Is It Good Enough?

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't see the M9 being replaced with anything but a higher resolution and finer sensor and an accompanying buffer. The M layout is as it's been since 1908 and doesn't need change.

 

The M9 as camera is final and it's great.

 

I usually have my R9/DMR handy in the car or even over the shoulder, but 95% of the time I use the M9. Yesterday I did a shoot where I used both and besides I couldn't tell the difference from the files (you can't when you use same exposure and white balance both cameras with a grey card).

 

The thing the M9 has that the dSLR hasn't is ability to work at low exposures without vibrations as well as compactness. Equipment size really does matter when it's cold, raining and you are working with models and other human beings that your camera is comfortable and handy to carry.

 

Calculate the ISO difference. The M8 can shoot down to 1/15 and a dSLR down to 1/125 or 1/250 if you want to assure you have no camera shaking. That is 3-4 stops, or the difference between 800 ISO on the M9 at 1/15 and 6400 - 12800 ISO on a dSLR 1/125 - 1/250. Of course, if the pople you're shooting are moving you have to go higher. But I shot models as 400 ISO 1/30 yesterday handheld. No problem with teh M9, big problem with the dSLR.

 

I guess I should get more into this but for the time being the most interesting thing for me is the small size of the M gear. Which implies that image quality, battery time or any other issue is not a concern for me. It simply works and I wonder why I should use other systems.

 

In few days I'll be shooting an event with many photographers as the house photographer. I would usually bring a dSLR but this time it will be as a backup, and partly so the client don't have to wonder why their guy, whom they pay to be there, has the smallest camera of all the photographers.

[LondonM]

I used CCDs in my research for intrinsic optical imaging and laser speckle. My colleagues across the street in the physics department use them in optical telescopes. Outside of front and back illumination, not much has changed in CCDs for some time at the professional level. We are at the quantum limits more or less. The way we all get around the noise limits is with 2 stage Peltier cooled CCDs that drop the thermal noise by cooling the CCD die to -70C or so. That's far too energy consuming for a consumer camera. Quantum efficiencies in CCDs maxed out at 82% or so a decade ago.

Yes there are incremental changes, and over time they do add up. But until energy efficient and compact chip coolers become available, things are kinda slowing down.

 

DItto for noise reduction. Most of that is software. It can be incorporated at a later date in Lightroom or Aperture or whatever for post processing if you have a good 16 bit RAW. Who cares if it is really fast on the camera ? That only matters if you shoot jpeg.

 

The iconic images of the 20th century were made with M3s and M4s and M6s. Are we all saying they aren't good enough any more ? Perhaps it is the photographers that aren't good enough any more ?

[Marty]

the MP as a camera that should last someone their entire life (as long as film is available)

This film availability, often just mentioned as a footnote in parentheses, is however crucial.

 

I love the MP concept and mechanically it may well last forever. But the fact is that film is not ubiquitous anymore. If you are talking about 10-15 years then you really have to ask yourself if you expect film to be around at all. There is a real chance it won't be and what good is the MP then. In terms of investment I venture to think that an M9 is safer than an MP.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Brent,

 

don't know about 15 years, but right now I own working 13 year old pro cameras sooo, I figure the M9 will work by then.

 

When I bought the M8 I was fully aware I wanted a FF when it came out, and I picked up a M9 right away, however the M9 is delivering files of such quality that I honestly really don't know what more a magazine will be asking for in 10 years. the only reason I can imagine to upgrade to the M10 (whenever that might be) would be significantly improved high-iso noise or significantly improved dynamic range. I don't really imagine Leica will add a lot more resolution to the M.

 

I did a series of B&W and I gotta say it is spooky smooth, and kind of feel I need to add noise. the files were shot at iso 160.

 

Im not saying jump, just simply, once there are some reasonably prices M9's on the market, you might want to pick one up and keep it.

 

.

[innerimager]

Brent- I'm going to go out on a limb and answer your direct question with my direct answer. Yes, the M9 is good enough. I have a D3 and I experienced the Nikon evolution from the D1H with most stops along the way. I had 2 M8s which I sold for the M9. I have, and use, an M7 a lot. I know that the M9 sensor is much more like the M8 than not, but the files look wonderful to me, better than the already excellent M8. I get to use my favorite lenses, the 50/1.4 lux asph especially but also the 28 cron and 35 lux asph at the FOV I want to use them at. When I compare the images from the M9 to the D3, the M9 wins out by a wide margin up to iso 1600. Given the superb 1.4 lenses available, and my old noctilux, the high iso advantage of the D3 is minimized, and as others point out, skillful use of selective noise reduction in post further reduces the gap in high iso final output.

