M9 - A Fabulous Buy!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - but this is a gear forum. The photoforums are elsewhere - with the images....

[James R]

Yes - but this is a gear forum. The photoforums are elsewhere - with the images....

 

Indeed it is.

[Nikkor AIS]

Leica has definitely chosen detail over high ISO. Which is great move in my opinion.

Although I think it should be stated that the Bayer filter can be removed from the Nikon D3 as well as the Canon 5D2. I talked to a company in the states that will do it. It's not cheap to have the bayer filter removed ,but it will level the sharpness issue compared to the M9.

I agree with the comments about Canon 5D2 being very usable at high ISO. From my results the 5D2 is only about one stop behind the D3. And of course now the D3 is behind the D3s. And so it goes with the never ending pursuit...00.

 

Today I was out using D3 and the my one M3 and from my perspective the M type camera digital or film is an very nice match with the Nikon D3. Even if my M3 was loaded with FP4 and Ektar.

 

gregory

[thrice]

Although I think it should be stated that the Bayer filter can be removed from the Nikon D3 as well as the Canon 5D2. I talked to a company in the states that will do it. It's not cheap to have the bayer filter removed ,but it will level the sharpness issue compared to the M9.

 

Hey Gregory just a little clarification, the Bayer filter cannot be removed. The Bayer filter or "Colour Filter Array" (CFA) is what determines the colour of each individual sub-pixel before interpolation. It is the Red/Green/Blue array that sits under the microlenses in front of each individual well.

 

The Anti-Aliasing or AA filter is the filter responsible for blurring detail at or above the Nyquist frequency (the maximum resolution the sensor can resolve) and is combined with the hot mirror (Infra-Red and UV filter) on the Canon/Nikon cameras. When services remove this filter they usually replace it with a non-blurring hot mirror.

 

On the M9 there is a hot mirror combined with the protecting cover-glass for the sensor but it is not an Anti-Aliasing filter.

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks Daniel.

 

Gregory

[erl]

I've just been drinking champagne at a 5 year old's birthday party so please forgive me if I offend. It is not intentional.

 

It seems this thread has degenerated, like so many, into garbage tech speak. Geeesh! Take pictures, make e'm work, sell e'm, enjoy 'em, but don't lay your shortfalls (or anyone else's) on the gear. Light years away I was (as many others were) shooting with real film and all it's limitations, in the same situations and achieving great results.

 

The 'improvements' of the digital era, I submit, are merely great massager's of the photoraphers ego and energy. I enjoy those 'easy' solutions as much as anyone, but I don't kid myself it makes me a better photographer. I (and you) still need to work bloody hard at the craft, because digital will not save you. It ain't a life raft. it is only a tool that I (and you) must master.

 

Having said all that, I will now download my shoot from said party and see if I 'passed muster'.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

As far as claims about color and DR of the ISO 5000 5DMKII photo posted ... it is strictly "in the eye of the beholder". Different reactions to the same image is what makes the world go around.

 

 

Some may find it to their liking, and others (like me) may not ... both opinions of which are less relevant to the client. I'm sure they will love it because the photographer got the shot ... and frankly, everything else is secondary to that when it comes to wedding photography.

 

 

If a photographer feels the need for ISO 5000 to "get the shot", then that trumps everything else.

 

 

However, if a photographer feels ISO 800 or 1000, and no need for anything near 1/200th shutter speed will "get the shot", that is just as valid.

 

 

While there are some wedding photographers that exclusively use a M8 or M9 to shoot weddings, I'm not one of them. There are no M 70-200 zooms to use when relegated to a balcony in the back of the church ... LOL!

 

 

So, I find that for certain applications, it is a partnership, not a competition the makes for a "complete picture".

 

 

Personally, I can do at least 60 to 70% of a wedding with a M9, the other 30 to 40% requires a partnership DSLR (which I dearly wish could have been a Leica R10). However, I STILL found no need for ISOs over 1600, so a Sony A900 or Nikon D3X does the job just fine and "gets the shots" without all the weird stuff that starts happening at higher ISOs. Others may see a partnership with a higer ISO camera as being more valid for their applications. I find I don't need it, and when I had it, rarely if ever used it.

 

 

Here is a "partnership" in action. The more "intimate" M9, up close and personal (cropped) ... and the exact same (full frame) shot by my second shooter from 180mm away on the balcony using a Sony A900. Client loved both.

 

 

M9 @ ISO 640 and 1/30th shutter, 50/1.0 Noctilux (since replaced with the 0.95 for sharper close-ups). Sony A900 on a tripod @ ISO 640 and 1/40th shutter, Sony 70-200/2.8G @ 180/2.8

 

 

I say ... think "partnership, not "competitive".

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!

[zlatkob]

Marc, I agree with your partnership concept; each system has its advantages and both are valid. But I'm also saying that the dslr does its job rather well for the low-light photographer. And the price difference is extreme. If you compare each with a 3-lens low light kit (e.g. 35, 50, 90), the 5D2 is still under $8,000, the M9 is $20,000 or more.

