Is It Good Enough?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use two camera systems for my work--Leica M whenever possible and Canons for any work not suited to rangefinders. My current Canon DSLRs are the 5D MkII and they are impressive. High ISO is outstanding, lower ISO is stunning. I've made prints up to 30" from the 5D files and can find no fault with them. After going through the DSLR upgrade rat race numerous times, I am finally at a point where I can honestly say if I had to use the 5D MkII for the next 10 or 15 years, that would be fine and I'd very likely still be happy with it.

 

I want to be able to feel that way about my next digital M. If the M9 isn't quite there, I'll wait for the M10, or the M11. I just am no longer willing to dump thousands of dollars of my annual profits into digital upgrades every year or two. So, here's my question to those of you who have used the M9 for a couple of months now: Do you feel the camera is good enough right now that you would likely still be happy with it in 10 or 15 years? Is it the digital equivalant of the MP?

[wattsy]

Is it the digital equivalant of the MP?

 

No. It's the full frame equivalent of the M8.

 

It's a fine camera but I doubt I will still be using it in 5 years time, let alone 10-15 years.

[AlanJW]

I use two camera systems for my work--Leica M whenever possible and Canons for any work not suited to rangefinders. My current Canon DSLRs are the 5D MkII and they are impressive. High ISO is outstanding, lower ISO is stunning. I've made prints up to 30" from the 5D files and can find no fault with them. After going through the DSLR upgrade rat race numerous times, I am finally at a point where I can honestly say if I had to use the 5D MkII for the next 10 or 15 years, that would be fine and I'd very likely still be happy with it.

 

I want to be able to feel that way about my next digital M. If the M9 isn't quite there, I'll wait for the M10, or the M11. I just am no longer willing to dump thousands of dollars of my annual profits into digital upgrades every year or two. So, here's my question to those of you who have used the M9 for a couple of months now: Do you feel the camera is good enough right now that you would likely still be happy with it in 10 or 15 years? Is it the digital equivalant of the MP?

 

I have a 5dmkII also, and I am also very happy with it. But the M9 is more enjoyable to use. As for whether I will be using either in 10 years, as much as I would like to say that each camera is mature enough to do what I want to do, I think it highly unlikely (and unrealisitic) that the technology advances of the next 10 years will be something I will ignore. I know I will be trashed for this, but I would love to have an M with autofocus (maybe a next generation EVF) as my eyes are not so good and I would like to be able to use Leica glass even when they are too poor for an optical rangefinder.

 

Examples: I thought once that a Nikon F3 was all I would ever need. The F4 and F5 provided an easier path to create good images, however, and the F3 was abandoned (still sits in a drawer as I don't want to part with it). When I was finally able to afford Leica, I thought an M7 was all I would need, etc. etc.

 

Whether characterized as GAS or simply the march of technology, I think it is just not in the cards that I (and you too) will be using the same equipment 10 years from now.

[wslam]

10 to 15 years is a long time in the digital age. If improvements and innovation continue at the same pace, there will be no doubt the M9 will feel very dated by then... that doesn't mean it won't be producing beautiful images though.

 

I have the M9, 5D2 and D700/D3 (plus GF1, GH1... the list is scary haha)... Not brand loyal as you can see. And I can tell you, of the bunch, the 5D2 is the LEAST enjoyable to use. The original 5D (which I still have) produces far cleaner files (even at base ISO)... and the D700 beats the 5D2 files in almost every aspect. The M9 is by far the most enjoyable to use, but it is certainly a lot more 'limiting', especially when it comes to high ISO. if high ISO is important to you, then don't bother with the M9 imho. But if you see high iso only as ONE of the many criterias, then take another hard look... but again, i doubt it will be competitive in 10 yrs...

[jaapv]

I find it very, very hard to say what I will find good enough in five,ten or fifteen years time in the present technological world. I can say this though, if you feel your 5D images will be good enough, the M9 is visibly beyond the 5D II at lower ISO, up to 1000 I would say, and probably at the same level, albeit of different character at high ISO (read more detail vs more smoothness).For high ISO opinions may differ, it is a CCD vs CMos thing. I find it hard to imagine what significant improvement can be made. If you ask me now, the M9 comes the closest to the camera-for-life feeling of all digitals I know. It may well be that we have entered the era of diminishing returns in that respect.

