My feelings about the M9

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having submitted close to 5,000 posts in the forum over the last three and a half years I feel the need to expunge myself of my views on the M9. You can, of course stop reading now as probably like me you are completely fed-up with the endless introspection about the M9.

If you are still reading then for whatever my reputation is worth after all my posts, pictures and comments this is what I think about the M9.

My chief feeling when I think of the M9 is one of torpor. I just am not inspired by the product. Yes, it has a full frame sensor and it appears to have some marginal improvement in noise reduction at higher iso-levels but fundamentally it is the same simple digital rangefinder which I already own and love in the shape of an M8.

Unlike a small number of M8 owners (and a large number of M8 detractors) my glass is half-full (surprisingly because my wife complains I am a half-glass empty kind of person). I mean, that I have always enjoyed using the camera and even taken the rough with the smooth. I could produce a long list of things that irritate me about my M8 but bottom line I can point you at one successful publication and two more in-the-works books of photography where the image quality is faultless. And so it should be: the important part of the process, the collection and transmission of light is done with lenses of simply outstanding quality.

Although there is a chicken and egg argument over the ascendancy of lens and sensor, I believe the lens is the key element. I know this for a fact because I have a ton of very fine images created using my Leica 35 Summulux ASPH on my now dear, departed R-D1. The M8 gave/gives me greater convenience over the R-D1 but in truth not the quantum leap in IQ you might have expected (and above iso640 possibly a step backwards).

Maybe I did not handle a test M9 long enough, certainly I did not have the opportunity to process any captures but I have had the opportunity to see a lot of results in the forum and to date nothing has made me sit up and pay attention with such an impact that I want to immediately reach for my credit card and incur yet more debt to support my photographic addiction.

Quite the contrary, in fact a couple of weeks ago as some of my friends in this forum know, I purchased an M7. The fact that I am more excited by a 7 year old product than the latest model is at the heart of my indifference towards the M9.

Where is the innovation? Yes, I understand there is the technical innovation of the full-frame sensor and the incredible technical achievement of the micro lenses which now do not require IR sensitivity correction (incidentally, my R-D1 had minor magenta issues but never anything like the M8). But I want real innovative convenience. For example, a dioptre adjustment in the viewfinder. Live view (I kid you not) and an articulating LCD screen. For that matter, a really big LCD screen which works in bright sunlight (rather than one which cannot be scratched, a problem I have never had with any mobile device in the past 20 years of owning them). Audible single point focus confirmation. Spot metering (please!). Now, for me, that would be a stand-up and pay attention, now reach for your credit card set of improvements. A quantum leap worth investing in.

The M9 does not solve any problem that I currently have with the M8. In fact, the only problem I have, which is a constraint on low light performance is unlikely to be really solved by anything less than a D700 or a 5DmkII – and I think if we are all honest about this, no one would disagree with me about this statement. The M9 does not resolve images any better – in fact, the increase in file size means more pressure on disk space and noticeably slower writing to SD-card (incidentally, an attraction to me about the D700 is the fact that it is only a 12MP sensor rather than the 20+MP sensor in the 5D and A900). Again, if we are all honest, the 10MP file size of the M8 is more than adequate and the larger 18MP file size of the M8 will only help the small minority of camera users who print really, really big pictures.

And there we have it. The M9 for a professional photographer with specific needs is of course a very useful addition to his/her kit. If I had the disposable income I might be tempted to a M9 and perhaps at some point in the next year or so I will suddenly discover a problem in my work where an M9 presents itself as a solution for me.

On a final point, like all consumers I am driven by price. I might feel completely differently if the M9 was introduced at a reasonable price point. Perhaps Leica is sensitive to the fact that Canon and Nikon have cameras which are in the £5K league and therefore feels that to be taken seriously they too must charge a similar price. If this is the case then they are seriously misleading themselves.

