M9 - A Fabulous Buy!

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it is a very good point to NOT exaggerate the performance of any camera .

 

However, that should be made with the understanding that not everyone is going to like a shot done with a Canon at ISO 6400 as nice as the composition may be.

 

I've rarely seen a shot from any camera over 1600 that wasn't compromised to my eye. So, faster apertures and lack of mirror slap have been my only recourse.

 

ISO 800 to 1250 on the M9 are very good which has vastly increased the utilitarian application of the M9 over the M8 for what I do. That is all that matters to me.

 

-Marc

 

M9 @ ISO 1000

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[M. Valdemar]

And a Canon G11 could do it far better, lighter, and with every "virtue" you mention except maybe for the blurry images recording the "mood and atmosphere".

 

What's being "celebrated" here is your massive ego and thinly veiled illusion of superiority for owning what you consider to be the ultimate gear.

 

So now Leicas are NOT about technical perfection? (you're certainly whistling a different tune from some previous posts) So now they are about allowing a drunk photographer to capture atmospherics? I will bet $10,000 that you made sure EVERYONE was aware that you had a new M9 and that it was the major portion of every conversation during your "discrete" shoot.

 

Let's not reduce your braggadocio about your new camera to absurdity by trotting out all the old chestnuts about rangefinders that you read on the internets.

 

I 100% agree the M9 is a wonderful camera, but let's not talk nonsense by deifying lousy photos because they were taken with one.

 

 

 

 

Situation: A public venue, extreme low light (2500 ISO, f1.0, 1/20th), a drinking crowd, photographer having consumed the best part of a bottle of champagne, a desire to record the mood and atmosphere of the event, a need to be as discreet as possible, no desire to grapple with large heavy gear (which I do have), etc. I think that paints the picture (maybe better than my images!), etc. Leica cameras, IMHO, outstrip all other choices of gear for such a scenario. The M9 has some edge on its predecessor but I was posting mainly to support a new M9 owner celebrate the event by exhibiting what I consider a good image (my 1st pic anyway) of mood and event. I defy any DSLR operator to have got to 1st base in this particular situation. You see, Leicas are about more than technical perfection. That is barely the tip of the iceberg. The photographer is always the larger portion of the equation, but that is not the issue here AFAIK.

[M. Valdemar]

That is a perfectly valid, rational statement, as it pertains to your perception.

 

I think it is a very good point to NOT exaggerate the performance of any camera .

 

However, that should be made with the understanding that not everyone is going to like a shot done with a Canon at ISO 6400 as nice as the composition may be.

 

I've rarely seen a shot from any camera over 1600 that wasn't compromised to my eye. So, faster apertures and lack of mirror slap have been my only recourse.

 

ISO 800 to 1250 on the M9 are very good which has vastly increased the utilitarian application of the M9 over the M8 for what I do. That is all that matters to me.

 

-Marc

 

M9 @ ISO 1000

[erl]

And a Canon G11 could do it far better, lighter, and with every "virtue" you mention except maybe for the blurry images recording the "mood and atmosphere".

 

What's being "celebrated" here is your massive ego and thinly veiled illusion of superiority for owning what you consider to be the ultimate gear.

 

So now Leicas are NOT about technical perfection? (you're certainly whistling a different tune from some previous posts) So now they are about allowing a drunk photographer to capture atmospherics? I will bet $10,000 that you made sure EVERYONE was aware that you had a new M9 and that it was the major portion of every conversation during your "discrete" shoot.

 

Let's not reduce your braggadocio about your new camera to absurdity by trotting out all the old chestnuts about rangefinders that you read on the internets.

 

I 100% agree the M9 is a wonderful camera, but let's not talk nonsense by deifying lousy photos because they were taken with one.

