M9 in havana

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i just came back from havana, where i spent two (happy) weeks, with the M9+18super elmar, 24lux, 35lux, 50lux, 90cron and D3s+14-24f2.8, 50f1.4 and 70-200f2.8 VRII. first of all, havana is a delightful place for photographers, i just hope that cuba will develop for the best of what its people hope for....ok, before i get into philosophy let me return to photography.

the M9 performed almost without flaws, even under rather 'wet' conditions on the malecon...spray water and so on. it had its occasional shut-down-take-out-battery-to-revive (?????) but no serious issues other than that. of course it beats the nikon D3s+lenses in weight easily , the IQ comparism is much more interesting though...

first of all, i really missed a high quality super WA on the M9. the 18mm supe elmar is super-sharp but it has just too much distorsion (whenever architecture is involved), moustache type, very difficult to correct. athough mine has no red edge issue..the WATE is worse even as far as distorsion goes. so leica has a problem below 24mm.

the nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is much better in every respect (except weight).

file quality: if you happen to be interested in larger-than-base-iso: the D3s has a 2-3 stop advantage, conservatively estimated. if you are only interested in base iso: the M9 file is -relatively to the nikon file- very inelastic and allows only limited corrections in PP.

as far as i am concerned, the M9 ONLY excels in the weight department (important!!!), but looses out everywhere else. i am still negotiating with myself: sell all my leica M gear

or keep it, just for the weight factor.

peter

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[j_lir]

if you sell your leica gear let me get some dibs on your 24 lux.

i completely disagree, the image quality is far superior in most every way on the m9 to my d3.

 

thats just me i suppose.

[Jerry_R]

leica has a problem below 24mm

Have you had a chance to use CV 12mm or 15mm?

 

larger-than-base-iso: the D3s has a 2-3 stop advantage, conservatively estimated

Indeed, conservatively saying.

 

base iso: the M9 file is -relatively to the nikon file- very inelastic and allows only limited corrections in PP

Pls write more information. Did you used uncompressed DNGs?

[Anguish]

"Larger than base ISO" - In this comparison, do you take into account the mirror shake of a DSLR? How many stops slower can you shoot with a rangefinder w/p causing a blur? And did you find a difference in the quality of lenses - that Leica glass gives you any advantage over that of other cameras or not?

[jplomley]

I just got back from two weeks in Santiago and Chivirico, 12 hour days every day. Took an M7, M8, and M9. I could not imagine lugging about a beast of a Nikon, not to mention the attention a D3 with a zoom lens would draw in many of the non-tourist ghetto areas of Santiago I frequented. I just don't need that sort of unnecessary attention. In terms of IQ, never had a complaint with any of my Leica glass nor the resulting print quality. The one advantage I will admit I miss from a DSLR is the ability to select a focus point (or manually focus anywhere on the ground glass) as opposed to having to use a centre RF patch and then remember to keep the focus plane parallel as you recompose. Sometimes in the heat of the action I will forget this simple step and swing the camera to recompose and if insufficient DOF is selected to account for loss of the focus plane, the intended point of focus can be a softer than desired. That is my only niggle with rangefinders in general.

 

Here is an example image from Chivirico:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/117179-hardship-chivirico.html

 

and from Santiago:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/117386-face-santiago.html

 

Just my 2-cents.

[andreas_thomsen]

i had been to havanna 2 weeks ago also. wonderful city.

i always laughed when i saw the canikon people with their massive stuff walking around like true tourists.

honestly these kind of cameras are the real problem of the digital age as all people can buy them for small money and shoot 500 pics a day!!!!!

cheers

andy

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if you sell your leica gear let me get some dibs on your 24 lux.

i completely disagree, the image quality is far superior in most every way on the m9 to my d3.

 

thats just me i suppose.

 

the out-of-the-camera M9 DNG is generally better than the D3s RAW. after PP the situation turns around. similar with the D3x, which also beats the M9 in resolution and by at least one stop in DR.

leica glass: yes, the 50mm lux and the 35mm lux are wonderful, would like them on the D3s and D3x. but the nikon 14-24mm beats all leica offerings in IQ and-unfortunately- in size.

mirror shake? well, the new 70-200mm VRII works marvellously. i have super in-focus shots with 1/50s at the 200mm end. on wide angles i get comparable exposure times to what i get with the M9, maybe off by 1/2 stop.

i never had any issue in cuba with the fact that the nikon gear is so obtrusive...cuba is very safe, (almost) no matter where you are. in rio de janeiro i certainly did appreciate the leica size factor.

no, i won't sell my M gear (yet), waiting for the M10.

rant over---))).

peter

[Doc Henry]

Peter,

 

You can sell your Leica equipment if you want and you are wrong in my opinion, but I think you will not find

anywhere else quality lens like Leica : we can seen in enlargement of either projection or on paper.....

In my family, many people have N. .. including a D3.

....but it is true that an optical Leica M is not autofocus.

Secondly i do not like that a camera picture becomes a video camera ...

