separation, and eye ripping sharpness from that lens surprises me every time I use it - and I have a LOT of other glass to compare it to - Schneider, APO Rodenstock, Zeiss, ED Nikkor, Holga (wait, that might be plastic...). </p>

<p>I've also used $40,000 Canon broadcast lenses, Fuji broadcast lenses, Angenieux cine lenses, and 25 years ago used a lot of Panavision equipment. But, $3300 for a 75mm lens? The 85mm PC-E Micro Nikkor costs $1900 and gives you perspective control. So, let's not get fixated on the body as the single item that's too spendy. You only start with the camera body. After that, it's a slippery slope that can put large dents in your checking account at an alarming rate.</p>

<p>However, I am never disappointed with the performance of the equipment. I get into situations where I'm shooting in difficult lighting conditions and the lenses always perform beyond my expectations - at that point, the money becomes irrelevant because I got the image with no compromise in quality from flare, ghosting, etc. The M8/M9 are not high ISO super stars for sure - but they make rich, long scale, three dimensional images from those fantastic lenses. </p>

<p>Certainly, if what you want to do is shoot hand-held in extremely low light situations there are better cameras for that application. If you want to shoot sports - there are better cameras. But, if you want to shoot unobtrusively, or make images with deep, lush colors - hard to beat the combination of the Leica lenses and M8/M9.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>And few drops of rain,fog,can kill it</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Really? You're sure...? Just a few drops? A light dew from heavy breathing? Not my experience with my M8. While it hasn't been soaking wet, I have used it in the rain with no ill effects. However, realistically, I wouldn't take my Hasselblad out in pouring rain either without protecting it as it's not weather sealed. That's why I own a Nikonos V - I can take that under water if I need to...</p>

[allardk]

<p>If you don't like the camera, buy a better one. Or three of them for the same price. That's how the free market economy works. Having too high expectations and then being disappointed when they are not met is not the path to happiness.</p>

<p>Electronic circuits cannot be improved by carefully handcrafting. It takes millions and millions of dollars of investment every year to keep up. It's just not realistic to expect Leica to do that. I have no inside information about the sensor market but I would be surprised if they didn't buy the best sensor they could get without driving the price up to S2 levels.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Well I sure don't want Canon sensors in my Leicas. Leica did the right thing IMHO by going with CCDs. I do remember seeing examples from Kodak's FF DCS Pro cameras and am amazed at how good the images from the Leica digital Ms look in comparison. The DCS Pro had awful noise reduction that you couldn't turn off.</p>

<p>Still, Steve's images say something worth paying attention to. It's the result that counts.</p>

<p>I may not want an M9 myself... but that's only because I don't want to pay for it. Yet. :-)</p>

[simon_simons]

<p>I think the idea is that Joe's commercial work demands the highest quality (both in terms of tools used and the end result achieved). Whether you characterize it as "art" or not and regardless of your subjective judgment as to its "importance", he and his client will consider the level of quality of critical importance. <br>

It is implied in his early statements comparing lenses that his commercial work means he is used to using optics of a very high standard and so has a high bar against which to compare cameras' image quality. Notwithstanding that, Joe does point out that he's not hung up on camera quality (see his reference to using Holgas). It was all about expecting quality when you pay a premium for a premium brand.<br>

That seemed pretty obvious to me. I don't know Joe and fwiw I actually prefer what I've seen of his commercial work to his personal work but Steve's comment is rather rude, naive and unhelpful.<br>

ps. Steve, I wouldn't start attacking people on the basis of their work given what you have in your photo.net portfolio</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Joe, here's my take on your initial post. First off, I think it is premature to make such sweeping statements if you have not actually used a piece of gear. You are comparing a 5D to this camera based on paper spec's not actual photos taken in similar conditions. Referencing M9 shots posted on the web doesn't take into account two major factors: 1) that this is a new camera, with a brand new sensor made exclusively for Leica, and only 20 cameras have made it to the USA so far ... so no one has had much time to explore the M9 in depth yet except beta testers using older firmware; 2) the post processing skill of the few web-posts of M9 images, including higher ISO shots.</p>

<p>My comparative frame of reference for image quality is based on commercial use of an array of cameras ... and like your opinion will be highly subjective. I extensively used Canon products for a number of years including a 5D, (and have used the 5D-MKII). This also included ALL 1 series DSLRs from the first one to the current ones ... and virtually all L lenses offered up to 300/2.8L IS. I currently shoot with a Nikon D3X/D3 with the new wide zooms and a Sony A900 with Zeiss prime optics for longer focal lengths ... IMO, both of which soundly trounce any Canon camera/lens combo made especially the 5D models. My criteria is strictly based on Canon's insistence and persistence on over-doing the AA filtration on their sensors to provide that smoother high ISO ... which some people seem to like, but I do NOT ... with the 1DMKIII and $8,000. 1DsMKIII being the last straw.</p>

