M9 first impressions from a Canon DSLR user

[Audiocide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been a digital Canon user since 2004. I've owned and shot a number of their products since then. I currently own a 5D Mark II.

 

I was looking for something more portable for candid photography, so after hearing all about the outstanding build quality and the legendary lenses, I bought a Leica M7 with the 35 Summicron ASPH. I was really pleased with that camera and lens combination, so I decided to give the digital version a shot.

 

I got an M9 yesterday.

 

Now, I am going to be very frank here, and this might disturb some users here.

 

I do not find the image quality from this camera (uncompressed DNG files) to match my 5D Mark II. Very bright colors tend to get blown out, and highlight detail is noticeably lacking. There are also some strange artifacts with low-light photos, such as clumps of very "pixelated" areas - for lack of a better term.

 

As for the high ISO performance: I knew that it did not match the newest DSLRs, but I did not expect it to be this bad -- not only compared to the low-light monster 5D, but a Canon 350D from 6 years ago. ISO6400 photos from my 5D have a similar noise level to ISO800 shots from the M9.

 

The lenses are a different story. The 35 and the 50 Summicrons really do live up to the hype. Of course they are not magical creatures, but they easily match the best Canon offerings in performance. The miniscule sizes are a tremendous advantage, so I give Leica full marks here.

 

The M7, similarly, is a marvelous machine. It feels more substantial than its digital counterpart, and while the scanned black & white negatives do not match the sharpness of the Canon or the M9, I find them to be very pleasing to look at. It definitely has more character than either digital camera. This is surprising to me, since I fully expected the M9 to blow me away.

 

The build quality, the looks, even the exclusivity factor is fantastic, but it seems to me that Leica still has some refining to do before their image sensors catch up with the big name counterparts.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Welcome to the forum.

 

I would seriously hesitate to judge a camera on only one day's useage. Dial in -1/3 stop exposure and check the histogram to "expose to the right". Look after the highlights and the shadows will be recoverable.

[jaapv]

Andy is right, you'll have to wean yoursef off multi-matrix exposure meters.

[Audiocide]

True. The M9 is a different beast altogether, and correct exposure makes a noticeable difference.

 

My opinion might change after shooting several thousand frames -- something I couldn't realistically do with film, since I develop my own negatives.

 

Just wanted to let people know what to expect.

[michali]

Welcome to the forum.

I would seriously hesitate to judge a camera on only one day's usage.

 

Andy you beat me to it.

I guess it's the age old story of horses for courses. I just collected my 2nd M9 yesterday, couldn't be happier! It's a matter of what works for each individual.

 

As for the high ISO results this is a discussion that personally drives me nuts! I'm definitely scarred from by upbringing where Kodachrome 25 was my standard issue and 100ASA was the fastest film I ever used.

 

A friend recently proudly showed me some pics from his new Canon @ 12,000 ISO you've got to be kidding!!! Total crap, what's the point? But hey if it works for him that's cool.

[andybarton]

Look on the bright side....

 

Your opinion might change after several hundred frames, or even several dozen.

 

Everyone is different and everyone's experience when changing to a rangefinder is different. Not everyone will have the same challenges that you have found in your first day.

[Logic108]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess it's a personal thing. I had the 5D MKII plus 3 very good lenses and then got an M8.2. What I found personally is that the M8.2 plus Summilux 50mm had better IQ than my 5DMKII and 50L. Also my Elmarit 24mm was sharper than the 24L MKII that I had. Obviously the crop factor is different but even so to my eyes I much prefer the images from my M8.2. I can't speak about the M9 but imagine it to be more of the same as the M8.

Now I look back at my Lightroom collection of images taken with the 5D and compare them to the M8.2 and I am more than satisfied.

So it's a personal thing I guess we all see different things. The only lens I miss from Canon is the 135L. A fantastic lens.

[sblutter]

I'm keeping my 5DM2 - its still a great camera and I use the 45mm TS a lot which Leica will never offer - and the low light capability is indeed amazing.

