M9 - my 2 cents

[fotografz]

<p>The M8 and M9 sensors have the same pixel pitch. The similarity ends there. This is a new sensor not a larger version of the M8 sensor. It has a new IR filter, new micro lenses on the sensor, new firmware, electronics, etc. etc.</p>

<p>BTW, changing ISOs is now extremely fast on the M9 and now offers a full range of ISOs (i.e., rather than jumping from ISO 640 to 1250, you now can select 800 or 1,000 etc., etc.). Also, exposure compensation when shooting aperture preferred can now be done without taking your eye from the viewfinder. IMO, these are major handling improvements which help contribute to better IQ in general.</p>

<p>Michael, my D700 was indeed the high ISO champ so far. IMO, like most heavily AA filtered CMOS sensors, the D700 added a bit to much digital "plastic" to the images in accomplishing the feat of providing the ISOs above 5000 that I almost never used. Some don't mind that ... I do. So, to my eye, the M8 consistently outperformed it at and below ISO 640 (which for all practical purposes responded like ISO 800 on the D700). </p>

<p>So far the M9 seems quite usable at 1250 which is an ISO I personally rarely exceed ... however, I will be trying ISOs above that in up-coming jobs now that I've got a handle on processing the M9 files (which M9 users have quickly realized is a whole different processing path compared to the M8). </p>

<p>Those with a M8 and especially a M9, may I recommend the set of Silver Actions from Jeff Ascough? A couple of them are quite helpful at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Since this is such a contentious forum, here's my lawyer speak disclaimer: the above opinions are those of the writer only based upon his direct experience with said cameras, your opinion may vary, and most likely will, even if you have never used the afore mention cameras, or even held one in your hand. Just kidding. LOL!</p>

<p> </p>

[guido_h]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm getting the silver one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a hint: delivery times for the silver one are even longer than those for the black ones, according to my dealer. We're talking about early 2010 now.</p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>In just over a year I saved nearly half the price of my M8 body in film cost/processing (Not for nothing has Ireland been dubbed by the natives the "rip-off-republic"). Not to mention all those hours I didn't spend clone stamping the dust off scanned negatives. Plus every type of camera has trade offs- you don't shoot with a Polaroid sx-70 the same way you do with a Nikonos V, for example. There are compromises involved in EVERY system type, be it portability, suitability, affordability, etc. I'm going to keep my M8 instead of trading it, its a fine camera, tho it does have Color rendering/high iso issues. I'll eventually buy an m9 for the larger sensor real estate- the one thing about rangefinders I personally find is there is nearly always a degree of cropping involved, whether it's film or digi. As for expensive, well, they've never not been. And the lenses, the lenses - the only other type I've ever used that came close to Leicas in terms of combining tonal rendition/sharpness/contrast were Zeiss cf T* for Hasselblads. Plus it's small and comfortable to use. plus, plus, plus. </p>

<p>

 

</p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/3953038078_150df5d116_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[tom_higgins3]

<p>P.s.- Joe, wasn't preachin there, I totally get what you mean, and mostly agree with you- (going only by what I've heard/read) the M9 sensor could definitely be more versatile, even if it "iso" performs 1 stop better than the m8s, that alone is no great shakes. Thx Guido, that kinda fits in with my whole sell hasselblads/convince wife strategy anyway ;)</p>

[pictureted]

<p>Yup, most people agree Leica lenses are superior and if I had two or three of them that I'd used on an M-6 or M-7, I would buy an M-9. It would make sense economically. A whole new digital system for the price of a new body.</p>

<p>Since I have no Leica lenses, getting an M-9 with two or three lenses would cost $15K-20K. (28/2 and 90/2, plus 18/3.8 w/finder)</p>

<p>I do have a Contax G2 and almost all of their lenses, so if they made a digital body (same specs as an M-9), I would probably be willing to pay $4-5K for it. On the other hand, I don't think I'd pay more than $3K for a any new Nikon body, since I can buy a very good body (D90) for my Nikon optics for under a $1K, a better one for $1.8K (D300s) and a decent FF for $2.3K (D700).</p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p>They undervalued their customer by gambling that they would buy the camera if it was "good enough".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Leica felt safe that doing so was not a gamble, convinced by how well the M8 sold despite its many shortcomings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe the user has changed and the M series camera is now the venue of non professionals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe?? Where have you been the last 40 years my friend?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165">Steve Swinehart</a> , Sep 22, 2009; 05:27 p.m.<br>

The M9's sensor has corrected the IR problem</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leica themself says in their own brochure that it has not been completely corrected. This goes to what the OP might call making it "good enough".</p>