 

Regards

and sorry for my frankness and sincerity

Henry

Someone who has 40 years of using Leica

[viramati]

Interesting observations and I suppose it depends how you photograph. I used to carry a D700 with 24-70 on it, 14-24 and zeiss 50 1.4 in a Billingham Hadley Pro and would walk around with it for most of the day but it was quite a weight. I now carry (using the same bag) M9, M8, WATE, lux 50, cron 35, cron 28 and elmarit 90-M and it all weighs less. Now I recently sold the 14-24 which I have to admit was the most wonderful lens but it's shear size was a major factor in this decision. I find the WATE (personally with less distortion than the 14-24) to be avery good lens though I would like it to be f2.8 and it can be a pain to compose with parallel lines on a rangefinder. In reality 90% of my photography is now done with the Lux 50 and my main reason for loving the leica is its size so if Nikon did a digital version of the say FE2 keeping it the same size (or almost) as Leica have managed to do with the M7 to M9 then I probably would never have made the switch

[rob_x2004]

I thought you had an S2? What was wrong with that for the trip?

[rob_x2004]

...when i saw the canikon people with their massive stuff walking around like true tourists.

honestly these kind of cameras are the real problem of the digital age as all people can buy them for small money...

 

Some clown had to go there, I mean maybe forced sterilization for anyone who cant stuff thrirty forty grand into a Leica kit you reckon?

[yanidel]

Do you mind posting some low light shots where the D3 got you where the M9 could not ?

[Jager]

I love my D3. Exceptional camera. The 14-24 zoom is exemplary. And the most magical lens I've ever used isn't from Leica - it's a Nikkor (200 f2 AFS).

 

But the notion of using that rig for street shooting just makes me shake my head. A tip of the hat to those who would go there.

 

I'll be going to NYC next weekend for four days of street shooting. It's a new city for me. My plan is to take a small bag with my M9, 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux ASPH, and 75 Cron ASPH. I figure to leave the bag in my hotel room, carrying my M9 in hand and one of the two other lenses stuffed in my jacket pocket.

 

I can walk all day like that. And, more importantly, what I'm carrying won't intrude into what's really most important - seeing and interacting with the city.

 

A D3-sized rig, regardless of what other virtues it might bring, would entirely change that paradigm.

 

 

Extraordinary images there, Jeff...

[ericperlberg]

i just came back from havana, where i spent two (happy) weeks... snip... i am still negotiating with myself: sell all my leica M gear

or keep it, just for the weight factor.

peter

If great photography came down to slightly better image quality, weight of a camera or any other technical issue then a simple chart could be used to produce great photography. Obviously this is a fallacy to anyone who spends time looking at compelling photography.

 

Nikon probably do make the very best high ISO commercially available cameras in the world at the moment. But you can get higher "base" IQ files (esp tonality and esp at larger sizes) out of medium format cameras including some very inexpensive second hand MF film cameras with almost no weight penalty over the Nikon D3 series and at great cost savings. You can get extraordinary detail and tonality out of large format cameras which some people are willing to carry everywhere. I'm sure you know this. This obsession that many have with comparing the pluses and minuses of camera equipment at a technical level is all too common and ultimately yields nothing but page views. It certainly doesn't contribute to interesting compelling and original imagery.

 

Great photography is not dependent on technical quality. If your goal is to be creative and say something personal and unique with your camera you should select the equipment that helps you do that and just get on with it.

 

If your goal is to own the highest technical achievement in terms of 35mm cameras and you believe the findings you've reported here then you've already answered your own question. If despite your technical findings you think you'll produce more interesting photography with your Leica equipment then keep it, if not then sell it. What's to negotiate?

[viramati]

I'm with eric

[noah_addis]

At 160-400 ISO my 8x10 Arca has a much higher image quality than my M9. I'm not sure if my 501CM does, it depends on certain factors but it's close. With an MFDB the quality is certainly better, but I don't own one.

 

I'm not certain that I agree with you about the M9 files being inelastic. Admittedly I've not worked with the D3s, but I did work with a D700 for a while. I find the Leica files to be more robust than the D700 when it comes to processing, though not by a large margin. And when it comes to ISOs in the 160-400 range, I don't think the Nikon has much of an advantage, though as you proceed higher the Nikon's advantage grows quickly.

 

The M9 provides a very good size to performance ratio in my opinion. But for some types of work it's not the right tool.

 

Use the right tools for the job. If the right tool for you is a Nikon that's great. If Nikon ever comes around to putting a D3X chip in a D700-sized body you'll have an even better option regarding IQ and camera size.

 

No one here will judge you harshly for deciding an M9 is not the right tool for your work. No one worth listening to anyway:eek:

[markowich]

I thought you had an S2? What was wrong with that for the trip?

 

it went back to leica after some time of testing. its IQ is way below my H3DII 50 and my P65+ and not significantly better than D3x to justify the expense.

and also, i am not going to take a two-lens system on a trip.

peter

[markowich]

The M9 provides a very good size to performance ratio in my opinion. But for some types of work it's not the right tool.

 

Use the right tools for the job. If the right tool for you is a Nikon that's great. If Nikon ever comes around to putting a D3X chip in a D700-sized body you'll have an even better option regarding IQ and camera size.

 

 

that is very true. maybe i am just frustrated by what the M9 could have been, had leica invested the S2 research money into M development instead.

peter

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jerry_R]

but the nikon 14-24mm beats all leica offerings in IQ and-unfortunately- in size

Have you had a chance to use CV 12mm or 15mm?

Is WATE really so bad? I am asking, as I am interested in that lens, and samples I saw look better than from my old Canon 16-35 L...

[markowich]

Is WATE really so bad? I am asking, as I am interested in that lens, and samples I saw look better than from my old Canon 16-35 L...

 

surely it beats the canon 16-35L, but i still don't like it (others do). corners were quite bad on the M8 even and it has some funny moustache distorsion (like the 18mm SE) which is hard to correct. useless for architecture, ok for landscape.

perter