Hasselblad to M9

[peterbkk]

For the last 20 years I have used medium format cameras, starting with a Bronica GS1 but mainly using a Hasselblad 205FCC. I have enjoyed using the 'blad and received years of reliable service, including the transition into digital photography with the CFV back. However, as most of my photography is done while walking around the cities of Asia, I have found that, carrying a backpack with the 'blad, a couple of lenses and a tripod, a bit too heavy. I'd often come home with an aching back.

So, a couple of months ago, when reading about the M9, I wondered if it might be the answer. High enough quality to maintain my standards, small enough to carry and not encumbered with lots of pointless options, auto-functions and buttons.

Advised by a avid Leica user, also a member of this forum, I decided to buy the M9, the grip, and a 35 and 75 Summicron. I also put together a super-lightweight Gitzo tripod with a small ball-head. The M9 body arrived last weekend and I took it for its first walk around downtown Singapore on Sunday morning. Some of the images can be found at: http://www.peterwalker.com/Galleries...ore/index.html

I dashed off some "first reaction" thoughts in an email to your fellow Leica aficionado and he suggested that I post it here as others might be interested.

I certainly enjoyed my first experiences with the M9, including unpacking it.

My primary goal, a smaller, lighter camera without too much loss of quality from the Hasselblad*, appears to have been achieved.

I particularly liked:

• Camera handling, easy to access, set-up and get a shot
• The shutter release - the best I have ever used
• The histogram review is useful for exposure analysis
• The layout of the controls (although I fumbled for the focus ring sometimes - need more practice)
• The hand-grip: makes it easy to get it out of the camera bag
• My new, lighter tripod with RRS QR works really well - very quick set up, easy to carry
• The Leica / Billingham bag is a nice bag - easy to get into, comfortable to carry
• The simpler Lightroom / Photoshop workflow

While I am happy with my first results, I know that I have a way to go to consistently get the results I want:

• I found myself struggling to get my hands in the right place for vertical shots, sometimes blocking the viewfinder
• It'll take me a while to know intuitively how the camera will react in a particular lighting situation
• Need some more practice focusing the 75mm for portrait shots
• Also need to watch depth-of-field on the 75mm
• In low light, should shoot the 75mm on a tripod? Soft, bounce flash?
• Not used to being able to change ISO setting so easily - need to remember what it is set at
• I need more practice at using the exposure arrows to be able to quickly get to the optimal exposure
• Haven't used A mode or exposure compensation yet, so need to see if these might be helpful
• Need to better understand the white balance - slight yellowish cast in some (most? / all?) images - fix in camera, Lightroom or Photoshop

* Without doing a side-by-side shoot-out comparison, I'd say that, for my purposes, the M9 is producing images about as good as the Hasselblad. The end result from the M9 is an uncompressed 16 bit 100Mb Tiff file, slightly larger than the 95Mb Tiff files produced by the Hasselblad workflow. I looked closely at 100% sections of two images, one taken Sunday by the M9 (on a tripod) and one taken a few weeks ago in similar early morning light (on a tripod) by the 'blad. The amount of detail available is about the same. The sharpness in the image corners is about the same. Any difference, if there is any, is more than compensated by the increased portability of the Leica.

So, in summary, I am happy with my purchase and look forward to getting to know it better.

Regards
Peter

Singapore

[ericperlberg]

Thanks for posting, I've been thinking of getting a Hassy V series with a digital back to further improve on the quality (dynamic range/tonality especially) of the nice files I get from my M8. From what you've written the differences sound very small and presumably not worth the effort over just getting an M9 for which I already have the lenses I need. Would that be a fair summary of your experience?

Eric

[Marty]

I am surprised actually that the back keeps up so well with the M9 in your comparison. That says a lot about the quality of the Hassy/Zeiss lenses and the tuning of the back to the camera bodies. Of course the CFV is a larger sensor but still it is probably also older than the M9's. I suppose anyone interested in a V system these days should really go for the latest (expensive) larger back; and stick to their tripods always.

[peterbkk]

Originally Posted by ericperlberg

Thanks for posting, I've been thinking of getting a Hassy V series with a digital back to further improve on the quality (dynamic range/tonality especially) of the nice files I get from my M8. From what you've written the differences sound very small and presumably not worth the effort over just getting an M9 for which I already have the lenses I need. Would that be a fair summary of your experience?

Eric

Well, I would love to try the new CFV 39 back. I am sure that gets excellent results. But, for me, I'mm looking for a more portable set up these days.

Regards
Peter

[Rolo]

Originally Posted by peterbkk

* Without doing a side-by-side shoot-out comparison, I'd say that, for my purposes, the M9 is producing images about as good as the Hasselblad. The end result from the M9 is an uncompressed 16 bit 100Mb Tiff file, slightly larger than the 95Mb Tiff files produced by the Hasselblad workflow. I looked closely at 100% sections of two images,

So, in summary, I am happy with my purchase and look forward to getting to know it better.

I recently did do a side by side comparison and the results are not simple and straight forward. My conclusion was that the M9 was not a match for the CFV-16, but I'm by no means saying it's not good enough. Let me explain.