If the M9 had been introduced at the same price point as a M8.2 then I may feel differently. But it does rankle with me that Leica have adopted a pricing policy which means each evolution of the product line will actually be more expensive, even though the technology and sunk cost in reusable components must be getting cheaper. If you think about it, this pricing policy is quite worrying. It means that a M10 will be introduced at £6K, a M11 at £7K and before long (sooner, actually I think rather than later) Leica will want £10K for a DRF camera.

Although one could argue that the X1 is the product for those who cannot step up to the investment, in fact it is the M7 or MP plus a scanner which is the real alternative, if as commentators believe the M8 and M8.2 DRF is now out of production. Perhaps that is Leica’s game-plan - to ensure the longevity of film cameras? Use the pricing of the M9 and future models expensive enough to make the film cameras desirable again?

My prediction is that unless Leica introduces a M-bayonet DRF in the £2-3K range then a significant number of existing M8 owners are going to migrate to Nikon and Canon because the chasm between the value of their M8 and a new M9, M10, M11 etc is going to be way too big.

Here endeth the lesson and I’ll be flattered if anyone give two hoots for my opinion – off to take some photos and later on to eye up the adverts at Ffordes for MPs.

 

LouisB

[sm23221]

Fair enough. This is certainly a better and far more useful "review" from an experienced photographer than other reviews that only care about pixel peeping and noise.

[Jager]

Hello Louis. I, for one, certainly appreciate your perspective. You raise excellent points. And that you are happy and satisfied with your M8 and new M7 is perfectly legitimate.

 

For me, the great appeal of the M9 is not some revolutionary leap in IQ over the M8 - all the good testers are consistent in reporting that that is not the case. Rather, the enormous benefit for me is the "return" of focal lengths to what we enjoy(ed) with our film M's. As you quite rightly point out, much of the Leica advantage resides in their sterling optics.

 

I'll still keep and enjoy my M8. But being able to seamlessly move lenses back and forth between my M6, M7, and M9 - and see the same thing with each - is the big deal for me.

[kschwarz]

We all have our list of features missing on the M9, for me that would be automatic sensor cleaning, live view and focus confirmation. That said, I think that the M9 is a fabulous product, and while it is expensive, what Leica product isn't. I don't have $7K lying around, so I will start a $500/month payroll deduction savings plan in January. It will take about 14 months, but on the bright side I'm sure my suppliers will have it in stock by then, so I won't have to wait once I have the money!

[AlanJW]

Two truisms: (1) cameras are very personal; and (2) disappointment is a function of expectations. That you feel that you cannot be happy with a M9 does not mean that others will feel the same way, and the M9 is not a tool for everyone. I, for one, am excited at the prospect of having wide angles behave like wide angles, and the larger files don't bother me. I ordered one when it was announced and can't wait finally to get one (maybe next week, they say). I have been in photography 50 years and I spent many recent years vociferously resisting digital cameras and using an M7 and film Nikons and a more than decent scanner. I held out but finally experimented with inexpensive gear, and then gave in and ultimately ended up with a M8. Now, returning to that workflow is not something I would ever want to do. As for your prediction of a mass exodus from Leica DRFs, the fact is that the great demand for M9 -- even at its very high price -- seems quite clearly to suggest that many others have had a different reaction than yours, although I don't think anyone is happy about the price. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and in the end you have to use the tools you think will get you the best images, and I hope you get your measure of satisfaction, whatever the tool you choose.

[archi4]

Louis,

Truly enjoyed reading your post. While spending much time on and off scanning my very large slide collection during the last year, using my Nikon 8000, I have been toying with the idea of an M6 or M7 next to my M8's. I sold my film Leicas and my darkroom after some months with the M8 because of the ease of digital. Looking at some 35 year old kodachrome slides shot with long departed Leica's I am enchanted and your post may have given me the last push I needed.

 

Thanks, maurice

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M9 does not resolve images any better

 

Oh yes it does !

 

If not, how can you crop 45% of an M9 picture and still have the same image quality as with the full image of an M8.