 

M. Valdemar, your obnoxious attitude clearly knows no bounds. Your assumptions go even further. Two people knew I had an M9. One was the person that sold it to me, the other was the "centre" of the occasion. As far as my private discussion are concerned, only a bloody fool would talk like you assumed I did and then attempt discreet photography. As I said before, I have every respect for your right to disagree with my, or any other persons choice of camera, but as for your personal attitude I have no respect whatever.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Actually, it is interesting to delve into what one actually does and what one thinks they do.

 

I am writing an article about the application of all kinds of different equipment for use in shooting weddings.

 

One of the exercises is to study the Exif information for a number of file folders of photographs to determine what is really happening when you are shooting.

 

When I did that for myself, I found that I rarely shot over ISO 1600 ... if ever. How I shoot, and what I shoot with, kept the ISOs bunched up in the 400 to 800 area by a vast percentage. ISO 1000 or 1600 being the occasional exception to the rule. It also revealed that the D3 I owned was a waste of money for my applications ... since I never used it for what it was best at doing ... except to test the novelty of it after first buying it ... LOL!

 

I shoot available light in some pretty dark conditions, but rarely need more than 800 or 1000 depending on the shutter speed needed. Maybe is all that film discipline or something. But I am skeptical about the need for such high ISOs because of what it does to the look of the image ... and I don't just mean noise.

 

This "Urban Style " Bridal portrait was done with crummy little incandescent bulbs in a pitch dark room using a Noctilux on a M9 at ISO 800.

 

The M9 is very easy to set manual WB which is an essential part of shooting higher ISO available light stuff IMO.

 

-Marc

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[erl]

Marc, that is nicely handled and controlled, which I know is what you are good at. One would expect no less from you. To extrapolate your point further, you have avoided the problems I introduced with my pics, by virtue of your control, and thus gained a superior result technically speaking.

 

The versatility of Leicas is their strength in that they work equally well in either your scenario or mine, or others that we may choose, providing the choice is wisely made. I think most would agree that beyond that, it is the photographer and the viewer that makes any other difference.

[James R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And a Canon G11 could do it far better, lighter, and with every "virtue" you mention except maybe for the blurry images recording the "mood and atmosphere".

 

What's being "celebrated" here is your massive ego and thinly veiled illusion of superiority for owning what you consider to be the ultimate gear.

 

So now Leicas are NOT about technical perfection? (you're certainly whistling a different tune from some previous posts) So now they are about allowing a drunk photographer to capture atmospherics? I will bet $10,000 that you made sure EVERYONE was aware that you had a new M9 and that it was the major portion of every conversation during your "discrete" shoot.

 

Let's not reduce your braggadocio about your new camera to absurdity by trotting out all the old chestnuts about rangefinders that you read on the internets.

 

I 100% agree the M9 is a wonderful camera, but let's not talk nonsense by deifying lousy photos because they were taken with one.

 

I'm not understanding this back and forth or why you are getting so personal? You've criticized the motives, egos, and intentions of posters since your first post. Trying to humiliate a person doesn't do much to further your perspective.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Marc, that is nicely handled and controlled, which I know is what you are good at. One would expect no less from you. To extrapolate your point further, you have avoided the problems I introduced with my pics, by virtue of your control, and thus gained a superior result technically speaking.

 

The versatility of Leicas is their strength in that they work equally well in either your scenario or mine, or others that we may choose, providing the choice is wisely made. I think most would agree that beyond that, it is the photographer and the viewer that makes any other difference.

 

Yep, I Agree.

 

I subscribe to the notion that in some instances emotionally charged, less than technically perfect images are just as valid or more so.

 

Just look at some of the classic Leica images that most certainly didn't have ISO 10,000 at their beck and call, but somehow seemed to manage.

 

I recall walking the darkened late October streets of NYC with a M6, Tri-X and 35 Cron and lamenting that I didn't have a Lux which would have made the shots doable without pushing the Tri-X.

 

I haven't inched my way up to ISO 1600 on the M9 yet as I am still learning the right settings and software nuances as I shovel my way through thousands of images from paying gigs. But results at 1000 and 1250 make it seem that 1600 is doable ... which for me is at the far end of the needed ISO spectrum.

