Edmond Terakopian's M9 review in BJP

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

British Journal of Photography - Love/hate relationship

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[delander †]

I read it. Very nice. Can't agree with his overstated negative views on the M8 or his comment that the image quality of the M9 does not come close to the Canon 5D2. I do agree that at £4850 it is a bit expensive.

 

Jeff

[bill]

...Can't agree with his overstated negative views on the M8...

 

I can, in fact I think he expresses it very well:

 

"I have to admit to almost feeling heart-broken when I tried the M8. The image quality didn’t live up to expectation, although in ideal conditions it would produce nice enough images, it just wasn’t consistent through its ISO range. To top it was the horrid problems with having to get IR filters for all one’s lenses. The cherry on top was the crop factor. I tried it when it first came out and then re-visited it around six months ago, and still, it was a real

disappointment."

The M9 is a very different kettle of fish.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

I read it. Very nice. Can't agree with his overstated negative views on the M8 or his comment that the image quality of the M9 does not come close to the Canon 5D2. I do agree that at £4850 it is a bit expensive.

 

Jeff

+1

[Rolo]

A rewarding read for those who have, or are seriously considering the M9. There's no deal breakers there and he wants one for himself.

 

I suggest this illustrates the turning point for the digital M with professionals, not that professional users need to buy this camera to make it worthy. It's just another market niche opening up for Leica.

 

I enjoyed it.

[TimF]

Annoyingly my copy hasn't turned up today, though LFI 1/2010 did to my surprise.

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can, in fact I think he expresses it very well:

 

"I have to admit to almost feeling heart-broken when I tried the M8. The image quality didn’t live up to expectation, although in ideal conditions it would produce nice enough images, it just wasn’t consistent through its ISO range. To top it was the horrid problems with having to get IR filters for all one’s lenses. The cherry on top was the crop factor. I tried it when it first came out and then re-visited it around six months ago, and still, it was a real

disappointment."

The M9 is a very different kettle of fish.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

As a person who owns and uses both an M8 and an M9 I cant agree that 'the M9 is a very different kettle of fish'. The M9 has a number of improvements over the M8 and currently quite a few downsides. I see little difference - if any - between an M8 image and the centre 10Mp of an M9 image. Thus there is little difference in the intrinsic recording qualities of the two sensors.

 

The IR filters on the M8 actually turned out to be a rather good technical solution in my view. Time will tell if the M9 solution to the same problem is up to standard. The smaller sensor of the M8 means that the files require significantly less digital correction compared to those of the M9. That extra correction results in file degradation. Dare I say it but I have the feeling from using both cameras that the M9 has a little less DR than the M8.

 

As I said the issues of the M8 are rather overstated.

 

Jeff

[dkCambridgeshire]

Annoyingly my copy hasn't turned up today, though LFI 1/2010 did to my surprise.

 

I subscribe to BJP but as the main articles are published online for free I'm wondering if it's worthwhile renewing my subscription.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[bill]

...

As I said the issues of the M8 are rather overstated.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I can't be bothered to argue with you on a subjective point. One man's meat is another man's poison, and all that. I am happy to agree to differ.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

Ah, Bill, but you do not write reviews where a personal opinion is easily read as an absolute truth.

[jonoslack]

I rather enjoyed his review, but it still really does indicate the shortcomings of BJP these days - saying that the IQ is nothing like as good as his Canon and that the M8 IQ was poor . . . . .

these are glib easy statements which are . . at the very least . . matters of opinion: all of us who've owned both know that a crop from the M9 is very similar to the whole frame of the M8.

 

When people are reviewing, and make authoritative sounding remarks which one simply knows aren't that simple, then it's tricky to accept the other things said.

 

The reason I stopped taking BJP (which I mostly really enjoyed) was that whenever they wrote about something I DO know about, they got it wrong . . so why should I believe them about things I don't know about?

[d2mini]

For me, this sums up most of why I want one.

 

However, the Leica M9, and these wonderful Leica lenses just produce images with life; there is a quality and look to the images that no other camera system can produce. In addition the form factor is fabulous; this tiny camera takes up so little room, and the lenses even less.

[wattsy]

Dare I say it but I have the feeling from using both cameras that the M9 has a little less DR than the M8.

 

I've noticed this too. The information is no doubt there but M9 DNGs default conversions seem to have a significantly more contrasty look about them - including more noticeably clipped highlights. The M9 files have the curious quality of being rather more 'film-like' and 'digital-like' at the same time.

[delander †]

I've noticed this too. The information is no doubt there but M9 DNGs default conversions seem to have a significantly more contrasty look about them - including more noticeably clipped highlights. The M9 files have the curious quality of being rather more 'film-like' and 'digital-like' at the same time.

 

Bearing in mind that quite often the light and dark bits of images appear around the edges I do wonder if it could be the result of the corrections applied by the FW which become more extreme near the edges/corners.

 

Jeff

[soundimageplus]

Its a decent review but I would make some points from a personal perspective.

I'm a full-time photographer who moved to Leica this year (M8 now M9) I have a Canon 5D MkII and sold a Nikon D3X to buy the M9.

 

In terms of image IQ I certainly prefer the M9 over both of the above cameras. With the obvious exception of high ISO / low light work for which the Canon excels. My M9 produces sharper, punchier files with gorgeous colour. I was impressed with the D3X but for the bulk of my work (low iso landscape/architecture stock library shooting) the M9 is absolutely the right tool for me. The images it produces are like digital Fuji Velvia.

 

In terms of the comments about too expensive for professionals. Firstly professionals get tax breaks on equipment, so the "real" price is lower for them. Secondly the top of the range Canons and Nikon are in the same price range. The 1DS MkII and D3X are still more expensive than the M9, certainly here in the UK.