 

In other words, I will shoot the M9 until it crumbles. One of the best features of the M digital line is that it's simplicity means that the amazing technical advances that will occur in the next 10 years will almost by definition find their way into other cameras, not the M. I will alway prefer looking through a wonderfully bright and clear optical viewfinder to take still images. I don't really see how that will change all that much from the M9, given the superb quality already at hand. best...Peter

[haribo]

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

 

Sorry, a long phone call got in the way. Here's what I meant writing...

 

I did say that. Maestro is processing technology and indeed more powerful and faster but it also employs a new Kodak sensor. So, when I simply say Maestro, I'm talking about the combination of a faster processor and a new sensor designed to go with it.

The M9 would have benefited from both, considering it's current processor is so slow any $2000 DSLR can run circles around it.

 

Yes, the M9 is what the M8 should have been. But by itself, it is still work in progress. Even worse, I belief certain available technology has purposely not been implemented to avoid negative sales results for another one of their products.

[haroldp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I have used my M9 extensively on a recent trip, and agree with Jaap that from an IQ point of view, for my photography, the M9 will suffice for a long time. In total IQ and 'look' it is a big step up from M8.

I did not use non-retrofocus wides however, using MATE, WATE, and 35-90 crons and lux's so I have no opinion on fringing issues.

 

I never shot film over ISO 400, and 640 on the M9 is much better than 400 film was. I think that in most cases, lenses are the gating factor for IQ.

 

I feel exactly the same way about the Nikon D3x.

 

However, features that might entice me to upgrade, are those that would help me get optimum IQ under a wider range of circumstances, such as:

 

1 - sensor based image stabilization.

2 - sensor cleaning

3 - distance variable (more accurate) frame lines

4 - variable viewfinder magnification

5 - electronic focus verification (for long lenses)

... etc.

 

These could be done without sacrificing Leica's main strengths:

 

compact size

seeing outside the frame lines

compatibility with all Leica lenses.

 

etc.

 

It is also true that I could happily live with the M9 for a long time.

 

I still occasionally use my M2.

 

Regards to all ... Harold

[fotografr]

Calculate the ISO difference. The M8 can shoot down to 1/15 and a dSLR down to 1/125 or 1/250 if you want to assure you have no camera shaking. That is 3-4 stops, or the difference between 800 ISO on the M9 at 1/15 and 6400 - 12800 ISO on a dSLR 1/125 - 1/250. Of course, if the pople you're shooting are moving you have to go higher. But I shot models as 400 ISO 1/30 yesterday handheld. No problem with teh M9, big problem with the dSLR.

 

I completely agree. It is one reason I was initially attracted to rangefinders a long time ago.

 

I would usually bring a dSLR but this time it will be as a backup, and partly so the client don't have to wonder why their guy, whom they pay to be there, has the smallest camera of all the photographers.

 

We need to get our clients to think of cameras the same way they think of cell phones. Smaller is better.

 

Brent- I'm going to go out on a limb and answer your direct question with my direct answer. Yes, the M9 is good enough. I have a D3 and I experienced the Nikon evolution from the D1H with most stops along the way. I had 2 M8s which I sold for the M9. I have, and use, an M7 a lot. I know that the M9 sensor is much more like the M8 than not, but the files look wonderful to me, better than the already excellent M8. I get to use my favorite lenses, the 50/1.4 lux asph especially but also the 28 cron and 35 lux asph at the FOV I want to use them at. When I compare the images from the M9 to the D3, the M9 wins out by a wide margin up to iso 1600. Given the superb 1.4 lenses available, and my old noctilux, the high iso advantage of the D3 is minimized, and as others point out, skillful use of selective noise reduction in post further reduces the gap in high iso final output.

 

In other words, I will shoot the M9 until it crumbles. One of the best features of the M digital line is that it's simplicity means that the amazing technical advances that will occur in the next 10 years will almost by definition find their way into other cameras, not the M. I will alway prefer looking through a wonderfully bright and clear optical viewfinder to take still images. I don't really see how that will change all that much from the M9, given the superb quality already at hand. best...Peter

 

Do you think that limb will support two of us? This is what I've been hoping to hear, and pretty much what my mindset is now. I also started with a Nikon D1. I knew I had to get into digital imaging to stay competetive, but I went through several Nikon upgrades, then switched to Canon and went through several more before getting to the point where I felt the quality was as good or better than what I was getting with 35mm film. Literally the only advantage I realized right from the start with digital was that I could get much better color and image quality when shooting stage productions than I'd been getting with my Ektachrome 320, which I always had to push at least one stop. For every other photographic application, I felt digital imaging was a work in progress--until now.

