"The Best M9 Second Body Alternative"

[egrossman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

New article on Luminous-Landscape.com:

 

Leica M9 Second Body Alternatives

[Double Negative]

Personally, I wouldn't buy any of those.

 

I'll stick with the M7 and M8.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[egrossman]

At the moment I don't have any sort of backup. Since I don't earn an income from my photography it hasn't been important. The only time I've wished I had something else was when I sent my M9 to Leica NJ for adustment. It was a long 2 weeks...

[StephenPatterson]

Agree, none of those would be my choice. Also I wouldn't go with an M8, just because I don't want to be going back and forth with UV/IR filters.

 

A used M6 (MP if budget will allow) fills the role nicely.

 

If it must be digital then an X1 or X100.

[Double Negative]

...Also I wouldn't go with an M8, just because I don't want to be going back and forth with UV/IR filters...

 

A very good point. Unless "backup" meant your primary (M9) was down and out. But film works in the sense it's "full frame" too. At least when using the M8 as a backup, you can use a 35mm on it (with a UV/IR) and say, a 50mm on the M9 for essentially similar output.

[pico]

The best M9 Second Body is another M9.

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried X1 and was disappointed. It works so differently from M that I didn't think it was workable and the one focal length is also a big issue. I decided I wanted an M that would use M lenses, so I got an M8. On that score, the M8 works like an M9 but the need for UV/IR filters and the lack of full frame led me back to film and a M6 ttl. Cost lower than either M8 or X1 and handles and works like M9. My M9 will become a backup when there is a M10 that is an improvement.

[earful]

clearly leica made the m9-p so that the m9 can serve as a second body. it's called filling in the gap.

[menos I M6]

A month ago or so, I bought a new Panasonic GH-2 body, as I fantasized, that it might pair well with Leica tele lenses, to extend the reach of my 135mm.

 

Well, let me tell you, that the GH-2, as a fine camera, it might be, sits in a closet with less than 100 exposures made and I see not really any meaningful use for it.

 

It works as advertised, but it is a far cry in usability from any RF camera, that would take my LTM and M lenses.

 

The writer of the linked article has to be understood about what kind of shots, what kind of purpose of the second body (truly just backup?) he is referring to.

I do mainly handheld quick photographs in candid situations in low light with mostly fast lenses of f1.4 or faster.

 

For tele shots, I use a 135/3.4, Canon 100/2 LTM and Leica 90mm lenses - all handheld.

The GH-2 really is heavy on the eyes for using manual focus lenses.

It is an extremely uncomfortable body to hold, operate, balance with very awkward controls and difficult to operate buttons.

 

It can be programmed, to somewhat be more usable with a few functions, being more logically set to the few programmable buttons (again in awkward to reach positions with this very small DSLR shaped miniaturized body).

 

I have held a EPL1 body, which (without further testing it) feels a lot more natural to the hand, when using Leica M bodies.

It does have though similar limitations for shooting Leica glass like the GH-2.

 

If one is into video and happens, to have a stock in Leica M glass - run for a GH2.

If somebody has smallish hands, likes plastic "playful" cameras and maybe one or two extra AF lenses for it go for it (not minding the very high prices these go for - seriously, a kit zoom for an equivalent price to a full frame Nikon consumer zoom of similar range???).

 

… otherwise hands off !

I am not sure, what to make with that new GH-2. I might even curse myself, finding my way into a camera store and purchasing one of these better short fast AF primes, to use it as a PS camera.

I don't know.

 

Now if there would be a way, to transplant this GH-2 into a proper camera body (Nikon Fm), it would be a whole different thing.

[lars_bergquist]

The best M9 Second Body is another M9.

 

Agreed. But the assumption was that we are not stinking rich, or totally reckless with money.

 

The LL writer(s) unknown seem to think that the ability to use M lenses is important. For a pro, yes, but in that case a second tax-deductible M9 would be possible. But for us ordinary blokes, it could well be enough to substitute for the M and our most used lens, the one we use, or could use, for nine exposures out of ten. In my case, that is 35mm, and I do not think I am alone in this.