Finally, in my hurry to take a shot the strap of my M8 caught on the edge of a table, yanked it out of my hand and smashed the screen.(I had also dislodged the sensor which I wasn't aware of at the time) I returned it to Leica under the passport warranty and a brand new camera appeared. (It was the same camera but looked brand new) As well as the camera being completely fixed, with a new screen and replaced sensor, the whole thing was cleaned and re-tested. All at no cost for me, with no quibble whatsoever, for something that was completely my fault. People forget that you get 2 years accidental damage cover included in the price.

 

So, for events and low light work I shall continue to use my Canon, but for everything else the M9 is my camera of choice. Image quality, handling, weight, size, simplicity, unobtrusive (most people think its an antique and don't give it a second look - which is not something that could be said about my D3X !) All these factors confirm that I made the right decision.

[D&A]

Hi All,

 

Jeff wrote:...>>>"As a person who owns and uses both an M8 and an M9 I cant agree that 'the M9 is a very different kettle of fish'. The M9 has a number of improvements over the M8 and currently quite a few downsides. I see little difference - if any - between an M8 image and the centre 10Mp of an M9 image. Thus there is little difference in the intrinsic recording qualities of the two sensors.

 

The IR filters on the M8 actually turned out to be a rather good technical solution in my view. Time will tell if the M9 solution to the same problem is up to standard. The smaller sensor of the M8 means that the files require significantly less digital correction compared to those of the M9. That extra correction results in file degradation. Dare I say it but I have the feeling from using both cameras that the M9 has a little less DR than the M8.

 

As I said the issues of the M8 are rather overstated.>>>"

 

I can't say I would make quite as strong a statement as Jeff wrote, but from my extensive work with both the M8 and M9 and their respective files.... I have to say I more or less agree than disagree. The BJP review although well written, seems to put the M8 in a completely different league than the M9 and this is what I find issue with. As I stated (posted) often elsewhere, there are distinct advantages to the M9 files, but for a great majority of uses (including both professional and large format printing)...the M8 holds it's own with a slight disadvantage in most cases...and even has a few advantages of its own. (over the M9). I admire the M9 and its capabilites, but no one with an M8 will find they are left out competing with those that shoot an M9 and many other fine cameras. I also agree that certain things have been a bit overstated regarding the M9. Both are exceptionally fine cameras for many demanding photographic situations, especially those that suit a rangefinder.

 

Dave (D&A)

[ndjambrose]

I read it. Very nice. Can't agree with his overstated negative views on the M8 or his comment that the image quality of the M9 does not come close to the Canon 5D2. I do agree that at £4850 it is a bit expensive.

 

Jeff

 

Really? I thought he nailed it. The M8 is camera with huge potential and numerous flaws. Used in optimum conditions it can deliver superlative quality. Used in other conditions, it can frequently disappoint.

 

Personal opinion - I no longer consider the M8 an appropriate tool for professional work. I persevered with it for a while, but I encountered enough problems that it's now the last camera I'd consider taking on a job - for reasons that have been discussed numerous times, and some of which were mentioned in the article.

 

Also, I believe he doesn't say the Canon 5D2 outperforms the M9 across the board. He says the 5D2 outperforms it at higher ISOs - which is surely perfectly true. Many cameras outperform the M9 at higher ISOs, including pretty much all pro-grade DSLRs. I didn't think that was a particularly contentious point.

[jaapv]

Really? I thought he nailed it. The M8 is camera with huge potential and numerous flaws. Used in optimum conditions it can deliver superlative quality. Used in other conditions, it can frequently disappoint.

 

Personal opinion - I no longer consider the M8 an appropriate tool for professional work. I persevered with it for a while, but I encountered enough problems that it's now the last camera I'd consider taking on a job - for reasons that have been discussed numerous times, and some of which were mentioned in the article.

 

Also, I believe he doesn't say the Canon 5D2 outperforms the M9 across the board. He says the 5D2 outperforms it at higher ISOs - which is surely perfectly true. Many cameras outperform the M9 at higher ISOs, including pretty much all pro-grade DSLRs. I didn't think that was a particularly contentious point.

I can be discussed though. The 5DII outperformes the M9 in the noise department, that is incontestable and mostly because of the sensor type - but what is mentioned not that often - The M9 outperforms the 5DII in colour rendering by quite a margin at high ISO - which again is a CCD-CMos thing.

[ndjambrose]

I can be discussed though. The 5DII outperformes the M9 in the noise department, that is incontestable and mostly because of the sensor type - but what is mentioned not that often - The M9 outperforms the 5DII in colour rendering by quite a margin at high ISO - which again is a CCD-CMos thing.

 

I don't disagree about the colour rendering. There's no doubt in my mind that the M9 produces beautiful tones and colour fidelity.

 

Though I do wonder about the value of colour rendering at high ISO if the image is unusable due to banding, chroma noise and loss of definition in shadow areas. I've seen a few images posted in various M9/high ISO threads and, while they've generated interesting discussion and have enthused the various people who've taken the images, they've all been completely unacceptable to me. At certain ISOs I can get better images from a point and shoot.

 

There's nothing especially critical about my eye. I'm sure that most people, if asked for a true evaluation of the image and not influenced by their love of the logo, would reach the same conclusion for images above 1600/2000 ISO.

 

The M9 has tremendous potential but, like any tool, it also comes with natural limits.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

The colour rendering is useful if one decides to do post-processing noise reduction. Banding etc, I might add, will only be visible on grossly underexposed images. The main problem I find is "classic"sensor noise which can be eliminated fairly easily by for instance Noise Ninja, at a resolution loss, obviously. I try to get around that by doing selective noise reduction. I have to admit, though, that I have no 2500 images yet that I find acceptable for posting on this forum