 

This film availability, often just mentioned as a footnote in parentheses, is however crucial.

 

I love the MP concept and mechanically it may well last forever. But the fact is that film is not ubiquitous anymore. If you are talking about 10-15 years then you really have to ask yourself if you expect film to be around at all. There is a real chance it won't be and what good is the MP then. In terms of investment I venture to think that an M9 is safer than an MP.

 

I agree, and I wasn't thinking of the MP as an alternative to a digital M. My analogy was that I want my next digital M to still be able to produce images in 10 or 15 years that are not noticeably inferior to what others are getting from the very latest models.

 

Even worse, I belief certain available technology has purposely not been implemented to avoid negative sales results for another one of their products.

 

I think that's commonplace with some of the big camera manufacturers now, and it's something that drives me crazy. These people have gotten used to the idea that they can get us to replace our gear every couple of years, so why give us everything at once and put a crimp on future profits?

[dpattinson]

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.

 

Pixel binning and a wider (slower) read-out bus from the chip would both contribute to nicer high-iso files (and I shoot the M8 at 2500 a lot... so that matters to me). So yes - I expect the main advances to be related to using more custom designed components, and the main benefits being better noise at higher iso's and hopefully also more usable dynamic range at higher iso.

 

If they tossed in some weather proofing (which shouldn't be hard), and a bigger buffer (again, hopefully not too hard), then it would be a no-brainer for me.

 

I'll most likely buy an M9, hopefully for a good price. But I'll expect a 50% depreciation over 2-3 years and to replace it with an M10. To be honest though, £800-£1000 per year isn't too much to pay for a passtime that I enjoy as much as photography. Cars have cost me more and been much less fun. Thank god I never took up sailing...

[fotografr]

Thank god I never took up sailing...

 

...or flying.

[GlennB]

.....

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.).....

.

 

Not to be picky, but the top of the line Canon, the 1Ds mkIII ( 21.1mp, $6100), IS full frame, not a 1.3 crop sensor.

 

Me myself, I think the crop does matter. I have both a Canon 1D mkII (which is a 1.3 crop btw), that I use with my widest 16-35mm f 2.8 lens (aprox 21-45mm equiv), and a Leica M8 that I use with a Leica 21mm 2.8 (28mm equiv). If I want/need to go wider with the Canon, I have to buy a 14mm f2.8 (18mm equiv) @ $2100. Pricey, but still a f2.8 lens. And Yes, I do find situations where I wish I had that 14mm image.

 

For the Leica M8 , I would have to buy either a 18mm f3.8 (24mm equiv) @ $2900 or a 16-18-21mm f4 (21-28mm equiv) @ $6000 (w/finder). Still more pricey But Slower and only 21mm at the widest !

 

And no, I don't find that I want something wider than a 21mm view on my Leica too often. But only because I use the Leica M for "art for myself" non work related, pleasure shooting. BUT to get to that 21mm view with Leica glass, I'd rather buy a FF M9, than buy a slower (f4) $6000 21-28mm equiv lens. You then would also have the option (when your rich uncle leaves you his fortune) of going to a wider image with one of those above mentioned lenses.

 

But , As always, Just my 2 cents,

Glenn

[fotografr]

To be honest though, £800-£1000 per year isn't too much to pay for a passtime that I enjoy as much as photography. Cars have cost me more and been much less fun. Thank god I never took up sailing...

 

I could live with that, too, and did for many, many years. But since digital imaging came along, things have changed dramatically for me (although it is my profession and not just a pasttime). Over the last 10 years, I've spent more than $100,000 on camera gear--most of that on digital bodies. I recall paying something like $5,500 each for my first two Nikon D1 bodies. When I sold them less than two years later in order to buy a couple of D2x bodies, I got $1,000 each for them.

[Printmaker]

Here's what I'm thinking.

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

Nope...

 

... Since most here take only pictures of their family and pets, 18MP is pretty much overkill anyway...

 

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...

 

Careful, I've offended some by saying the same thing. If you make your living taking photos, then the M9 is a stretch - especially now in this depressed economy - for what is essentially a one trick pony. A pro level DSLR makes more sense. But the Leica M9 is a camera for people who are passionate about their photography. It does not matter that the M9 is overkill, its simply a precision tool for those who feel, or know, they need it. Besides, if someone were to take 10,770* family and pet photos over the next 3 years** with their M9, they would be slightly better off than if they had used their M7/MP and shot slides. So let them enjoy their passion.