 

Also, optical compatibility of existing interchangeable-lens 4/3 and APS format cameras with M optics does leave a good deal to be desired.

 

I would want something with a fixed 35mm equivalent lens, with good IQ, with a decent, preferably optical finder, and small enough to ride with the M gear in a smallish bag, or even in a largish pocket. I am finished with film – after half a century working with it in most conceivable ways – so digital it must be.

 

So I bought it. The Fuji X100.

 

The old man from the Age of the Glass Plate Neg

[250swb]

My view of 'second body alternative' is not one of simply doubling up what you already have. Buying two M9 bodies (or an X100 to match the 35mm focal length) is only useful if one breaks. Fine for a professional but otherwise not a very imaginative solution as one is always likely to be underused.

 

My idea of a 'second body' is that you find something to fill the gaps and that can do things you can't already do with your main camera and lenses. So I see no problem in advocating the GH2. The sensor is as good as the APS-C sensors on the market despite being m4/3, it has some very good kit lenses for when you want a zoom option, and a telephoto option, and a video option, and an AF option (this could go on and on).... But it also allows you to use the unique qualities of your Leica M lenses and their tonal and colour rendering characteristics. A 90mm Elmarit becomes a very nice 180mm tele, a 50mm Summilux becomes a fine 100mm portrait lens, and with the image magnification ability in the GH2 viewfinder you can be sure you have focused exactly where you want to. Its also a small light system so a body and a kit zoom are going to weigh less than another M body and your collection of lenses that cover all focal lengths.

 

That is my idea of a useful second camera, a backup that will save you, fill in the gaps, and not just repeat what you have for a misplaced idea of symmetry.

 

Steve

[menos I M6]

My view of 'second body alternative' is not one of simply doubling up what you already have. Buying two M9 bodies (or an X100 to match the 35mm focal length) is only useful if one breaks. Fine for a professional but otherwise not a very imaginative solution as one is always likely to be underused.

 

My idea of a 'second body' is that you find something to fill the gaps and that can do things you can't already do with your main camera and lenses. So I see no problem in advocating the GH2. The sensor is as good as the APS-C sensors on the market despite being m4/3, it has some very good kit lenses for when you want a zoom option, and a telephoto option, and a video option, and an AF option (this could go on and on).... But it also allows you to use the unique qualities of your Leica M lenses and their tonal and colour rendering characteristics. A 90mm Elmarit becomes a very nice 180mm tele, a 50mm Summilux becomes a fine 100mm portrait lens, and with the image magnification ability in the GH2 viewfinder you can be sure you have focused exactly where you want to. Its also a small light system so a body and a kit zoom are going to weigh less than another M body and your collection of lenses that cover all focal lengths.

 

That is my idea of a useful second camera, a backup that will save you, fill in the gaps, and not just repeat what you have for a misplaced idea of symmetry.

 

Steve

 

Steve, my reasoning was exactly that, when I bought the GH2. I didn't jump into a camera store either and bought the first best µ4/3 camera, but investigated all options (I wanted µ4/3 for the 2x crop for tele photo fov and small size and weight, to have this body as an addition).

 

The issue with Today's µ4/3 offerings are, that they become a crutch to use, once, you are accustomed to the simple works and perfect ergonomics of the Leica M.

I even have issues, to switch back to the Nikon D3, when I need long glass, but at least the D3 is a very intelligently designed, correctly proportioned ergonomic body, where all buttons fall naturally under one's finger.

 

Be warned, current µ4/3 camera offerings are first and foremost designed as consumer cameras for upgraders from small compact point and shoot cameras (ever went through the menu system of a Panasonic GH2?).

 

Other manufacturers of comparable systems show, that it also can work nicely - see Ricoh GRD.

 

I am seriously following, what is possible with the announced GXR M-mount module (although by the date, it is available, µ4/3 has probably migrated to even the next better sensor generation).

 

A major issue is indeed the handling of manual focus with the EVF setup of the GH2 - don't you ever dream, it is an as natural and fluent process, as shooting a rangefinder camera.