 

Lucien

[earleygallery]

Careful Louis, you'll start Frank off again

 

I think you raise a number of valid points - I expected Leica to maintain the M8 as the less expensive 'entry' model and who knows, maybe they do have plans for another smaller sensor M digital up the line.

 

The price of the M9 is out of my range for sure, but even if it were not I still wouldn't want it, because I'm very happy with my film cameras, a P&S PanaLeica to carry everywhere and now a Canon digital body to use with the R glass.

 

I see that you have rediscovered the pleasure of using film and its different qualities. For the most part I simply don't need the instant results of digital and can wait to finish and process a roll of film, and I still genuinely believe that film as a medium gives ultimately more pleasing results in many cases, but with more time and hassle (cost is debatable).

 

Sometimes it is better to use digital, and essential of course for many photographers. The key point about the M9 is the FF sensor. For many that's enough to justify it, especially those who didn't jump for the M8 because of the crop sensor. I've no doubt it's an excellent camera and good luck to everyone who has/is buying one. It offers a unique FF digital alternative to all of the other digital cameras out there.

 

I guess what I'm saying is you have found what works for you, which is great. The improvements you mention seem to be 'nice to haves' rather than things which will change your photography. Too many people are only interested in chasing the next best thing, when in fact what they already have is perfectly ample for their needs - they just need to recognise that fact.

[delander †]

I have an M9 and have kept one of my M8s. The M9 has a number of improvements over the M8 not just the FF sensor. But in truth at the moment I am more comfortable with my M8. I dont quite know why. But The M9 has its own problems, it seems to be quite finicky over memory cards, takes a long time to format the cards, has lost the top battery/shot indicator etc. Most worrying is the magenta shift down the LHs of wide angle images. There also seems to be quite a lot of in camera corrections going on to deal with the edges. I'm not sure how these affect the integrity of the image.

 

In some ways I would have been happier if Leica had just upped the sensor size a bit, put in some more Mp and (heresy) kept the ir filter on the lens.

 

Perhaps I just need to learn to love my M9, but cant quite get it out of my head that the M9 was rushed out of the door.

 

Jeff

[Rolo]

Louis,

I have no idea why I feel such a strong attachment to film, yet constantly pursue digital images. I know we're not on our own and I wish you well in every aspect of your photography.

 

This months LFI featured photographer, the great Stefan Rohner, has a discussion on his blog that show a similar tendency. Maybe, we're just lazy.

 

See Stefan Rohner - Blog

 

Stefan Says:

September 29th, 2009 at 16:13

Miku, no way that a M8 or 9 can produce a focus play like above.

also not the beloved D3 of Bevis

Dietmar, print looks more 3 dimensional and it is printed on plastic, on barita the difference would be even bigger.

b/w digital does not exist for me, colour, well, does not make me unhappy, it is just that colour is easy to work with digital lazy..

 

 

Bruno Braun Says:

September 29th, 2009 at 19:48

Hi! I think you should throw your M8 away and return to real photography. You have in your portfolio wonderful b/w photos from India or Marocco - this is the value. I know that the work with digital is easier and faster, but the results are nothing less than average. I think you know it too.

Regards.

 

 

Interestingly, Stefan refers to the inability of the digital sensor to capture the characteristics of the lens. And WOW .... "B&W digital does not exist for me".

 

Dig out the Tri-X boys !! :D

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

 

My chief feeling when I think of the M9 is one of torpor. I just am not inspired by the product. Yes, it has a full frame sensor and it appears to have some marginal improvement in noise reduction at higher iso-levels but fundamentally it is the same simple digital rangefinder which I already own and love in the shape of an M8.