 

The way I see it, they are different, each with their own strengths.

 

Have I ever chosen to walk around all day with the 5DM2? Of course not. For that I had the G11 but hate shooting by screen so didn't shoot that much.

 

However, I captured some wild monkeys on video in Costa Rica with it because I happened to be in my pocket. So it also has its uses.

 

Its not a contest of 'best' - its what camera is best for the job and / or which you'll use the most.

 

For some jobs a 4x5 digital back is required.

 

M9 vs. 5DM2 is not an either / or issue to me, assuming you can support both financially.

 

Photography has always been expensive.

[chris_tribble]

Audiocide (??) - it takes time to get used to the metering... and things can go very badly wrong if you depend too much on Auto - I'd recommend using Manual as the default with A reserved for grab shots...

 

FWIW I regularly shoot M9 and 5D2 side by side (85 1.2 and 70-200 L glass mainly on the Canon) / shorter focal lengths on the M9. Agreed - 2400 + on the 5D2 beats the Leica (), but 800 on one or the other - it's difficult to distinguish the files - and I'd much rather carry the Leica 50 lux asph (or even a nocti) than the Canon 50 1.2... + for discreet, intimate photography, I can't beat the range finder. Evidence - check recent work at: Gianluigi Trovesi & Gianni Coscia at King's Place - a set on Flickr

On a lot of these images I can only say which camera was which by checking the exif...

 

So have faith ... with a bit of work, the M9 delivers...

[Alnitak]

Andy is right, you'll have to wean yoursef off multi-matrix exposure meters.

 

I concur. You have to learn to meter totally differently with the Leica. Unlike the Canon, the M9 will hold tons of detail in the shadows, and can take a lot of manipulation to bring up the shadows. On the other hand, it holds less in the highlights. So you definitely have to "expose to the right" more and use the histogram. Don't rely on the screen w/o the histogram as its crap.

 

I have found that up to and including ISO 800, the M9 is very similar to the 5DII, and the two are nearly indistinguishable when each is used properly. At the lowest ISO's the M9 can beat the 5DII due to the combination of better glass and a slightly better sensor design at low ISO shooting.

 

The beauty of the Leica system is that the glass is superb wide open, so you can gain at least one stop of ISO over a Canon or Nikon by being able to truly get maximal image quality wide open.

 

Give it a few weeks. Take only the M9 with you and force yourself to learn it. A number of years back, I switched from Nikon to Canon and had a similar initial reaction to what you have had with the M9. I forced mysellf to leave the Nikons at home for a few weeks, and once I mastered the Canon, I could more effectively judge it for what it was.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

It may be of interest to you that LFI (Leica Fotographie International) ran a side-by side test of the M9 and the 5D Mk II recently. The Canon did not come off best, even though it too used a Leica 50mm lens (a Summilux-R via an adapter). As for the strange effects you seem to have seen, I can only say that I have not seen them in three years of M8 and M9 use.

 

And yes, you have to wean yorself off not only matrix auto exposure, but also autofocus. The M is and remains a stick shift camera. You take the pictures, not the imps inside.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica IIIa

[snaggs]

I've been a digital Canon user since 2004. I've owned and shot a number of their products since then. I currently own a 5D Mark II.

 

I was looking for something more portable for candid photography, so after hearing all about the outstanding build quality and the legendary lenses, I bought a Leica M7 with the 35 Summicron ASPH. I was really pleased with that camera and lens combination, so I decided to give the digital version a shot.

 

I got an M9 yesterday.

 

Now, I am going to be very frank here, and this might disturb some users here.

 

I do not find the image quality from this camera (uncompressed DNG files) to match my 5D Mark II. Very bright colors tend to get blown out, and highlight detail is noticeably lacking. There are also some strange artifacts with low-light photos, such as clumps of very "pixelated" areas - for lack of a better term.