<p> </p>

[guido_h]

<p>I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but there's <a href="http://enjoyyourcamera.typepad.com/weblog/2009/09/sensor-so-gro%C3%9F-wie-ein-negativ-leica-m9-erfahrungsbericht-und-videos.html">yet another (positive) M9 review here</a> (unfortunately in German, but there's always <a href="http://babelfish.altavista.com">Babelfish</a> ). The page includes a <a href="http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/298517/m9.zip">link to a ZIP file</a> containing 5 DNG images at different ISO settings (160/400/1000/2500).</p>

<p>I applied Neat Image noise reduction to the high ISO files in Photoshop and I must say, the results are excellent even at ISO 2500. The M9's sensor noise structure seems to be really manageable.</p>

[jay_66]

<p>Buy an M3/M2/M5/M6/M7/MP. Load up the Tri-X. We don't need no stinking digital!</p>

[jukka_vatanen]

<p>I think M9 is "almost there". The "almost" will certainly be taken care of with uptodates in the software. The M9 has the right ingredients, the price ?? divide it with ten and in worst case five, (yearly lay off for "normal DRLR) and think again...</p>

[02Pete]

<p>Joe, you're entitled to your opinions, and you're welcome to express them here. You have certainly posted some photos worth looking at in this discussion thread. You appear to have an extensive background in professional imaging, and some of your comments about the standards you apply in evaluating the performance of equipment are informative.</p>

<p>Those things said, it appears that you may not have used the M9 yourself as yet, and that the opinions about the M9 you have offered thus far are based primarily on the price of the camera (which is admittedly very high); preliminary comments from other photographers whose opinions you respect; and the apparent quality of some images you have seen posted on the Internet (some of which might be from the M8 rather than the M9). From my perspective, at least, public comments about quality which might affect the reputation of a new piece of equipment probably ought to be based on direct personal experience with that equipment.</p>

<p>I gather that you do plan to use an M9 on a test basis to see what it can do. I also gather that your criteria for evaluating it include the quality of the images it will produce during available light shooting at settings above ISO 400. I would be most interested in your views after you have used one under those conditions, as I have not used an M9 either and have no more experience with it than you do.</p>

<p>My frame of reference in considering the M9 might be different than yours, though. For amateur photographers of ordinary means, Leica lenses represent an investment not to be abandoned lightly. Rangefinder cameras also offer some practical working advantages over SLRs, and over autofocus cameras. The world of film cameras is steadily giving way to digital, and SLRs have long attracted more users than rangefinders, but that does not mean that digital cameras or SLRs are always superior.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago, for example, I bought a Canon G5 digital camera with an f/2 lens. In actual use, I found that while it would take great pictures in daylight, it would not focus at all under available light conditions. The limited capability of the autofocus system, rather than the maximum aperture of the lens, was the controlling factor with that camera. My old M2 with ISO 800 film could still take much better pictures than the G5 under available light conditions, because the M2 would focus and the G5 would not. I didn't need to use super-speed film, either, as ISO 800 was fast enough to be usable. The result was that I'm still using the M2 as my primary camera, while the G5 gets only occasional use.</p>

<p>In terms of evaluating the comparative ISO performance of DSLRs and rangefinders, it might also be helpful to consider that a moving mirror and relatively slow zoom lenses mean a DSLR needs to have a sensor with a higher ISO than a rangefinder camera, as well as gyroscopic image stabilization, in order to produce hand holdable images under the same conditions. Two or three stops of that high ISO performance might be needed to use a higher shutter speed to minimize the effects of mirror bounce, and to produce exposure from an f/2.8 or f/4 zoom lens matching that of an f/2 or f/1.4 fixed focal length lens.</p>

<p>It is possible that, as you have suggested, the M9 might not offer the very highest possible image quality of any camera currently on the market, and might not match or beat the quality of equally expensive DSLRs under certain conditions. Given the high price of the M9, that might be disappointing. It would still be interesting to know, though, whether you consider the M9 to be a better digital M camera than the M8 after you have the chance to use it. The M9, like previous Leicas, allows the use of all Leica M lenses, not just those in current production, and it affords fully manual control over lens focusing in available light conditions. The M9 has a sensor that allows photographers to make full-frame use of their existing M lenses, as compared with the M8 sensor that required users to accept a crop factor of 1.5 or so. The M9 has an 18MP sensor compared with the M8's 10MP sensor. The M9 has also apparently resolved the M8's issues with color reproduction, which required the use of filters under some conditions. In other words, Leica appears to have addressed systematically in the M9 some of the concerns that photographers have expressed about the M8. If Leica has produced a better camera in the M9 that represents a noticeable improvement over the M8, that might still be something that Leica owners want to know, regardless of how one views high-end DSLRs.</p>

