Yeah, but what about the quality of M9 photos?1?

[BizProf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm a newbie on the forum, so please forgive me for asking what may be a naive question.

 

Here's the lead in. I have an M9 on order, and have an M7 in the closet gathering dust (along with a 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summilux, and 90mm Summicron). I've read a lot of the threads in this forum about the merits of manual focusing, about delivery times, ISO performance, CMOS vs. CCD sensors, camera bags, malfunctioning memory cards, etc., etc.

 

But I haven't read much about the actual QUALITY of the M9's photographic output--and this is really important to me, as I'm about to lay out 7 big ones for an M9. Yeah, I know they're a somef bench tests out there--but what I really want to know is how M9 users feel about the images they're producing

 

So here's my question to all you M9 shooters: How do the pictures you're getting with your M9 compare with the best photos you've shot with a DSLR?

 

I'm passionate about Leica--and love the look and feel of everything M. But, in the end, it's all about the image--and I want to know, are you guys (and gals) in LOVE with what you're getting from your M9s, or merely satisfied.

 

And if this topic has been debated ad nauseum in another thread, just redirect me.

 

Thanks.

[adan]

Oh, absolutely, I am in love with the quality of the images I get from the M9. So long as we are talking quality images and not just image quality.

 

I won't tie up the Forum's server with images - you can see a growing collection of them bigger anyway by clicking ColoradoSeen in my signature below.

 

Others have commented to me that they have seen a big change for the better in my photography since I switched from SLRs to RFs 10 years ago. But I'm not sure which was the chicken and which was the egg.

 

I consciously decided to quit shooting "pretty", graphic-design images and concentrate more on human moments at the same moment (more or less) that I decided an RF was, well, not always a better tool than an SLR for those kinds of picture - but certainly just as good a tool in a smaller, lighter, friendlier package.

 

I would say that my top 100 Leica-M images please me more than my 100 top SLR images - as a group. Whether my "best-ever" shot was SLR or Leica varies from day to day along with my opinion of just what was my best ever image. Hopefully - I haven't shot it yet.

[MEB]

I have an M9 and my other camera is a Nikon D3. The M9 requires me to think and to work harder than the D3 but I believe that where the two systems overlap in their abilities the Leica delivers better files. True, the Nikon is superior for sports, macro and long telephoto than the Leica. That does not relate to the pictures developed. Rather, it relates to the functionality of the two very different cameras. If I am going to photograph an automobile race, I take my Nikon. When I use my Leica for shots between 28 and 75mm, usually in existing light (but I have speedlights dedicated to both systems), I am constantly thrilled with the quality of its pictures.

 

I recently took hand-held shots inside the Michigan Capitol building with the M9, using the rather dim, existing light. Those pictures have now been printed at 16x24 inches to decorate the walls of my government law office. The quality of the prints at this substantial size is breathtaking. I can say that similar shots by the Nikon are very good but they don't have the "presence" delivered by the Leica and its lenses (35 Lux and 75 cron). The recorded detail and color fidelity are as close to perfect as I could have asked for.

 

Therefore, my answer to your question is where the camera has comparable functionality, the pictures are every bit as good and maybe better than the best DSLRs available.

 

Mark Blumer (East Lansing, Michigan)

[Jager]

I bought my D3 - a DSLR which I deeply respect and am very fond of - because I wanted comparable image quality to what my M8 provided. I had bought a Harley Road King and didn't want to subject my M8 and M-lenses to the heavy vibration of the Harley.

 

The D3 met that measure

 

Now, a few years on, the M9 has raised the bar even further. Its extra resolution and greater detail and clarity are stellar. In terms of image quality I think its safe to say it is in the very top tier of what is available today. There are only a half a handful of 35mm format cameras which are in its league.

 

I love mine enormously.

[scjohn]

I bought my D3 - a DSLR which I deeply respect and am very fond of - because I wanted comparable image quality to what my M8 provided. I had bought a Harley Road King and didn't want to subject my M8 and M-lenses to the heavy vibration of the Harley.

 

The D3 met that measure

 

Now, a few years on, the M9 has raised the bar even further. Its extra resolution and greater detail and clarity are stellar. In terms of image quality I think its safe to say it is in the very top tier of what is available today. There are only a half a handful of 35mm format cameras which are in its league.

 

I love mine enormously.

my M8 was never hurt by my fat bob or even the nasty crash I had on my last Harley. That said, the M9 files are far better than the m8 files were. I too have a Nikon d3. Different cameras, both have chips that allow the quality and utility of the lenses to shine. the Nikon lens with VR, zoom functionality and autofocus do well. The Leica glass has a glow.