 

I don't know wether your assistant's settings were correct, but they suggest the scene had a light level of EV 5.6 — about 2 stops brighter than mine. My settings for the scene photographed with the 5D2 indicate a light level of EV 3.4, which would be really pushing the limits for handholding a telephoto at lower ISO settings. But the 85mm was easily handheld with the 5D2's high ISO ability, and the detail for the area in focus was quite good (below) for ISO 5000 in my opinion. This crop is about how it would appear in a meter-wide print.

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!

[wattsy]

What's with the soot and whitewash of those last two shots, Marc? Is this a look that you are deliberately aiming for now?

[mwilliamsphotography]

Marc, I agree with your partnership concept; each system has its advantages and both are valid. But I'm also saying that the dslr does its job rather well for the low-light photographer. And the price difference is extreme. If you compare each with a 3-lens low light kit (e.g. 35, 50, 90), the 5D2 is still under $8,000, the M9 is $20,000 or more.

 

I don't know wether your assistant's settings were correct, but they suggest the scene had a light level of EV 5.6 — about 2 stops brighter than mine. My settings for the scene photographed with the 5D2 indicate a light level of EV 3.4, which would be really pushing the limits for handholding a telephoto at lower ISO settings. But the 85mm was easily handheld with the 5D2's high ISO ability, and the detail for the area in focus was quite good (below) for ISO 5000 in my opinion. This crop is about how it would appear in a meter-wide print.

 

No doubt about lower light work with some high ISO DSLRs, but no amount of back-and-forth discussion will make me like the way they look over-all. If I can get the shot some other way, I will.

 

I used a Canon 1DsMKIII 1DMKIII and and a 5D with all the L lenses including the 85/1.2-MKII ... and I sold the entire kit for that very reason. I voted with my hard earned money ... which is about as committed as you can get to what you believe. I do NOT like the look of it. I DO like the look of the M9 photos ... so I use it as much as possible before resorting to the DSLRs.

 

No right or wrong to it, just what we each like or don't.

[mwilliamsphotography]

What's with the soot and whitewash of those last two shots, Marc? Is this a look that you are deliberately aiming for now?

 

In this case, yes. The client is a graphic designer and she liked this look (which prints pretty nicely on soft off-white mat paper).

 

I even have a PS action to do it : -)

 

Not all stuff has to be the same.

 

Personally, I like a punchier B&W look (like attached below), but like experimenting with other looks also ... which in the case of the above 2 images, the clients also likes when printed.

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!

[guy]

I'm still pretty stunned with how well the M9 performs in low light situations, from ISO 800 to 1600. The biggest problem isn't with the camera, it's focusing in low light.

 

John, I'm worried. Not only have the skin-tones in your shot shifted alarmingly towards the red end of the spectrum, I can also detect the trademark M9 "green tinge" to the rest of the shot... the devil is clearly in the details here...

[ennjott]

But the 85mm was easily handheld with the 5D2's high ISO ability, and the detail for the area in focus was quite good (below) for ISO 5000 in my opinion.

Nobody doubts the 5D2 is a lot of value for money, I have one myself. But it does not have outstanding high ISO capabilities. Also its ISO range is 100 to 3200 in full stops, please stop getting firmware trick modes into the discussion.

A more valid comparison would be the D3/D700 sensor with its maximum setting of 6400 which is a lot cleaner than either the Canon or Kodak. But you also have to think about mirror slap and the stubborn refusal of Canon and Nikon to include sensor stabilization. This costs the Canon whatever sensor advantage it might have in practical use (forget the 1/f rule for shutter speed). Only the D3 is still better, but at more limited resolution.

[zlatkob]

Nobody doubts the 5D2 is a lot of value for money, I have one myself. But it does not have outstanding high ISO capabilities. Also its ISO range is 100 to 3200 in full stops, please stop getting firmware trick modes into the discussion.

A more valid comparison would be the D3/D700 sensor with its maximum setting of 6400 which is a lot cleaner than either the Canon or Kodak...

 

Well, I showed some results and I'm not sure why or how you're disputing them. Actually, the 5D2's ISO range is 100 to 6,400 in 1/3 stop increments. Check your camera. I believe the "trick modes" you're talking about are the full-stop jumps to 12,800 and 25,600. Those aren't very good, so I haven't mentioned them in this discussion.

 

The D3 and D700 are excellent indeed, but "a lot cleaner" is a very subjective view. DPReview's review of the the D700, at pages 21 - 24, shows it is excellent, and they conclude it has "class-leading" high-ISO performance. Their review of the 5D2 concludes that it is "almost as good as Nikon D700 / D3". The charts and examples bear this out even at ISO 6400.

 

In any event, these DSLR's are all good low-light, high-ISO tools, regardless of mirror slap and the lack of in-body image stabilization. The fact is, you can shoot any of them in a dark setting and get good results, much better than with previous generations of cameras. The M9 is apparently not far behind them at high ISO, and it has the clear advantage of no mirror slap.

 

Whether the D3 / D700 are better than the 5D2 is entirely besides the point. The point is that some current DSLRs deliver excellent low-light photos at a reasonable cost. The M9 will deliver excellent results as well, though at a much higher cost.