[Marty]

It is a hypothetical question - no doubt all manufacturers will come up with more desirable models that we will buy. Everyone has at least some idea of possible improvements and when these are realised the upgrade will be just too tempting.

 

Yes I would still be happy shooting my 9 year old PowerShot G2 today IF I hadn't had my other cams. Likewise I would be happy with the M9 in 2020 but will likely be using something better by then.

 

In the case of the 5DII, it may feel ok now but soon enough people are going to take photographs (higher ISO, resolution, DR, whatever) that blow the 5DII out of the water. And what are you going to do then...

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brent, I don't think the question is fair.

 

You say that you don't plan to buy another digi-slr. Well, I don't plan to buy another digi-M after the M9.

 

But I didn't plan to buy anything after the M8.

 

Part of the puzzle is that stuff changes.

 

To answer your direct question -- yes, the M9 suits me perfectly. And, it's better than the M8. To me, the detail in the image is twice as good, or maybe 80% better to match the pixel gain.

 

However, other stuff is better and it's subtle things. Colors are better, edges are better, and the image is "rounder" in my lexicon.

 

So, my answer to you is yes/no/maybe.

 

As an example, I just bot a new car (well, an '06 Highlander). I was driving a 17-year-old Jeep Cherokee (are we allowed to talk about non-Leica cars on this site?) and expecting to drive it another 5 or 10 or so years, but it rusted too much to suit the guy who was going to inspect it.

 

There was nothing wrong with the car and the engine would still be running fine if it had not become a member of the clunker program. And now .... (wait for it) .... I have another car I don't plan to replace,

 

but it offers me

 

1. cup holders! Damn these things are useful,

2. air conditioning that isn't broken,

3. cruise control,

4. electric windows (damn these things are useful).

 

And on and on. I WAS going to keep the car....

[Jeff S]

Is it the digital equivalant of the MP?

 

I'm curious about the aspects of the MP that dictate longevity in your view...as compared to, say, a M6 or M7, or any other camera. Understanding these attributes might help better define whether the M9 would similarly qualify.

 

You're probably younger than I, as I'll be happy to be alive and healthy enough 15 years from now just continuing to enjoy photography. If so, I suspect my M8.2 will still be a great tool, provided it's still working. But, that doesn't mean I won't opt for something newer along the way, for whatever personal reasons that can't yet be foreseen. And, even if circumstances were predictable, your mileage would certainly vary.

 

Long way of saying...if you don't know, nobody else can predict for you.

 

Jeff

 

PS I thought this thread was interesting in light of this discussion...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/108268-sounds-so-familiar.html

[haribo]

Here's what I'm thinking.

The M9 is what the M8 should have been. Correct. But does it really matter now?

Nope.

 

If I wouldn't have an M8, I'd go for the M9. But since I do and have no complaints about the outstanding quality it produces, I don't see that much of a reason why I should pay top dollars for something that's not all that much better.

 

The M9 is basically a M8 with a larger sensor. Spending close to $9000 (CDN) on a new camera with three year old sensor technology is insane in my opinion.

Some might say that those micro lenses make it a new technology. Again, I disagree. Having micro lenses on top of a sensor is something PhaseOne and Hasselblad are doing for several years already for some of their smaller digital backs.

The other argument to finally be able to use the lenses as they were mend to be used, doesn't count much either. In digital photography it doesn't matter much. (Hey, even the top 1D line of cameras from Canon comes with 1.3 factor crop sensor.)

In digital, post production is the great equalizer and someone who knows what he or she is doing, will get a top result where nobody can tell anyway. No matter what camera has been used, FF or cropped.

I know this will rub many here the wrong way but that's because a lot are still stuck in the dark(room) ages.

The only difference that matters is that the M9 can produce 14 bit uncompressed raw files. Those are simply not as fragile in post as 8bit files are.