 

I will be photographing Mardi Gras in New Orleans this year. I will use the m9. Can't imagine a better camera for the job all things considered.

[Rick]

BizProf, welcome to the forum and congratulations on your decision to get an M9. Are you getting a black or a grey M9?

 

 

(Let's see how easily I might be able to get him off track... I'll follow up with a bag question...)

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It makes a lot of difference what you use it for. If you mainly post on the Internet or make small prints, M9 is not much better than anything else. If you make medium or large prints, the image-quality difference is obvious over most cameras with AA filters, & a little better than M8. More clarity & detail, & smoother tonal transitions, than with MF film.

 

Today I was printing 14x21" street photographs & pano stitches. The commercial photographer whose studio is next door came by & said the stitches might persuade him to sell his Deardorff. The prints from single files were noticeably better than from 5D & better in detail & tonal subtlety than M8.

 

Kirk

 

PS, forgot to say: welcome to Forum!

[brill64]

everything in the closet, eh..

the image quality from the m9

could be just what you need to

dust off those lenses..

[haroldp]

I am mostly using an m9, and a Nikon D3x. Since lenses and conditions are different, I can't claim to be scientific about this but my impression is that they are roughly equivalent in IQ that I can attribute to the camera or sensor.

 

That being said, the M9 is clearly showing the special way that Leica lenses 'paint' the light, that my Nikon professional lenses do not, even though the resolution is there at the f-stops that I use.

 

I saw the same phenomenon 40 years ago when I was shooting a Leica M2 and a Nikon F. mostly using Ektachrome or Tri-X.

 

I couldn't explain it then and I cant explain it now, but it is clearer with the M9 than it was with the M8.

 

I have not used any of the deep rear element wide primes on the M9 that seem to account for the difficulties. My superwide is a 16-18-21 WATE which is retrofocus, and I use a 28-35-50 MATE, 35 Summicron (asph and series 4), 50 Summilux asph and 50 current summicron, 75 summicron asph, 90 elmarit and summicron.

 

With your lens inventory you will be delighted

 

When I do my job, the M9 is a perfect partner.

 

Welcome to the forum

 

Regards ... Harold

[Logic108]

I think the general consensus is that the M9 has the best image quality of any 35mm FF camera on the market today. However (and many people forget about this) the M9 can only really show it's true IQ when images are printed larger than 11x16. This is to say that in terms of IQ, images from the M8 for example will look pretty much the same as the M9 when viewed on the web or in prints A3 (11x16) and smaller - given the same FOV.

There is better tonal gradation in M9 images (16bit) but again this IQ difference is negated when you consider the current state of printing technology.

These days having a camera with the best IQ does not translate into having the best prints from a camera. There are so many other factors involved. An old thread on the M8 forum by a printing expert said that prints from the M8 have a medium format quality to them and I would imagine the M9 can only be better in large prints.

But you have an M7 in the closet gathering dust. Go get some film and do some shooting - you may find that more enjoyable.

[delander †]

 

So here's my question to all you M9 shooters: How do the pictures you're getting with your M9 compare with the best photos you've shot with a DSLR?

 

Thanks.

 

There is definitely something exciting about the quality of M9 (and M8) images. Could be the lenses, the sensor the lack of AA filter or the way of RF photography or just everything.

 

I still use my Canon 1ds3, in fact used it last week on a small studio job. Compared to the Leica there is something missing in the 1ds3 images (and not just in the studio) - they lack impact or zip or something. Of course they can be worked on but to my eye thay often need some careful work to get near to an M9 image.

 

Bottom line is dont worry about image quality from an M9. (but remember it is not a high iso sensor compared to modern DSLRs, so if that is important to you think carefully.)

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

HI There

Perhaps the reason there isn't much written about it is that there isn't much wrong with it!

I also shoot with a Sony A900 - and although the files are different, the Leica files are right up there with the 24mp Sony - then you add the advantages that the Leica lenses confer.

 

I don't shoot MF . .. I was going to, but after I got the A900 it hardly seemed necessary, the M9 has reinforced that opinion, I'm finding it wonderful for landscapes, and when out on a long walk, a little bag with a couple of lenses is real freedom.

 

Unless you've been shooting digital MF, I can't see how you can be anything other than overjoyed.

[BizProf]

Jeez, guys, this is really helpful. I was a bit concerned after reading Thom Hogan's recent piece on Luminous. He suggested that the M9 sensor suffers from some "side-to-side integrity" issues and implied that the sensor really isn't up the quality of Leica's superlative lenses. It's reassuring that this is not a common perception among those of you on this forum.

 

Now the only thing I have to be bummed about is that it may be 6-9 months before I get my black M9, ordered through Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto, Calif.