<p>I don't presuppose what results you will obtain when you use the M9. It would be interesting to know what you think of the image quality it produces at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 under available light conditions, when you are viewing your own results directly rather than a JPEG of somebody else's photo on the Internet. If you compare it against another camera, particularly a DSLR, it would also be interesting to see what would happen if you set both cameras to a shutter speed of 1/30 under available light conditions, and then compared the quality of the images they produced. Please let us know what you think of the M9 after using it, though, because you seem to have the background to do a hands-on evaluation that would be of real interest to all of us.</p>

<p> </p>

[peteradownunder]

<p>Reasons why I will buy an M9:<br>

The M9 allows me to use my M lenses in full frame field of view guise. I buy camera bodies because of the glass I can hang off the camera body. CaNikon cant match Leica M in true wides up to short portrait lens focal lengths - which is what I use Leica for.<br>

@ 17 + megapixels I can make a good 16x20 print from hand held shooting.<br>

Colour is as good as M8 - which is better than anything I get from CaNikon.<br>

 <br>

I dont care about ISO higher than 800 - as I prefer to use flash for that kind of snap.<br>

I can stick an M9 in a small bag with 4 lenses and go anywhere and shoot anything at low weight/baggage/carry cost - it is the best travel kit I can buy which is the reason I like Leica M.<br>

If someone made an M mount system for my lenses with a better chip I would buy that - this will probably be teh Leica M10 which will use a smaller next generation S2 chip - the company didnt have the time to deploy their latest chip technology for the M9.<br>

 <br>

Hope this helps.<br>

 </p>

[george_hickey1]

<p>If I was considering the purchase of a M9, which I am not, I would wait awhile for the reviews to come in. I'm a film shooter. But I would like to comment on a point that has come up several times above: Value for the money with a Leica product.<br>

I have a M7 starter set which includes a 50mm F2. It is sold new by B&H for $5495.00. That's a lot of money for a manual camera and a 50mm lens which is usually the least expensive lens in a manufacturer's lineup. It seems to me that for that price the camera and leans should function flawlessly. Yet the camera has well documented problems with the DX contacts and ISO/ex comp adjustment wheel. These flaws should have been foreseen by Leica and corrected before the camera was released on the market.<br>

The Summicron 50mm F2 is a great performer but I find that the build quality and performance of my 43mm F1.9 Pentax limited lens is comparable. Although I am not one to run tests of my lenses, and the Summicron may test better it is certainly not 4 times better than the Pentax but it's price is 4 times as much.</p>

<p>I love using my M7 and will likely keep it for the rest of my life. And it will last that long. But if Leica buyers continue to pay these high prices while being too forgiving of flaws in Leica products than the quality of the products will suffer.</p>

<p> </p>

[jukka_vatanen]

<p>I have been using M leicas all my life, M2-M3-M4P and now M9. To me the quality of the M9 is "good enough" If I want still more quality, I use my hasselblad with DFV back. To me the Leica is the lenses, the "subconsicuosus focusing", the instant view without the guesswork of how the sharpness will be stopped down. I think the Digital SLR is in the end phaze of its development. The future will be rangefinder and hasselblad style big camera.</p><div></div>

[guido_h]

<blockquote>

<p>I have been using M leicas all my life, M2-M3-M4P and now M9</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that a Nikon strap around your neck?? :-)</p>

[furcafe]

<p>So?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Hassy SWF was slightly tilted upwards, and the M7 shot downwards, I think.</p>

</blockquote>

[jukka_vatanen]

<p>Yes, a Nikon strap ! I have "Digital" straps on my F and F5 bodies, just to freak out the Digital Purists...</p>

[nee_sung]

<blockquote>

 

<p>So?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Hassy SWF was slightly tilted upwards, and the M7 shot downwards, I think.</p>

</blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The wider the lens, the more prone to distortion it is if it's away from the vertical. I think both shots could benefit if the cameras had been held closer to the vertical. Both lenses are excellent, and can benefit greatly from being held vertical. Lesser lenses are not worth the bother.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Well Joe, let's all remember that the <strong>box</strong> that used to hold the film is now a box heavily involved in the image making.</p>