Having 18MP is nice too but not really essential. Unless one needs to produce large outputs (larger than most home printers can handle) for their business on a consistent basis. Since most here take only pictures of their family and pets, 18MP is pretty much overkill anyway.

 

I will buy the M9.2 or M10 or whatever they'll call it, when Leica uses the more current Maestro sensor technology. Something I believe Leica purposely decided against simply because of fear of cannibalizing their own S2 sales.

Wouldn't be surprised when Leica would unveil such an "upgrade" by the time next year's Photokina comes around.

Until then, I'll pass.

 

PS: I know I will get flack from all the Leica fanboys here but frankly, I don't care. Wake up and smell the digital roses, is all I can say.

 

PPS: In case someone thinks I didn't answer the original question ... I did. My gut is telling me that the M9 will be upgraded with something more significant than a silly sapphire glass - I explained what's my guess above - by next year September. Which would make it merely 1 year of shelf life.

[jaapv]

You won't get flak. But please tell me what advances have been made in sensor technology when you say "three year old" I mean sensor technology - not the excellent noisereduction software Nikon and to a certain extent Canon have implemented on their CMos sensors. The point being that the sensors themselves have come up against a brick wall - quantum physics. To get beyond that point will take completely new technology which is unknown - at least to the general public- as yet. You mention Maestro. That is simply processing technology. It won't do anything for the files themselves. It will just make the M10 faster and more powerful - probably not better. You said it yourself - even the M9 is overkill, so it won't make any sense to upgrade in the future.

I must confess I sympathize with you - when I have to cut the lawn, I always think - I will wait just another week - it will have grown by then, so it will make more sense to cut it then....

[fotografr]

When I was finally able to afford Leica, I thought an M7 was all I would need, etc. etc.

 

That goes to the heart of my question. For a film rangefinder, the M7 probably IS all you will ever need. Wouldn't you agree? I know my M6, purchased in 1992, still gets used and I will probably never replace it. I went through the same thing you did with my Nikons. F2AS, then F3, F4 and F5. But those upgrades really weren't all that necessary in terms of image quality. I could shoot a roll of film with my F3, put the same lens on an F5 and shoot another roll, and there's no way I'd ever be able to tell the images apart once they were on a light table. That hasn't been true with the last 10 years of digital upgrades. There have been very significant image quality improvements from one iteration to the next. Maybe I'm being naive, but I feel I'm now at a point with the 5D MkII where the image quality has hit a plateau and future improvements will be insignificant compared what we've gotten in previous upgrades. I've been hoping we were close to that point with the M9.

[haribo]

You won't get flak. But please tell me what advances have been made in sensor technology when you say "three year old" I mean sensor technology - not the excellent noisereduction software Nikon and to a certain extent Canon have implemented on their CMos sensors. The point being that the sensors themselves have come up against a brick wall - quantum physics. To get beyond that point will take completely new technology which is unknown - at least to the general public- as yet. You mention Maestro. That is simply processing technology. It won't do anything for the files themselves. It will just make the M10 faster and more powerful - probably not better.

 

I did say that. Maestro is current and still CCD.

[delander †]

I think Brent that if you would be happy using the 5D2 for the next 5-10 years you would be happy with the M9 - image quality wise.

 

But the EOS 5D2 is the results of many previous generations of Canon DSLRs. It a much more refined product than the M9.

 

I dont agree with Jaap that the M9 is better image wise than the 5D2 at low ISO. But that depends on lenses etc.

 

The M9 is better than the M8 but it is still much more of a work in progress than the EOS 5D2. Its electronics (and I dont mean bells and whistles, just things like the ability to work with any SD card, the screen on the back, the speed of the electronics etc) are still relatively primitive.

 

So if you have no burning desire to go from the M8 to FF then I would wait a bit.

 

Jeff

[delander †]

For Jaap,

 

Canon have made important strides in sensor technology. Gapless microlenses and the new shorter distance between the microlens and the photodiode in the latest EOS 7D are two recent ones.