 

Tom

 

* (avg .65 for film and processing)

** Time for M10 development and introduction

[charlesphoto99]

This beggars the question, what is "good enough?' For that matter will anything ever be good enough?

 

The M9 is a fantastic camera. So is the M8. So are the current crop of Canons and Nikons, Sonys etc etc. It all comes down to what you need and/or are best/comfortable working with. At a certain point one needs to stop lusting after what the other has and just get on learning what one has. To the OP it sounds as if you are really happy working with the 5D (as I know many are) so why not just stick with those for a while?

 

Of course I'm one to talk looking at my gear bags. But the M9 with a 35mm lens is really the epitomy to me of a shooting machine and I will be shedding a lot of gear. Others would differ and I would agree that what works for one doesn't for another.

[fotografr]

This beggars the question, what is "good enough?' For that matter will anything ever be good enough?

 

The M9 is a fantastic camera. So is the M8. So are the current crop of Canons and Nikons, Sonys etc etc. It all comes down to what you need and/or are best/comfortable working with. At a certain point one needs to stop lusting after what the other has and just get on learning what one has. To the OP it sounds as if you are really happy working with the 5D (as I know many are) so why not just stick with those for a while?

 

Of course I'm one to talk looking at my gear bags. But the M9 with a 35mm lens is really the epitomy to me of a shooting machine and I will be shedding a lot of gear. Others would differ and I would agree that what works for one doesn't for another.

 

I do plan to stick with my 5D MkII bodies for a long time--for my DSLR system. But my question was whether the M9 is a camera I can also stick with for a long time--for my digital rangefinder system. In other words, is the M9 at the same point as a digital rangefinder that the 5D MkII is at as a DSLR? I have to use both systems, not one or the other, for my work. Believe me, I'd love nothing better than to be able to dump everything except my Leicas.

[dpattinson]

I could live with that, too, and did for many, many years. But since digital imaging came along, things have changed dramatically for me (although it is my profession and not just a pasttime). Over the last 10 years, I've spent more than $100,000 on camera gear--most of that on digital bodies. I recall paying something like $5,500 each for my first two Nikon D1 bodies. When I sold them less than two years later in order to buy a couple of D2x bodies, I got $1,000 each for them.

 

Indeed, M8 bought in April 2007 for around £2600 - now selling second hand for around £1300 or so for a quick sale. I figure it will be pretty much the same resale price in April '10. So I'm well below my pain point on that camera (especially after 40k+ shots)

 

If I'd upgraded to an M8.2 in the meantime - I wouldn't feel so cheerful perhaps. I do think that the pace of change is flattening for digital still cameras though.

[delander †]

With regard to the functional problems of the M9 electronics then we should be able to look forward to a series of FW releases which will address these issues, so that in a year or so the M9 will be a more rounded product.

 

Jeff

[pgk]

This beggars the question, what is "good enough?' For that matter will anything ever be good enough?

And the next question is 'good enough for what?". IMHO today's top cameras (and I include the 5D2 which I own) are already overkill for many, many requirements (and the 5D2 stresses many lenses available for it already). In 10~15 years time there will have been substantial innovations I have no doubt. whether they will produce better images will depend on your output requirements. But to answer the original question with another, if its producing good enough images for you today, are you going to change your demands and require something better in 10~15 years time?

[theendlesshouse]

I am puzzled?

 

The bodies of the pre-digital M's housed film (Long established) that was changed around every 36 shots, therefore cost of upgrades in film was the price of a film. The bodies lasted decades.

 

The digital Ms house permanent/fixed CCD's and to upgrade you must buy the next model! A more traditional (if possible) solution would be to design an M body with interchangeable sensors or backs and upgrade them periodically for a cost? The size of the sensor now is only ever going to be full frame, the accompanying technology is not going to get bigger is it?

 

Personally i would get the M9 at the current cost if I knew that in two years I could swap out the CCD for the latest and inevitable upgrade. One of a leica M's most marketable qualities was its longevity, this is no longer the case and it has been replaced in the last decade with uncertainty and speculation.

 

Also in the past you were more inclined to pay the premium Leica price because you were assured of a product that would last for decades.

 

To say there will be no new M10 or 9.? is akin to saying there will be no new ipod or iphone next year.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Brent, if you put it like that, the only reasonable answer is : yes-this camera has the potential to keep you satisfied for a considerable number of years.