[Viv]

My backup is a Zeiss Ikon. Wonderful camera.

[vanhulsenbeek]

A month ago or so, I bought a new Panasonic GH-2 body, as I fantasized, that it might pair well with Leica tele lenses, to extend the reach of my 135mm.............

 

Well, let me tell you, that the GH-2, as a fine camera, it might be, sits in a closet with less than 100 exposures made and I see not really any meaningful use for it................

 

I started with the first Panasonic G body (was it the G1?) and my experience was very similar.

The results were OK, but without any wow-factor, and the handling was not good IMHO. It has been sold now.

[250swb]

A major issue is indeed the handling of manual focus with the EVF setup of the GH2 - don't you ever dream, it is an as natural and fluent process, as shooting a rangefinder camera.

 

You are preaching to the converted, I already use a Panasonic G1. I find the manual focusing very easy even without using the magnifaction option. And while clearly the results are never going to match a Leica m9 in outright image quality I have never been a believer that outright image quality is what decides if a photograph is good anyway. And the GH2 is considerably better than the G1 on that front.

 

Steve

[mwilliamsphotography]

I make money with my M9 ... so the back-up is another M9. Or I carry a Sony A900, depending on the job requirements. Film Ms are not a back-up option.

 

However, when using one of the M9s for personal work or travel, I use an adapted Sony NEX5 with focus peaking. The thing is so small, I now even throw it in with the 2 M9s because it offers some fun alternative technology like in-camera pano stitching.

 

I selected the NEX5 because it sort of keeps me up-to-date as to what is going on with emerging technologies without spending a lot of money while it is all "emerging" ... AND with a different adapter it takes some of my smaller Alpha mount AF lenses like the 50/1.4 and Zeiss 24/2. The little pancake 16mm isn't all bad, and serves as a true "take-with" pocket camera for snaps.

 

Pretty interesting to use the NEX focus peaking with the faster M optics like a 75/1.4 and Noctilux wide open. The high ISO performance of the Sony APSc sensor coupled with Sony's multishot low light blending option makes that even more interesting.

 

Otherwise, I just consider them all as supplemental toys ... but it won't be long before they get a lot better.

 

My bet is that Leica will offer something similar with an M mount and leave the M for more traditional rangefinder capture.

 

-Marc

[sandymc]

For what it's worth, I've been very impressed with the image quality of my NEX-5.

 

Manual focusing however I find to be a pain. Although I haven't yet tried the focus peaking to any great extent.

 

Sandy

[usayit]

Short of another M9 my backup is an M8.

 

Next best, Olympus EPL1 (or newer) with EVF. It costs very little, takes up little space in the bag, has dedicated magnification button, and any M mount lens is image stabilized. No Panasonic body can claim to stabilize a Leica lens and given the 2x crop IS is welcoming. Focusing is still slower but I have gotten proficient enough at it.

 

I guess I am the minority.. Its not uncommon for me to throw in thr Epl1 with adapter (no lens) in the ouside pocket of my bag with the M's. Works well with the 90 summarit

Edited June 28, 2011 by usayit

[bocaburger]

I sold my M8 after I got the M9, because it was still worth serious cash, and being out of warranty, posed a risk of serious cash in case of repairs. I then toyed with the idea of a micro 4/3 as a backup, but when I considered the cost plus a decent adapter, it came to more than I wanted to spend, and I'm not thrilled with EVFs much more than LCDs. So far I'm still relying on my DLux-3 as a travel backup, despite its multitude of drawbacks. My M8 never broke down on a trip (or at all for that matter) and I never actually took a single shot with the DLux-3. I'm hoping the same will hold true with the M9. If not, and I do need to press the DLux-3 into service on a trip, the world won't be lost. Here at home if something went wrong with the M9 I'd just use my Canon stuff for however long the M9 was laid up. I've still got a couple film Ms, but having to scan hundreds of negatives? No thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sblutter]

canon 5dm2 or G11 for me