[tom0511]

I feel exactly the same.

 

I have an M9 and my other camera is a Nikon D3. The M9 requires me to think and to work harder than the D3 but I believe that where the two systems overlap in their abilities the Leica delivers better files. True, the Nikon is superior for sports, macro and long telephoto than the Leica. That does not relate to the pictures developed. Rather, it relates to the functionality of the two very different cameras. If I am going to photograph an automobile race, I take my Nikon. When I use my Leica for shots between 28 and 75mm, usually in existing light (but I have speedlights dedicated to both systems), I am constantly thrilled with the quality of its pictures.

 

I recently took hand-held shots inside the Michigan Capitol building with the M9, using the rather dim, existing light. Those pictures have now been printed at 16x24 inches to decorate the walls of my government law office. The quality of the prints at this substantial size is breathtaking. I can say that similar shots by the Nikon are very good but they don't have the "presence" delivered by the Leica and its lenses (35 Lux and 75 cron). The recorded detail and color fidelity are as close to perfect as I could have asked for.

 

Therefore, my answer to your question is where the camera has comparable functionality, the pictures are every bit as good and maybe better than the best DSLRs available.

 

Mark Blumer (East Lansing, Michigan)

[jklotz]

I think you will find the M9 to have a different look that your DSLR will. I still use my Canon for jobs, as that is what is expected, and I can't take the chance of missing a shot, auto focus, etc, but my heart is with the M9. Don't pay a lot of attention to the goings on over at looney landscape. Just look at the files and judge for yourself.

 

Here's a little landscape shot I took:

 

 

and now the 100% crop:

 

 

I added the grain and vignette in post. To my eyes, I don't see the Canon 5DII files as being that sharp or impressive. Oh, and that was a compressed DNG too! Course' your milage may vary....

[jsrockit]

I have an M9 on order, and have an M7 in the closet gathering dust (along with a 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summilux, and 90mm Summicron).

 

What makes you think you'll use the M9 if the M7 is gathering dust? I'd think about that before any of the other questions you had.

[noah_addis]

What makes you think you'll use the M9 if the M7 is gathering dust? I'd think about that before any of the other questions you had.

 

I was thinking the same thing. The image quality from the M9, when it works, is very good. But so is the image quality from the big-brand DSLR cameras.

 

For me the reason to shoot with a Leica, be it film or digital, is because you like the rangefinder system, small cameras, manual simplicity, etc.

 

While the Leica lenses certainly are wonderful, I've been printing photographs for a show from the M8, D700 (with Zeiss ZF lenses) and M9, and the results can all be made to look quite similar.Clearly the extra pixel count of the M9 makes it superior to the others for very large prints, but even at 14x21in there is very little difference to be seen. (I've shot with the 1DSII, 5D and D700 but I haven't used the latest 5dII or D3x/s.)

 

I suppose in the days of film you could compare the image quality of different systems based on lenses alone, since they all used the same film. That has changed and lenses are a smaller part of the equation now.

 

The M9 files have a different look than Nikon and especially Canon, but the difference is subtle. I would go with the Leica if you specifically want to shoot with a rangefinder.

[Guest BigSplash]

What makes you think you'll use the M9 if the M7 is gathering dust? I'd think about that before any of the other questions you had.

 

Actually last June I had the situation of a M4,M5, M6 gathering dust since about five years. I bought a M8 and found that I was belting off images on a weekly basis, and now I see that I have taken about 2000 shots.

 

I found film overall very limiting at 36 exposure per roll, time consuming to get the things processed, and expensive. The M8 digital experience has certainly pushed me back into enjoying photography and I have even started using my film cameras again.

 

I wish the same for those buying the M9.

[Artichoke]

that in DR, acuity and tonality match or surpass those I get out of my D3X

they are also a pleasure to work with in C1

the Kodak CCD is one of the strong points of the M9

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[likalar]

 

Now the only thing I have to be bummed about is that it may be 6-9 months before I get my black M9, ordered through Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto, Calif.

 

Bizprof,

 

Did you meet Jeff Alford at K and S? He's the resident "Leica guy" behind the counter. Nice guy! I ordered and pre-paid for mine in mid November. He said "call me every week; I don't mind at all". We chatted a bit each time; I also dropped in to say hello. the camera showed up before Xmas. I can't say what the current situation is, but if you're "new" to that store, I think it helps to become more than just a name on their list (Ha! Images of salesmen getting warm cookies on a daily basis). ;-) I was told the pre-pay helped a lot, too.

 

Oh...This camera captures beautifully! My lenses are happy once again. Good luck!

 

Larry