 

Personally, I find that better, faster lenses are more able to faithfully see into the dark than any of these digital cameras. The lenses are a relentless constant where the cameras do exponentially odder and odder things to the image as the ISO is increased.

 

Just an opinion, but it's one that in actual practice works for me.

 

-Marc

[erl]

Marc, refreshingly simple and accurate.

[jaapv]

Yep, I Agree.

 

I subscribe to the notion that in some instances emotionally charged, less than technically perfect images are just as valid or more so.

 

Just look at some of the classic Leica images that most certainly didn't have ISO 10,000 at their beck and call, but somehow seemed to manage.

 

I recall walking the darkened late October streets of NYC with a M6, Tri-X and 35 Cron and lamenting that I didn't have a Lux which would have made the shots doable without pushing the Tri-X.

 

I haven't inched my way up to ISO 1600 on the M9 yet as I am still learning the right settings and software nuances as I shovel my way through thousands of images from paying gigs. But results at 1000 and 1250 make it seem that 1600 is doable ... which for me is at the far end of the needed ISO spectrum.

 

Personally, I find that better, faster lenses are more able to faithfully see into the dark than any of these digital cameras. The lenses are a relentless constant where the cameras do exponentially odder and odder things to the image as the ISO is increased.

 

Just an opinion, but it's one that in actual practice works for me.

 

-Marc

Why can you formulate so nicely what I was trying to point out ?

[ennjott]

Now, if I need to shoot in low light, like the street scene below, I use My Canon 5D II. This shot was done at 6400, ISO (Sixty four hundred ISO). The M camera has a long way to go before it will deliver anything like this.

I disagree. The M9's ISO 2500 should be about equivalent to 3200 with Canon's measuring method. So the two camera sensors have about the same maximum sensitivity.

 

I do not consider the 5D2's pushed 6400 mode very useful, there is obvious fixed pattern noise (and reduced highlight DR), although there seems to be some sample variation between the cameras. The M9 might show more noise at 2500/3200, but this is often evened out by the lack of a mirror slap.

[Nikkor AIS]

Fotografz: Wonderful image, very charming. One of best M9 images Iv seen on net so far with high ISO. Iv been following the M9 threads attempting to glean information. From my observation on the forums the M9 isn't that great at hight ISO compared to my D3 or 5D2. And from my perspective it must be a thorn in the side of some lecia user's to be the low light kings. Lecia is about two generation behind as far as the sensor IMO. I keep hearing about the M9 being better because of no mirror slap. It may surprise some to know that when you use the live view feature on the D3, and the 5D2 you eliminate the mirror coming up because it's already up. of course it still slaps down but since the shutter/capture has already been taken:). Not that the range finder is with out advantages as Im learning with my M3 body 15mm voit, 35 1.4 summilux, and 50 1.0 noctilux. Im really pinning for a M9 but the availability of the M9 in my opinion the biggest weakness the camera has. And if my dealer cant get one in my hands in a week, Ill just buy a used M6 or M4P for my second M body and forget that the M9 exists and keep having a blast shooting with the the lecia/voit glass with film.

 

 

The camera is but one link in the image chain. The lens, focus, shutter speed, timing post processing , printing.. 00 and most importantly the photographer are far more important than the camera;). Blaming the camera for less than ideal images especially on the net is kind of week. It's funny to be sure but not that helpful or supportive to photographer's that are no doubt doing there best with what they have at the time. And that includes camera/lens and skill.

[carstenw]

There is a lot of talk of Leica being behind when it comes to high ISO, and this cannot be denied, but keep in mind that the quality of low ISO pictures is actually better, in some cases much better, and most shots are not made at high ISO. Make your own compromise...

[LLT]

And a Canon G11 could do it far better, lighter, and with every "virtue" you mention except maybe for the blurry images recording the "mood and atmosphere".

