Jump to content

M9-P. What's next...?


baci

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a beloved M9-P. And a 35 cron and 50 lux. I’d like a 21 something but it’s not critical. I shoot an M5 for film, less regularly. I am giving myself permission to buy any Leica with the exception of an S. So let’s say for once cost isn’t an option.

 

I take images with some sort of artistic intent (http://rowefoto.tumblr.com), but also want as complete and high quality record of my children growing up as possible. I love Leica and want to continue my association with the brand.

 

If you have been in my circumstance I’m interested in what course you took and why. An M10 is tempting, but is it that different? A Q will give me the sameish sensor as the M10, with a short lens, macro, etc etc. But then why not get an M10? The SL gives me autofocus potential, and I get to use my existing lenses for manual. But it’s a tad clunky. A monochrom… It seems no-one that’s owned a monochrom has ever had a bad word to say about it. Perhaps that’s the way forward.

 

I know the answer is always, “It depends…”, but does anyone have any views?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, sounds like you're looking to buy a new camera just for the sake of buying it, with no real purpose in mind.

 

What is it that you want to do that your current gear is preventing you from achieving?

 

A 21mm lens is a different matter as long as you have some uses in mind for it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great question. And in my mind (to make a musical analogy) it's like, "Why do you want a Strat when you have a Les Paul?" I won't take different photos, but I think I'll take the same photos differently. The attraction to the new sensors in the SL, 10 and the Q is the fidelity. IMHO how we see isn't faithfully reproduced by an M9 sensor. While it's is bad technique to shoot folk with their faces in shadow sometime there's no alternative. To be able to lift the shadows in post gives a more faithful representation of the scene when shot. With the M9 that will often result in jarring artefacts. It seems the latitude in the new sensors makes representing the view as seen to be more of an option. The MM is about new ways of seeing. I guess the difference between exposing for shadows vs exposing for highlights, but also maybe a greater emphasis on form rather than color. It does seem that people with MMs become extremely attached to them. Yes they are all tools, but they are all bring something a little different to the equation.

 

Yes - I have plans for the 21 if it happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are choosing between buying a camera and a lens, a lens will give you more creative options. 

 

The 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar is truly an outstanding lens.  It is one of the must have M lenses in my view.

Edited by Carlos Danger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long time I chased the Holy Grail of high ISO performance.  And once I attained it (in my Nikon bodies) I discovered it did not give me the result I was expecting.  What I wanted was the ability to capture good images in poor lighting without resorting to flash.  What I discovered was that (in general) poor light results in poor images regardless of how little ISO noise is present.  Not to say that I avoid high ISO settings - in decent light they are very useful in allowing the use of shutter speeds and apertures that would otherwise be unattainable.

 

In some situations there is no alternative to a stratospheric ISO setting if one is to get the shot.  And there are circumstances where the poor lighting is an artistic element.  A photograph of one's dinner companion in a dim romantic restaurant for example. There the low and contrasty lighting  creates a mood that should be preserved in the image.  But rarely would the result be ideal as a portrait due to the random nature of the ambient light. 

 

With my M8.2 and M9 I found the colors I loved when at or near base ISO could be had in low light situations with good flash technique.  So I expanded my definition of "available light "to include the flash I keep in my bag.  By "good flash technique" I mean indirect flash that creates natural-looking and flattering lighting.  I avoid direct flash whenever possible.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In some situations there is no alternative to a stratospheric ISO setting if one is to get the shot.

 

A monopod can be a great help in low light. 

 

I know that a lot of M camera users consider this an abomination worse than necrophilia, but I will put it out there anyway:  In extreme low light, use a tripod and a cable release.  You can use a low ISO and get some outstanding results. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are choosing between buying a camera and a lens, a lens will give you more creative options. 

 

The 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar is truly an outstanding lens.  It is one of the must have M lenses in my view.

 

This may be a daft question - but f3.4 seems awfully slow. Do you ever find yourself in situations where taking the shot becomes impractical because the numbers won't come together?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, sounds like you're looking to buy a new camera just for the sake of buying it, with no real purpose in mind.

 

What is it that you want to do that your current gear is preventing you from achieving?

 

A 21mm lens is a different matter as long as you have some uses in mind for it.

One could turn the question around for baci:

 

What is it that your current gear prevents you from buying a M10 if you want to spend money on something nice from Leica?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great question. And in my mind (to make a musical analogy) it's like, "Why do you want a Strat when you have a Les Paul?" I won't take different photos, but I think I'll take the same photos differently. The attraction to the new sensors in the SL, 10 and the Q is the fidelity. IMHO how we see isn't faithfully reproduced by an M9 sensor. While it's is bad technique to shoot folk with their faces in shadow sometime there's no alternative. To be able to lift the shadows in post gives a more faithful representation of the scene when shot. With the M9 that will often result in jarring artefacts. It seems the latitude in the new sensors makes representing the view as seen to be more of an option. The MM is about new ways of seeing. I guess the difference between exposing for shadows vs exposing for highlights, but also maybe a greater emphasis on form rather than color. It does seem that people with MMs become extremely attached to them. Yes they are all tools, but they are all bring something a little different to the equation.

 

Yes - I have plans for the 21 if it happens.

I think you perfectly answered my question here. In 9 out 10 cases it will be difficult however to distinguish an MM photo from a converted to B&W from the M10

Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopod can be a great help in low light. 

 

I know that a lot of M camera users consider this an abomination worse than necrophilia, but I will put it out there anyway:  In extreme low light, use a tripod and a cable release.  You can use a low ISO and get some outstanding results.