 

That is true, but if it was simply that, I would have bought an M9. For whatever reason (and my guess is cost-cutting a few hundred dollars from a CDN$10,000 camera) Leica dropped the top display instead of just adding a tiny backlight to it and giving it a fourth column for the shot counter and they rescinded the novel and reasonable sapphire LCD screen protector. They made the IR filter thick enough to obviate the need for IR filters for the majority of their intended market, but left it only partially effective for those of us whose needs are more photographic than hedonistic. They didn't even allow for the use of front IR filters in the form of in-camera cyan drift correction. They reverted to less user-friendly frameline calibration after having finally made a positive move in the M8.2. And whilst nobody can fault Leica for not developping the firmware to handle non-Leica lenses, use of the 12mm and 15mm C/V lenses require additional post-processing with software graciously developped by a 3rd party. Thus whilst full frame, the M9 is most decidedly not a digital version of film bodies, performing as well with all lenses as a film camera would.

 

I have an M9 and have kept one of my M8s. The M9 has a number of improvements over the M8 not just the FF sensor. But in truth at the moment I am more comfortable with my M8. I dont quite know why. But The M9 has its own problems, it seems to be quite finicky over memory cards, takes a long time to format the cards, has lost the top battery/shot indicator etc. Most worrying is the magenta shift down the LHs of wide angle images. There also seems to be quite a lot of in camera corrections going on to deal with the edges. I'm not sure how these affect the integrity of the image.

 

In some ways I would have been happier if Leica had just upped the sensor size a bit, put in some more Mp and (heresy) kept the ir filter on the lens.

 

Perhaps I just need to learn to love my M9, but cant quite get it out of my head that the M9 was rushed out of the door.

 

I agree up until the last statement. I don't believe Leica rushed it, I believe the M9 is quite intentionally what it is: an M8 revised to entice the people to whom the 24x36 format is sacred. The slight improvement in high-ISO and the partial solution of IR sensitivity shows that Leica's priorities were clearly getting that "full frame" chip into play. Had they waited longer they might have made significant improvement in both areas, but then what would they do for Photokina 2010 but show up empty-handed? This way they have an opportunity to cash in twice. And surely they aren't afraid of alienating any of their loyal, regular customers, who will declare the next iteration a revelation, and dump their M9s in its favour. Leica is after all in business to survive in the current marketplace, and having been chastised for not revealing a substantially changed product in 3 years, has decided to embrace the contemporary paradigm. In the manner of "If you can't beat them, join them."

[yanidel]

Good thread and agree with many of your points. All this wait time for the M9 have allowed me to think whether I really need one since I already own a M8 and am very satisfied with it (except for quality issues like shutter and dead pixel).

Conclusion is that most improvements are little and definitely not justifiy by themselves the cash outlay even if there are nice features (quiter shutter, ISO, exp comp...). Nevertheless, my 35mm Lux Asph will allow me to play with thin DOF and wide angle, which is very important to me. The other option was to buy a 24mm Lux, price would have been about the same but a much bigger combo.

Talking about money, last time I bought a car new, I lost €8000 of depreciation the first year. Gone in smoke and just a remote memory of the smell of the new car. On the other side, the M9 will produce memories in print that will last a lifetime and a great pleasure to use. So I guess it is all relative.

[jonoslack]

[

On a final point, like all consumers I am driven by price. I might feel completely differently if the M9 was introduced at a reasonable price point. Perhaps Leica is sensitive to the fact that Canon and Nikon have cameras which are in the £5K league and therefore feels that to be taken seriously they too must charge a similar price. If this is the case then they are seriously misleading themselves.

If the M9 had been introduced at the same price point as a M8.2 then I may feel differently.

 

HI Louis

Interesting post - Of course, it's different for different people. For me the fact that I can now have smaller wide angle lenses is enough - better still when the red shift with some lenses is fixed.

 

But, I do have a point to make about price.

M8.2 was €5000

M9 is €5500

 

18 months on and a full frame sensor (- sapphire glass to be sure), doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Of course, the problem is if you live in the States or the UK, where the value of our currencies has gone through the floor in comparison with the Euro. Still that's hardly Leica's fault.

[zlatkob]

"B&W digital does not exist for me".