 

What's being "celebrated" here is your massive ego and thinly veiled illusion of superiority for owning what you consider to be the ultimate gear.

 

So now Leicas are NOT about technical perfection? (you're certainly whistling a different tune from some previous posts) So now they are about allowing a drunk photographer to capture atmospherics? I will bet $10,000 that you made sure EVERYONE was aware that you had a new M9 and that it was the major portion of every conversation during your "discrete" shoot.

 

Let's not reduce your braggadocio about your new camera to absurdity by trotting out all the old chestnuts about rangefinders that you read on the internets.

 

I 100% agree the M9 is a wonderful camera, but let's not talk nonsense by deifying lousy photos because they were taken with one.

 

 

Mr V, I am quite unsure where you are coming from with your exceptionally rude and presumptuous comments!?! Those are not your assumptions to make as to whether someone brags about his/her M9...I can vouch that all ERL focused on that night was take photographs!

 

This thread quite obviously started out being what I thought is a big improvement to ISO noise reduction in the M9 compared to the M8. You've taken that to a whole new childish level. If you are to remain so, I suggest that you cease participation.

[jaapv]

Lecia is about two generation behind as far as the sensor IMO.

Even if that were true, it would not make one whit of difference in the noise performance. Sensors have been performing at the limits imposed by quantum physics for a considerable number of years now. Apart from the obvious variable of pixel size the main difference in "noise performance" we can see nowadays lies in the compromises chosen by the camera manufacturers in the tradeoff of noise vs. definition loss, DR loss and increased artifacts. Leica does indeed err, if one can call it erring, in choosing for the most detail at the price of high-ISO noise. Actually, as far as I am aware the most revolutionary advance in sensor design the last decade has been the Leica-Kodak shifted pixel technology. Everything else , except maybe Sony's back-illuminated Cmos, is evolutionary rather than leaps and bounds. Afaik the current improvement in noise over the M8 by the M9 is gained by a different red Bayer filter and careful noise management at pre-RAW level.

[stevem7]

Wow, just read this thread. Congrats on the M9 LLT, I am sure you will put it to good use and I agree with you on the high ISO vs the M8. The first time I set the ISO to 2000 on the M9 and looked at the image on my macbook pro I was a happy man.

 

BTW, here is a night shot and just about the lowest light you can get unless you are in a cave, or by a campfire I set the M9 to ISO 2500 and here is the result. Some of you may have seen this, others maybe not.

 

http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/THE_LEICA_M9_REVIEW_4_files/iso250035cronnightf2m9_1.jpg

 

I posted a link instead of embedding as last time I embedded a photo in a thread outside of the photo forums I got in trouble

 

I am very happy with the M9 high ISO and shot it next to a 5DII last week. Thanks, but I will keep the M9. The 5DII loses sharpness, color and DR at high ISOs and the M9 keeps the detail, color and loses a little DR at high ISO. Also, considering that I rarely shoot at high ISO I would much rather have the IQ of the M9 over any DSLR.

 

I would also rather have an M9 and fast lens shooting a party than a huge DSLR and lens shooting that party. Why?

 

I was at an event a while ago that I was asked to shoot. I thought the light was going to be good but when I arrived and saw the setup and lack of light I started to sweat. I had an M8 and 50 lux. There were two other shooters there and one had a D700, huge flash and a 24-70. This rig was huge but compared to the guy with the 1dsmkIII, 24-105 and flash it looks small.

 

So there I was, side by side with my little low light challenged M8 and 50 Lux. I set the camera to A mode, set the lens to 1.4 and hoped for the best. After all was said and done it was my images that ended up being used. I saw the D700 shots which were AWFUL due to the bright flash washing out every image. So, if an M8 can pull that off an M9 would do even better.