 

Canon make their own sensors, this is a key technology for them. Every few months a new Canon sensor development is announced. These incremental advances add up over the years.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Jeff, Haribo discounted microlens technology as a basic advance. I tend to agree. On a sensor level the only thing that constitutes a real advance is Sony's backlighted sensor.

[fotografr]

I'm curious about the aspects of the MP that dictate longevity in your view...as compared to, say, a M6 or M7, or any other camera.

 

I guess I was thinking of the MP as the pinacle of the M film line, mostly in terms of build quality. I see the MP as a camera that should last someone their entire life (as long as film is available). Perhaps one could say the same for the M6 and M7. I'm still using the M6 I bought in 1992 and will be using it until I drop.

 

When I bought my M8, I knew it was a camera with limitations and issues. I fully expected to have to replace it with a future upgrade. But I'm really having a hard time justifying dropping 15 to 20 $K into new equipment every couple of years. Until recently, it was unavoidable because there was such a dramatic difference in image quality. Now, I see that difference becoming much less apparent, at least with Canon and Nikon. When I buy my next digital M, I want to feel it's going to last me many years. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I hope not.

[fotografr]

The M9 is better than the M8 but it is still much more of a work in progress than the EOS 5D2. Its electronics (and I dont mean bells and whistles, just things like the ability to work with any SD card, the screen on the back, the speed of the electronics etc) are still relatively primitive.

 

Those are exactly the kind of things I'm wondering about. From what I've seen, the image quality of the M9 is superb (although there are the red edge issues and a couple of other things), but it seems like there are still some functional aspects that need to be dealt with. I'm very reluctant to buy another camera that is only a stop gap that I'll have to replace when the bugs get worked out.

[dpattinson]

Personally, I think it's not 'good enough' in your terms.

 

The M9 seems to me to be essentially a 'full-frame M8'. I think it's the next (necessary) stepping-stone toward what you might describe as the 'digital MP'.

 

For people who never bought an M8 - it makes perfect sense, it's pretty much what the M8 'should' have been if they'd been able to sort out the FF earlier.

 

If you've already got an M8 (or two), then it's less compelling. Fortunately, there will no doubt be second hand ones available in a year or so and so the trade up might not be so painful

 

If I do buy a M9, and I may if I find one for the right price - I'm under no illusions that it will survive the release of the M10 if that future camera has some of the likely advantages.

[fotografr]

There was nothing wrong with the car and the engine would still be running fine if it had not become a member of the clunker program. And now .... (wait for it) .... I have another car I don't plan to replace,

 

but it offers me

 

1. cup holders! Damn these things are useful,

2. air conditioning that isn't broken,

3. cruise control,

4. electric windows (damn these things are useful).

 

And on and on. I WAS going to keep the car....

 

Bill--Maybe this will tell you something about me and my mindset: I bought a new Volvo in 1996 with the intention of keeping it 20 years. It's in perfect condition and still resides in my garage. I'm as happy with it today as I was 13 years ago and I'm pretty sure I'll still be driving it another 7 years (unless I crash it).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Personally, I think it's not 'good enough' in your terms.

 

The M9 seems to me to be essentially a 'full-frame M8'. I think it's the next (necessary) stepping-stone toward what you might describe as the 'digital MP'.

 

For people who never bought an M8 - it makes perfect sense, it's pretty much what the M8 'should' have been if they'd been able to sort out the FF earlier.

 

If you've already got an M8 (or two), then it's less compelling. Fortunately, there will no doubt be second hand ones available in a year or so and so the trade up might not be so painful

 

If I do buy a M9, and I may if I find one for the right price - I'm under no illusions that it will survive the release of the M10 if that future camera has some of the likely advantages.

Ok-fair enough, but out of interest: apart from the few obvious niggles which have been discussed in this forum extensively, what would be the improvements that would make you sell your hypothetical M9 for a hypothetical M10? The only thing I can think of would be improved noise performance (which would not do it for me, the M9 is indeed good enough for what I do) - but I do not see that happening, as I am sure that Leica will stick to CCD for quality reasons at low ISO. It might be pixel binning, or more sophisticated noise reduction in combination with the Maestro chip.