I purchased a 50mm Summilux Asph and after proving to myself there was no back focus I decided to run it against the Hasselblad CFV fitted with the standard 80mm CFE lens ( as good as they get). In a studio, using flash, I fixed them both to a tripod and shot the test chart below. The field of view was the same in the height, but the Leica was slightly wider than the CFV. Accurate enough for what I was doing - same scene covered, same light source, same position ....... f stop. Would this new Lux prize match my beloved Hass; no doubt in my mind at all.

Result - nowhere near ! Shock/horror . On the scale below the Hass resolved at the 6th section, the M9 only reached no 4.

Immediately, after repeating the whole thing again to get the same results, realising the fundamental error of not directly comparing the same focal lengths, I swapped the 50 Lux for my 75mm Lux as that was as near as I could get in FL's. DaDarr - now we're rocking - the 75mm results shot to section 7. Great, for equivalent focal lengths from the same position the M9 will out-resolve the Hass CFV !

Just a minute - what's happened to my frame ? I'm left with a head shot on the M9 and a half body shot on the Hass, but the resolving powers the 'same' as is the DoF, but the picture isn't. Move the M9/75mm back to get the same framing and we're back down to 4. Coincidently, that's about where the M8/50 Lux needs to be to cover the subject and the rating then is less than 3 !

So, to get the same resolution as the Hass you have to stitch two vertical 75mm frames together, in fact three with an overlap. Use an M8 and you're into more frames on two rows. Made it clear to me what was happening with my M8.

Basically, there's no practical solution to match the Hass CFV in a handheld situation.

Fortunately, we don't make photos like this when using a Leica M. We select the lens, get in close, fill the frame and print paper sizes that don't expose the resolution of these fine lenses and the terrific M9 sensor.

Now, the CFV- 39, no chance of matching that with a 35mm format, IMO.

Hope that helps.

[sanyasi]

White Balance: I continue to achieve very good results with the Lally cap when it comes to white balance. For $29 it is great investment. It looks like a shower cap and you put it over the lens, select manual white balance, and snap a picture. That then sets the white balance until you reset the white balance. I tested this out in a museum last weekend, where the type of lighting kept changing from room to room. I was amazed at the color rendition. It is just a question of getting in the habit of using it.

You can order it from places like B&H Photo or directly from Mr. Lally. Just do a quick google search and you will get to his site.

Good luck and thanks for the informative post.

[peterbkk]

Originally Posted by Rolo

I recently did do a side by side comparison and the results are not simple and straight forward. My conclusion was that the M9 was not a match for the CFV-16, but I'm by no means saying it's not good enough. Let me explain.

...

Now, the CFV- 39, no chance of matching that with a 35mm format, IMO.

Hope that helps.

Interesting comparison.

But, my main concern is the balance between quality and usability. On a pure quality rating, a top-quality MF camera, lens and back will beat a top-quality smaller system. If the larger system is at home because you are tried of backpacking it around, then the smaller system wins out.

Regards
Peter

[Rolo]

Originally Posted by peterbkk

Interesting comparison.
But, my main concern is the balance between quality and usability. On a pure quality rating, a top-quality MF camera, lens and back will beat a top-quality smaller system. If the larger system is at home because you are tried of backpacking it around, then the smaller system wins out.

Regards
Peter

Peter, I'm with you 100% on that and usually have my M9 fitted with a collapsed 50mm Elmar-M in my jacket pocket whenever I go away from the house.

What I was responding to above was the question of the difference in file quality of the two where the Hass has the advantage. IF, you can get the image with the Hass the photo is likely to be better.

However, an unmentioned (above), but very significant advantage of the M9 is the higher ISO capability, the wide aperture lenses and the ability to crop, when called upon these can enable image capture in low-light situations where the Hass would struggle.

I'm very fond of using both systems.

[ericperlberg]

This is all very useful for me.Thanks.

You guys may be aware of this review of the CFV-39 back. The photographs the chap posts are stunning in terms of dynamic range and dimensionality. Three negative points (sorry about pun) were the crop factor, the domination of horizontal over vertical shooting (because of the non-square shape of the chip) and lastly that above ISO 50 there was deterioration from noticeable noise.

[downstairs]

I'm not so sure that my Hassy 39 MS is any better than my M9.
I've been using the 39 in MS mode with the 120mm macro on watches for nearly two years and it has done it's job nicely. But shooting people untethered in single shot mode, I was often put to shame by back connection sequence problems - not to mention my memory problems with the 100 odd menu items.
So I got an M9 to get simpler way of life (I had lenses) and the first thing I did was to compare files.
Have a look here at two or three direct (HB80 vs Summicron 50) comparisons with detail crops (the golf balls, the top etc.) The Leica is more precise, albeit with slightly less tone. Web jpegs don't tell you much, but I can assure you that the pecking order goes like this: 1.Stitched M9, 2.Straight M9, 3.Hasselblad single shot, 4. 4x5 Epson V750 scan.
8x10 beats them all but that is not a simpler way of life.

[jpattison]

Superb images, by the way.
HMI lights? and could you explain your panning technique, please?

John