 

Yea, the M9 has quite a bit going for it. Size, build, simplicity, base ISO IQ is best I have seen from any digital, fast SMALL lenses, no real need for flash. High ISO, even at 2500 is usable and acceptable and in print, looks even better.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Wow, just read this thread. Congrats on the M9 LLT, I am sure you will put it to good use and I agree with you on the high ISO vs the M8. The first time I set the ISO to 2000 on the M9 and looked at the image on my macbook pro I was a happy man.

 

BTW, here is a night shot and just about the lowest light you can get unless you are in a cave, or by a campfire I set the M9 to ISO 2500 and here is the result. Some of you may have seen this, others maybe not.

 

http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/THE_LEICA_M9_REVIEW_4_files/iso250035cronnightf2m9_1.jpg

 

I posted a link instead of embedding as last time I embedded a photo in a thread outside of the photo forums I got in trouble

 

I am very happy with the M9 high ISO and shot it next to a 5DII last week. Thanks, but I will keep the M9. The 5DII loses sharpness, color and DR at high ISOs and the M9 keeps the detail, color and loses a little DR at high ISO. Also, considering that I rarely shoot at high ISO I would much rather have the IQ of the M9 over any DSLR.

 

I would also rather have an M9 and fast lens shooting a party than a huge DSLR and lens shooting that party. Why?

 

I was at an event a while ago that I was asked to shoot. I thought the light was going to be good but when I arrived and saw the setup and lack of light I started to sweat. I had an M8 and 50 lux. There were two other shooters there and one had a D700, huge flash and a 24-70. This rig was huge but compared to the guy with the 1dsmkIII, 24-105 and flash it looks small.

 

So there I was, side by side with my little low light challenged M8 and 50 Lux. I set the camera to A mode, set the lens to 1.4 and hoped for the best. After all was said and done it was my images that ended up being used. I saw the D700 shots which were AWFUL due to the bright flash washing out every image. So, if an M8 can pull that off an M9 would do even better.

 

Yea, the M9 has quite a bit going for it. Size, build, simplicity, base ISO IQ is best I have seen from any digital, fast SMALL lenses, no real need for flash. High ISO, even at 2500 is usable and acceptable and in print, looks even better.

 

To be fair, just because the person with D700 and flash didn't know how to drag the shutter and compensate the flash in close quarters, doesn't mean anything ... except he didn't know how to use it.

[cliffp]

To be fair, just because the person with D700 and flash didn't know how to drag the shutter and compensate the flash in close quarters, doesn't mean anything ... except he didn't know how to use it.

 

 

Well said!

[zlatkob]

Steve, I think you're underestimating the 5DII when you write that it "loses sharpness, color and DR at high ISOs". I find the 5DII to be excellent at high ISO. The example below was shot with the 5DII at ISO 5000, with an 85mm lens, at f/1.6 and 1/200 sec. It is sharp and detailed, and the color and DR are good. While the 5DII doesn't offer the delightful smallness of the M9, it does offer great performance for the price. To be fair, the M9 could handle this situation — but at a much higher price.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[James R]

A few random thoughts. Nikon shooters would counter superiority claims of Canon by concentrating their comments on the images, not the technology. Then came the D3 and Canon shooters dismissed the D3's by claiming the images looked "plastic," an old claim used by Nikonians when critiquing Canon images. Now Leica enters the fray with its new camera and N/C crowd concentrates on its lack of high tech stuff. This stuff seems to never end, which is a marketers dream.

 

To me, it comes down to the image you make, not the image your camera can't make. I attended a Joe McNally light seminar yesterday. He was asked about using histograms while making an image. He said, "Histograms are shit." or something like that. He stated that he is concerned about achieving a look that often would give histogram purists heartburn. His answer seemed to surprise many of 800 participants, you could hear the rustling. But his answer makes sense.

 

I've come to realize it's the image stupid, not the camera. I feel we buy new gear to make our labor of love easier, but, that in no way diminishes the photos made with "older" cameras or lenses. I appreciate the pics taken from the early 1900's as much as those taken today.

 

I'm off my high-horse.

 

jr