<p>This IQ preference sets the stage for relinquishing the infrequently used ISOs over 1000 for the highly used ISOs in the 200 to 1000 range with better IQ ... which the M9 delivers. </p>

<p>BTW, I have 1 of the 20 M9s that made to the USA and have already used it for paying jobs. The conditions I shoot in are highly variable, but those same variables are present in almost every job I shoot ... so could be considered a repeated pattern and consistently comparable. I've already racked up over 1000 M9 shots in a few days @ ISOs from 250 to 1250, delivered the jobs and made prints up to 17 X 22 so far. I used Lightroom for a majority and Phase One C1 Pro for the higher ISO shots.</p>

<p>All the images were excellent, and highly accepted by the clients. They did one thing that I can't get with any of the array of cameras in my gear vault ... they look like Leica shots ... those rich, but detailed blacks and bright detailed whites with wonderfully subtile color gradations that I paid a fortune for in Leica optics to get ... like all the f/1.4 ASPH lenses in my bag.</p>

<p>Like the old TV ad said ... "Try it, you'll like it"!</p>

<p> Get a demo once the camera makes it here in any quantity to allow that. Then get back to us : -)</p>

<p> </p>

[pictureted]

<p>I think one reason Leica "over" priced the M9 is the inventory photographers have of their lenses - and want to use them full-frame.</p>

<p>I have a full kit of Contax G2 lenses that I would love to use on a digital full-frame camera (particularly the 16 and 21). Having invested in these lenses already, I would pay quite a lot for a usable body.</p>

<p>I bought the Contax years ago because when I looked at the M6 and lenses and their cost versus the Contax it was a no-brainer for me. The Contax was a modern camera with great ergonomics and features and the Leica was... great but old. I'd gone from match-needle in a Nikon F2 to aperture automation in an F3 years before and just did not see the reason to regress. </p>

<p>The concept of Leica price and value has always been problematic. btw had a wonderful P912, but would not want to go back to no air conditioning, a manual transmission, manual everything...</p>

[david_seelig]

<p>I have an m9 and a 5d mk11 so far I like the m9 I do not like the look of files at high iso of the 5d mk11 or the size of it or it's lenses. I can put the leica and luxes drom 24 to 75 in a small bag abd not brake my shoulder after walking around all night. I do not have aproblem with the files up to 1600 so far at 200 they blow canon away. By the way Ted the contax viewfinder was terrible compared to a leica.</p>

[beau 1664876222]

<p>Even if the sensor is not quite as good as the one in my D700, I'd pay a few extra grand just to have the size and ergonomics of the M when shooting digital. To use the Leica lenses I'd pay a lot more, too, but then I guess I already have... </p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>All your comments are quite interesting. What interests me personally is, how performs the "new" 18 MP Kodak FF-senor of the M9 with the famous super-wide-angle Carl Zeiss Distagon 2,8/15mm glass!</p>

[joe_murray2]

<p>I'm not looking at the M9 for professional use as that's not really my job. I primarily direct and shoot movies and tele commercials and rarely shoot print ads although lately it seems to be packaged as part of the film job..Jane Seymour for KayJewellers, Accura, a Lottery spot. I never saw myself as very naturally talented and if I've had success it's due to having great mentors, working hard and applying myself to make up for any lack of natural gifts. Thankfully, I've never lacked interest or passion. I shoot stills primarily for myself and friends. Also it serves me well as I'm compulsive about creating images and it helps me improve my eye, better communicate visually and progress as a film maker and cinematographer. After 30 years of professional work I still have a looooong way to go and so much more to learn. I'm extremely eager to start using my Leica lens again as there truly is nothing like them and they most closely approximate the look and feel of the Cooke and Zeiss cine lens I utilise in my work. Besides they are just made so well one feels privileged to use them. Also, time is a valuable commodity of late and film development/scanning time is a luxury, hence the interest and anticipation of the M9.<br>

Thanks for responding to my thoughts guys. I truly value interaction such as this as we live in an era where cordiality is looked at as almost a sign of weakness, the free exchange of ideas is ever diminishing and disrespect for concepts or points of view that diverge from those we have already established are dismissed and ridiculed out of hand. Not so here. I might have done a disservice by not stating my initial reasons for posting. Also, I'm a bit of a rambling thinker and hence the longish posts but it has been provocative no? It was a personal opinion based upon the intersection of my expectations and postings by people whose opinion I respect on the net and some extremely accomplished and informed cinema engineering types whose opinion I and many others highly value who had examined the camera. The pleasure of shooting with Leica glass and seeing the results is almost indescribable and when it was communicated to me that body was not quite up to par I was disappointed plain and simple. Some great points were made here and I listen to all of them. It's a forum..that's the point right? Steve gave me such a thrashing he may have changed my mind a bit...thanks Steve for the verbal ass kicking and the test images you shared (Beautiful images in your portfolio..I really responded to the contrast between the formality of your compositions and the randomness and unpredictability in the world within them.) </p><div></div>