[ennjott]

Actually, the 5D2's ISO range is 100 to 6,400 in 1/3 stop increments. Check your camera. I believe the "trick modes" you're talking about are the full-stop jumps to 12,800 and 25,600. Those aren't very good, so I haven't mentioned them in this discussion.

Sorry to revive this thread, but I have to remark: the sensor ADC will give out 100 to 3200 in full stops and not anything else. All other modes are firmware tricks. And yes, I checked the raw data to confirm this.

 

About it being "almost as good" as the Nikon D3, it's not even close at high ISO. Especially the red channel has a comparatively large amount of amp noise and banding which is much better controlled with the Nikon. Occassionally I will push 3200 to 4800 equiv. but that's as far as I will take it with this sensor.

[theendlesshouse]

Technicalities aside, it's a matter of choice - Those who choose an 'M' choose it for a very different reason to those who choose a huge, in your face DSLR.

 

 

Its called HCB Syndrome

 

HCB Syndrome - Wikipedia

[Guest nafpie]

I can keep listing the improvements and the why's to buy the M9... you'll just have to try it for yourselves!

 

For me: It is a full frame format camera! I know, this is an improvement especially over the M8, not other M models.

 

For my M-photography I don't need high ISO, anyway, say, nothing above 800 or 1000 or so.

 

Cheers,

Stefan

[ennjott]

I think high ISO on the M9 is fine, it's just overhyped on the mass market products due to their JPEG noise reduction.

[jlam]

I don't think these photos are so great.

 

In reality, the right tool for the job here would be something like a Nikon D700 with a fast prime, and AF.

 

Do you need $11,000 worth of M9 camera and lenses to get some crummy out of focus photos? You can't even focus correctly in the dark, and you can't use a high enough shutter speed.

 

You guys are delusional.

 

As a soon-to-be M9 user (will be getting mine in about 2 weeks) I think I'm with Valdemar here. I spent a whole month researching before deciding to buy into the Leica M system and high ISO performance (or the lack of depending on your own standard) has never been my primary consideration. I had done a fair amount of pixel peeping of sample images from M9 and high end DSLRs and have pretty good idea of the relative noise levels, just so that I know exactly where the M9 stands. For ME it's noise is low enough but I know clearly that the M9 sensor objectively lags behind the current CMOS sensors from Canon and Nikon in this regard. And I think anyone considering M9 should be made aware about that fact. I'm glad to see there are happy new M9 users celebrating their possession of a great tool and taking the challenge to shoot under difficult lighting. But I think small, downsized photos rarely demonstrate anything about a camera's high ISO capability, be it good or bad.

 

I bought into the M system for other reasons such as the suite of top quality fixed focal length lenses, compactness and simplicity of the whole system, and a well engineered manual focusing system built into the lenses (e.g. the tab) and the body (although I would love to have live-view MF assist in some cases). These in my opinion are what make the M system truly outstanding. Reasonably good (but not exceptional, in my standard) high ISO performance is just icing on the cake. It's an factor that should best be objectively presented by existing users and assessed by potential buyers. I think raw DNGs plus full-sized, post-processed Jpegs will be the most valuable information for potential buyers.

 

Joseph

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[James R]

As a soon-to-be M9 user (will be getting mine in about 2 weeks) I think I'm with Valdemar here. I spent a whole month researching before deciding to buy into the Leica M system and high ISO performance (or the lack of depending on your own standard) has never been my primary consideration. I had done a fair amount of pixel peeping of sample images from M9 and high end DSLRs and have pretty good idea of the relative noise levels, just so that I know exactly where the M9 stands. For ME it's noise is low enough but I know clearly that the M9 sensor objectively lags behind the current CMOS sensors from Canon and Nikon in this regard. And I think anyone considering M9 should be made aware about that fact. I'm glad to see there are happy new M9 users celebrating their possession of a great tool and taking the challenge to shoot under difficult lighting. But I think small, downsized photos rarely demonstrate anything about a camera's high ISO capability, be it good or bad.

 

I bought into the M system for other reasons such as the suite of top quality fixed focal length lenses, compactness and simplicity of the whole system, and a well engineered manual focusing system built into the lenses (e.g. the tab) and the body (although I would love to have live-view MF assist in some cases). These in my opinion are what make the M system truly outstanding. Reasonably good (but not exceptional, in my standard) high ISO performance is just icing on the cake. It's an factor that should best be objectively presented by existing users and assessed by potential buyers. I think raw DNGs plus full-sized, post-processed Jpegs will be the most valuable information for potential buyers.

 

Joseph

 

I don't disagree with MV's comments, but I'm not thrilled with the way he delivers his message. He can make his points without condemning others' opinions.

 

The issue that moved me was the weight of my current Nikon kit--I'm tired of lugging my D3 around. I shot the Santa Barbara Summer Solstice festival and felt the weight. I could have just as easily used an M9 and saved the wear and tear. Also, I don't think you will find Nikon or Canon lens equivalent to Leica's--I do love the C's 85 1.2 and N's 14-24. IMO, the lenses are as important as the lack of an AA filter.

 

I agree with Reichmann's latest article that makes a case for using the M9 for landscape photography and hiking. I identify with his comments on lugging a heavy kit..