 

As for the high ISO performance: I knew that it did not match the newest DSLRs, but I did not expect it to be this bad -- not only compared to the low-light monster 5D, but a Canon 350D from 6 years ago. ISO6400 photos from my 5D have a similar noise level to ISO800 shots from the M9.

 

The lenses are a different story. The 35 and the 50 Summicrons really do live up to the hype. Of course they are not magical creatures, but they easily match the best Canon offerings in performance. The miniscule sizes are a tremendous advantage, so I give Leica full marks here.

 

The M7, similarly, is a marvelous machine. It feels more substantial than its digital counterpart, and while the scanned black & white negatives do not match the sharpness of the Canon or the M9, I find them to be very pleasing to look at. It definitely has more character than either digital camera. This is surprising to me, since I fully expected the M9 to blow me away.

 

The build quality, the looks, even the exclusivity factor is fantastic, but it seems to me that Leica still has some refining to do before their image sensors catch up with the big name counterparts.

 

Can you show me some of you M9 shots? High ISO is not as good as the 5D's, but low ISO is much better than the 5D, it bests the 1ds MkIII.

 

Daniel.

[Guest imported_torben]

It may be of interest to you that LFI (Leica Fotographie International) ran a side-by side test of the M9 and the 5D Mk II recently. The Canon did not come off best, even though it too used a Leica 50mm lens (a Summilux-R via an adapter). As for the strange effects you seem to have seen, I can only say that I have not seen them in three years of M8 and M9 use.

 

And yes, you have to wean yorself off not only matrix auto exposure, but also autofocus. The M is and remains a stick shift camera. You take the pictures, not the imps inside.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica IIIa

 

Lars, this is FAR below your normal standard!

[Guest imported_torben]

I guess it's a personal thing. I had the 5D MKII plus 3 very good lenses and then got an M8.2. What I found personally is that the M8.2 plus Summilux 50mm had better IQ than my 5DMKII and 50L. Also my Elmarit 24mm was sharper than the 24L MKII that I had. Obviously the crop factor is different but even so to my eyes I much prefer the images from my M8.2. I can't speak about the M9 but imagine it to be more of the same as the M8.

Now I look back at my Lightroom collection of images taken with the 5D and compare them to the M8.2 and I am more than satisfied.

So it's a personal thing I guess we all see different things. The only lens I miss from Canon is the 135L. A fantastic lens.

 

What is a 50L?

 

And what were your test methodology?

[jaapv]

Lars, this is FAR below your normal standard!

You mean that Lars normally doesn't talk sense?

[jaapv]

What is a 50L?

 

And what were your test methodology?

I see. The OP can give a fleeting one-day impression and logic 108 is challenged on his test methodology.

[Audiocide]

What I found personally is that the M8.2 plus Summilux 50mm had better IQ than my 5DMKII and 50L. Also my Elmarit 24mm was sharper than the 24L MKII that I had.

 

I am not contesting the quality of Leica lenses, nor am I bashing Leica in general.

 

Audiocide (??) - it takes time to get used to the metering... and things can go very badly wrong if you depend too much on Auto - I'd recommend using Manual as the default with A reserved for grab shots...

 

I only use manual exposure. It takes me longer to meter, lock, and then expose on auto.

 

And yes, you have to wean yorself off not only matrix auto exposure, but also autofocus.

 

Again, I have no issues with the rangefinder design. I love my M7.

 

My problem with the M9 is that I expected a 7000$ camera to easily better my relatively cheap Mark II. Even if it does, it does only in optimum conditions, which do not translate smoothly when it comes to real world usage.

 

Naturally, since I paid for it, I am going to be using it. If I change my mind, I'll post about that here.

[Audiocide]

What is a 50L?

 

And what were your test methodology?

 

It's a 50mm f/1.2 lens. It's not very sharp, but it has a very pleasing, unique look.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest imported_torben]

I see. The OP can give a fleeting one-day impression and logic 108 is challenged on his test methodology.

 

Thought you were a litterate!

[jaapv]

Well, yes, I am. I rarely write "were" instead of "was"