[david_manning1]

<p>I was interested in seeing if the M9 would become a D700 in an M6 body, which would be a tremendous package. FWIW, the strength of Leica (these days) is a professional-grade body in a compact package.</p>

<p>I tremendously enjoy shooting my M6 classic, and I use Zeiss T* lenses, which are superb. I love wet-printed pictures. But when the going gets tough, I reach for the D700. </p>

<p>When I think of value for the money, I also think about feature set. Nikon's professional cameras (the only ones I'm really familiar with) have set the standard, in my own mind, with many subset features which make capturing a technically perfect image very consistent, and thus proves it's reliability. It's also got a body that I'm not afraid to use in unfriendly weather, which is also part of that value for the money.</p>

<p>The M9's spec sheet doesn't come close to a D3X's spec sheet, for the same money. I can forego the autofocus, because I understand they are different types of cameras. But since many features of modern digital cameras are in the firmware which resides onboard the camera body, it's hard to consider paying the same money for an M9 which is still struggling with high ISO imaging, slower shot-to-shot times, chromatic aberration, and weathersealing (which wasn't as big an issue on mechanical film cameras, but IS on electronic-dependent $7k cameras). Understanding the Leica premium as I do, I think the M9's price point should have been between a D700 and a D3.</p>

<p>While many would argue that price point would put it less expensive than a new mechanical Leica MP, the only analogy that I can come up with is for wristwatches. You pay a premium for a Rolex or an Omega, for hand-built mechanical brilliance. They are lifetime watches. You pay much less for a Japanese digital watch--even though it might tell time more accurately. That being understood, why would anyone pay a Rolex price for a Rolex with a Japanese digital movement inside, especially if the watch's accuracy was not even on par with true Japanese digital wristwatches?</p><div></div>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I did some window shopping on the specs and was not really impressed. To me it looks like you can do allot more with the Canons and Nikons, but who am I to know. I don't own a Leica. The camera seems to have been built to last a very long time. Maybe in about 5 years you will learn to appreciate it.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>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.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M9 has, according to both Leica and Kodak, green and blue filtration unchanged from M8, and a wider pass red. So, by your logic it would have poorer color fidelity. Fortunately, you've oversimplified. For example, three CCD video cameras have narrower filters than any Bayer camera, but also poorer color fidelity, especially in the crossover from red to green (which happens to include flesh tones).</p>

<p>It is the shape and overlap of the filters, in combination with the math used to process it, that determines color fidelity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor in the M8 has a larger gamut than ANY sensor made by Canon or Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a rather extraordinary claim, and it does not bear out what I have observed, working at the spectral response level for the Kodak, Sony, or Canon sensors. Do you have any proof of that claim? Canon and Sony make a lot of sensors...</p>

<p>And how does it do for accuracy (from a metamerism standpoint) within its gamut?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The M9's sensor has corrected the IR problem AND has even better color (the Bayer filter design has been changed) than the M8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The M9 sensor has worse color (both in respect to gamut and in respect to metamerism, as computed over a 4000 spectrum database in multiple domains) than the M8 sensor. A consequence of attempts to improve the high ISO capability.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>Steve very nice shots!<br>

Joe,<br>

The Soul Car is nice and so is the G10....I like mine. I think of it as a digital CL. Last night I was on Flickr etc. looking at pics from the M9...they look, as Marc said...like Leica shots. If I could afford a M9, I would get one. Leica has not been state of the art in camera bodies for a long time. The M7 was an 'antique' when it was announced but it was SOTA for Leica and it was not inexpensive...but you have to have a box to attach lenses to. For it's size and the results it is capable of..the M9 has no digital peer. It's the best because its the 'only'. :-)</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>Understanding the Leica premium as I do, I think the M9's price point should have been between a D700 and a D3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was no chance whatsoever that Leica was going to price the M9 $2000 less than the M8.2 when it was full-frame while the 8.2 was not.</p>

<p>The M9 lacks not only the features of a $3000 Nikon SLR; it lacks most of the features of a $700 Canon Rebel! But it does do something no Japanese SLR can do: match M lenses with a full-frame digital sensor. For that reason alone Leica will have no trouble selling lots and lots of them at $7000--despite the worldwide economic situation.</p>