<p>Keeping that in mind and with your background, you should know that painstaking R&D, limited production, miniaturization and scarcity contributes heavily on pricing. That said, you should also agree that Leica optics are unchallenged. With this new model of Leica, the data indicates that "<strong>all </strong>existing Leica M lenses maintain their full performance when used for digital photography." An amazing achievement! With Kodak's clever & unique sensor design, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/News/pressReleases/archive/2009/pr3.jhtml?pq-path=15380/15611">(see the press release)</a> the M9 offers the highest possible quality available in digital capture coupled with the <strong>smallest</strong> possible size and <strong>weight</strong>. Mix in the uniform supremacy of LEICA lenses with no anti-aliasing filter in this body, and you've got sharper images than Nikon and Canon.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to say Joe, but by <strong>not</strong> considering the uniform supremacy of Leica's multiple <strong>super</strong> speed optics, your comment is pure ignorance.</p>

<p>This camera isn't over priced; call it for what it truly is, <em>a breakthrough achievment</em>...</p>

[david finch]

<p>I've been using an M3 and a IIIf for 45 years, and a Leicaflex SL since the Summer of Love (after which I thought the camera was named, which is why I bought it.) They all still work flawlessly with only a very occasional CLA. I cannot, however, see getting a digital Leica M. You don't need exquisitely over-engineered mechanics and flawless hand-craftsmanship in a camera that will be outmoded in 18 months. I'm not even sure there is much to be gained by using Leica lenses when shooting digital, which is too cold and flat to take full advantage of them. If the occasion calls for the special Leica Look, use film. If not, it makes much more sense to get the top-of-the-line sensors and electronics available from Canon and Nikon. Their lenses are good enough for the medium. </p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>David; what does "over engineered" mean? I am a degreed engineer in Mechanical and Electrical. :)<br>

The old Epson RD-1 here I bought has been a fun camera; as well as the Bessa R and 15mm VC I got almost 10 years go. Maybe the "Bessa R" is underengineered since I had to align its RF twice?</p>

<p>Here I like my many 12 buck Zorki 3's and 4's I bought before 9/11 with Jupiter-8s and case; that with shipping to the USA were usually about 16 to 19 bucks too. A 50mm F3.5 Rigid Industar is about as sharp as my new LTM 50mm F2 Summicron; but cost 1/30 as much.<br>

The M9 looks like a nice camera; a refinement of the M8; better blacks, IR issue reduced; bigger sensor.</p>

[ryan_peck]

<p>David-<br>

can you explain how my M8 is now outmoded? Is it simply because there is a better version? Seems very odd for an expressed IIIf and SL user to be dismissing a camera for being outmoded.<br>

And, what is to be gained, for me, from using Leica lenses when shooting digital, is that I don't have to pay for film and spend time in the darkroom, yet I still get to use a camera that I love.</p>

[ryan_peck]

<p>PS: I love my IIIf, too, but still hate trimming the leader.</p>

[david finch]

<p>Ryan --</p>

<p>My IIIf isn't outmoded. It is nothing more than a light-tight film box with a shutter, a viewfinder, a rangefinder, and a winder, all of which work fine. A few years ago Leica issued 35 and 50 ASPH Summicrons in LTM mount -- put one of them on the IIIf and you'll get exactly the same pictures you could get with a brand-new MP. </p>

<p>Digital cameras, on the other hand, are hand-held computers. They don't take pictures; they capture and process data which, when decoded, produce two-dimensional algorithmic displays labelled as "images." You get better data from an M9 than from an M8 (and will get even better data from the M10 in 2011 or whenever). Sure, an image yielded by an M9 will, under certain conditions, look almost the same as that of an M8. But that's just an illusion, technically speaking. With computers, newer is almost always better. And with Leica, you always expect the best.</p>

 

[jason]

<p>The Leica M9 has already shown results that are breath-taking. The clarity, the "look" of the images. A "digital" camera that is close to the film look. Simplicity. The whole idea of a photographer who is both technically aware of photography and an artist with a mind to make and catch the moment. I shot a Rodeo on Saturday. Indoors. I was sure I was outgunned! The Nikons with lenses that looked like they belonged on gun-carriages.Their awesome fire rate. The very high ISO... I had my Leica M6, a Summicron 50mm collapsible. I shot at max aperture(f2.o) on 400 ISO. Sure of myself I had only one roll of Fuji-24exposures.. The digital took about 400 images. My film scanned, the result, all I ever wanted! If I was aworking pro again..retired while i recuperate from a heart attack, I would run to buy one. Imagine a digital camera with a small neat instruction booklet, a few controls. No matrix, i-TTL, no wireless connection, no GPS, no push here dummy.. well Ok, the M9 for those of "us" too...</p>

<p> </p>