 

There is an abomination worse than that for M users and that is: flash. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make nice work Michael. What I think to see in your work is quite conscious use and not use of color. And it seems that this happens mostly after the photo has been taken. So a camera that combines color with very good B&W conversions, much better than M9, would be a practical choice that saves you weight and volume. (I own the M10 now and have worked several years with M9 and MM1)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a daft question - but f3.4 seems awfully slow. Do you ever find yourself in situations where taking the shot becomes impractical because the numbers won't come together?

 

In my experience, f/3.4 is enough lens speed for the majority of situations, particularly with my M-P 240 having a maximum ISO of 6400. 

 

For my purposes, ISO 6400 translates into a usable ISO of somewhere up to about ISO 2000 in order to maintain image quality for making larger framed prints.  When shooting with the Super Elmar 21, if f/3.4 at ISO 2000 forces me to use a shutter speed of slower than 1/60 I will use some kind of support - tripod, monopod or bean bag.  It's a different situation if you are shooting with an M 10 or a Monochrom typ 246 though, as both have much higher ISO capabilities than the M240 cameras do.

 

I would still encourage others to use a monopod for low light shooting, though; it has been a great help to my low light shooting.  I have shot with my M 240 in places where even f/1.0 did not give me enough lens speed.  My monopod saved the day, giving me some nice sharp images that I seriously doubt I would have gotten shooting hand held at a shutter speed of 1/45. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have several approaches with our kids photography.

M camera and 50mm for better isolation from background. It is difficult to have them still for it.

Also M and flash with 35 mm lens at f5.6, f8. Less artistic, but most sharp and with Leica quality.

Third one is with old DSLR and often with TTL flash. Not Leica quality, but AF makes big difference for indoors, close photos of kids in action.

Outside I still prefer M cameras because I could have smaller aperture and more distance, more DoF.

But Q with 28 lens and AF might be great option for outdoors. If I"m not using M cameras outside, I use old P&S with Leica zoom and I always choose 28mm end for kids photography. With 28mm I'm close to them and it feels and works even better.

Personally I do bw photography, but kids photography means color...

Edited by Ko.Fe.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make nice work Michael. What I think to see in your work is quite conscious use and not use of color. And it seems that this happens mostly after the photo has been taken. So a camera that combines color with very good B&W conversions, much better than M9, would be a practical choice that saves you weight and volume. (I own the M10 now and have worked several years with M9 and MM1)

 

Thanks for the compliment - and yes, the M9 sensor as she renders is a little too oversaturated for my tastes and I do tend to dial it back somewhat. When I do that a different feel emerges - one more faithful to what I thought I saw at the time. One of the attractions of the SL/Q/M10 sensor is it seems to be a lot more natural in its rendering.

 

To your earlier point about B&W conversions, I had an SL for a weekend recently and I was really surprised at both the 'honesty' of the files and the way they responded to Lightroom. Like a whole different dynamic than with M9 files. I liked it. B&W conversions to me looked and felt detailed and luscious and gorgeous. Not so with the M9 - much more Tri-X workmanlike. YMMV. 

 

I'm kinda thinking that a Q will give me fidelity with a new experience. A M10 will give me incremental fidelity but the same experience I have with the M9, more or less. Perhaps the Q is the way forward? Q + M9: complimentary yet different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, f/3.4 is enough lens speed for the majority of situations, particularly with my M-P 240 having a maximum ISO of 6400. 

 

 

Ahhh - good point. I'm a little hamstrung by trying to stick at or below 400!! I really like the idea of a monopod, too. Thanks for getting back to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using my Fuji X100 while my M9 is away getting a new sensor. What I've enjoyed most is the close focus that I just don't get on the M9 with my 50mm Cron. Autofocus is awful so I've been using a mixture of OVF, back button focusing and focus peaking highlight. For pictures of my toddler I've found it a great system (though it feels like a bit of a workaround). The Q, I'd think, might give a similar experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a daft question - but f3.4 seems awfully slow. Do you ever find yourself in situations where taking the shot becomes impractical because the numbers won't come together?

 

 

A whole world of great photography has been done (and continues to be done) with lenses slower than F3.4. And with much slower film speeds too.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole world of great photography has been done (and continues to be done) with lenses slower than F3.4. And with much slower film speeds too.

 

 

 

Not possible. Therefore I think you should sell that useless 28mm Summaron.

 

Funnily enough I know someone who might be able to help you out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment - and yes, the M9 sensor as she renders is a little too oversaturated for my tastes and I do tend to dial it back somewhat. When I do that a different feel emerges - one more faithful to what I thought I saw at the time. One of the attractions of the SL/Q/M10 sensor is it seems to be a lot more natural in its rendering.

 

To your earlier point about B&W conversions, I had an SL for a weekend recently and I was really surprised at both the 'honesty' of the files and the way they responded to Lightroom. Like a whole different dynamic than with M9 files. I liked it. B&W conversions to me looked and felt detailed and luscious and gorgeous. Not so with the M9 - much more Tri-X workmanlike. YMMV.

 

I'm kinda thinking that a Q will give me fidelity with a new experience. A M10 will give me incremental fidelity but the same experience I have with the M9, more or less. Perhaps the Q is the way forward? Q + M9: complimentary yet different.

 

I don't know the Q because it's relatively expensive having a bunch of M-lenses.

But the M10 is rather more saturated than the M9, although this depends rather strong on the type of lightsource.

Skintones from the M10 are highly unproblematic, which cannot be said that often about the SL and the M9

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

snapback.png

A whole world of great photography has been done (and continues to be done) with lenses slower than F3.4. And with much slower film speeds too.

 

Not possible. Therefore I think you should sell that useless 28mm Summaron.

 

 

Word is, Leica is doing R&D on the super secret 21mm Noctilux f/0.95 ASPH and the 140 mm UV and polarizer filters for it...

Edited by Carlos Danger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...