 

I suspect that people who don't believe in digital black & white simply haven't seen it done properly. Digital black & white offers nearly infinite control and expressive possibilities ... it would have been Ansel Adams' dream come true. Unless one looks at digital prints with a microscope, they look perfectly analog and are analog to human eyes. They don't look exactly like prints made from negatives. But they can certainly look great if done by someone who knows what they're doing.

 

There is a tendency to romanticize black & white film, especially Tri-X. I don't agree. I just watched a 1981 interview with Garry Winogrand (on YouTube) and he groans about the drudgery of black & white darkroom work and the tremendous chore of cataloging countless negatives, or finding one. That's how I remember it too -- drudgery. And the constant threat of dust and scratches on negatives ... oh, that was bad. I have no attachment to film.

[adan]

Louis - I take it that you never shoot wider than a 28mm-equivalent on rangefinders?

 

I ask because the M9 provides a big improvement in low-light performance for wide-angles, especially those wider than 28mm. Even if the sensor pixels themselves contribute nothing more than the M8.

 

E.G. M8 + 15mm c/v f/4.5 means shooting ISO 2500 in light where the M9 and a 21 f/2.8 or 21 f/1.4 can shoot at ISO 800 or ISO 200.

 

Alternatively - my 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH is about the same size as the 28 f/2.8 ASPH, but two stops faster for the same equivalent FoV on an M9 as the 28 gives on an M8.

 

I could, of course, spend $6,000 for the 24 Summilux and get f/1.4 and a roughly comparable FoV - but that is 86% the price of an M9 for an improvement at just one focal length - and a much bigger, heavier lens.

 

Ultimately, I could have bought a Zeiss ZM 15mm f/2.8 for $4,000, and a Leica Summilux 24 for $6,000 (plus IR filters), and given my M8 the low-light capabilities (more or less) of the M9. But as a consumer, the $7,000 for the M9 was a better deal than $10,500 for the two lenses + filters.

[spylaw4]

Louis, an excellent short and lucid essay. We'll talk more about this on the 21st I think!

[horosu]

Louis,

 

I infer from your post that you spent 5000 EUR for an M8. The M9 costs only 500 EUR more. Is that really an "unreasonable" price?

[biglouis]

Some excellent responses with much to think about. I must admit that there is a strong argument in favour of the M9 in terms of wide angle lenses.

 

In factoring my requirements into possibly purchasing a M9 I did indeed realise that my WATE could better be replaced by a more convenient (and possibly slightly cheaper in terms of s/h prices) 21/2.8 or the superb 24/2.8. And in fact, I may need neither as my 28/2.8 might actually be wide enough for me, in any case.

 

Indeed since shooting with my M7 I have rarely used anything other than my 35-lux and my CV50/1.5 - so I accept that the use of wides is a very cogent argument.

 

I was perhaps also not factoring in the incremental difference between the M8.2 and the M9 in price. I agree that if you set out to purchase a M8.2 the day before the M9, then the additional cost of a M9 is not that terrible.

 

But that is because I own a M8 and I was comparing the RRP of a M8, at £2990 with the RRP of a M9 at £4850 - almost £2,000 more expensive.

 

Anyway, thanks for taking my views seriously and responding in kind.

 

LouisB

[KM-25]

Great post Louis, in no way is it provocative of the same old battles that can turn ugly.

 

As a reply, how cool is it the M7 is 7, happy birthday..

 

The M9, I tried it in Salt lake on the same day Adan did, we missed each other by 15 minutes, tops.

 

The full frame aspect and the IR problem being solved are reason enough alone for me personally to get an M9, the price put that idea on the shelf, for it is a digital camera, not a tool like a hammer or a screw driver. I tend to be using the Leica "Hammers" more than the computers these days so take that for what it is worth.

 

Perceived value to individual needs is what sells the camera, not a once size fits all solution.

 

And I hope you are wrong about the escalating prices, they are pretty high as it is.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ArtZ]

M8 was 4200 € (No sapphire glass)

M9 is 5490 € (No sapphire glass)

 

So... M9 is 1290 € more expensive than M8